Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
Half Dome Mandatory Day Hike Permits may cause Yosemite to lose $280,000
in entrance Fee's per year and lost Concessionaire revenue of over $1,000,000.
$20 Park entrance Fee w/ 2 hikers per car average lost
1400 hikers per weekend who never enter the Park due to denial of access
to Half Dome cables
20 weekends when the cables are up in the summer average
Lost money from hotel/campground revenues and amenity purchases
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
Feb 8, 2010 - 04:23pm PT
I've seen it 1,000 times. Maybe there is no current plan to write up people with no permits who are caught on the public trail to the Dome...
-Largo
Anyone can still walk up to the subdome, or shoulder, or whatever you want to call it. This permit is for the cables only.
No wilderness permit is ever needed for any kind of day hike in Yosemite. That some idiot seasonal ranger thought so 17 years ago is irrelevant.
--
My bad. I glossed the first official report and didn't realize the permits really only apply to climbing the cables.
It does say that the crowds averaged 840 a day, swelling to 1,100-1,200 on peak weekends. That's an incredible number, and I wonder if cutting that figure in half will somehow make the ascent safer for folks. It's sure to cut down on the hour's wait to make the trudge. But I wonder if the crowds were thought responsible for the death and injury that occured last year, and if so, how?
Imagine being a policy maker and having to sort through this?
JL
|
|
cleo
Social climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
//They need 4 times the 2x4s, and more cables connecting the rods.
People fall and slide UNDER the cables. They don't fly OVER them.//
Slater nails it: More 2x4s and cables would make it safer and would make people FEEL safer, which would eliminate a lot of the frozen and hyperventilating people that create the traffic jam in the first place.
|
|
hatestocarry
climber
gunks
|
|
What's NOT clear is what the permit status is of climbers who only DESCEND the cables after summiting by another route? If the proposed permit system doesn't include that scenario, then bring it on!
My wife & I were racing an afternoon thundershower off the summit after doing Snake Hike, and the touron clogged cables were one of the hairiest climbing things we've ever done.
|
|
tarek
climber
berkeley
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 8, 2010 - 11:23pm PT
|
Pip TD:
To a purist who adheres to the idea of pristine wilderness untouched by humans (a ridiculous concept in the Western U.S.), Snake Dike and the cables route are the same: metal in the rock that should be removed. Seen Snake Dike at high season recently? The line of ropes, gear and people would mar the view for said purist. Doesn't matter if only a few small bolts remain fixed.
Those people and ropes would not be there were it not for the few bolts on the route.
Anyhow, the issue on the table is down and dirty: permits and boots, people sliding down steep granite, how to get new revenue started (processing cost now, and then?), and how they all relate in a small world where the NPS has enormous power.
|
|
tarek
climber
berkeley
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 8, 2010 - 11:44pm PT
|
Somewhat redundant summary of my opinion plus what I've learned from others with similar views:
1. Proposed permit system would not reduce the potential for a major accident (6 dead would be on the nation's eyeballs for at least 1 24 hr. news cycle) because the cables are in terrible shape (sagging, wiggly stanchions, missing/worn 2x4s). Also because there's only 1 lane.
2. Permits might actually increase the probability of accidents as people imprudently continue with their hike in bad weather--to make use of their permit.
3. The cables route is a technical climb. Thus, those who ascend the cable are climbers. It follows that the proposed permit system regulates climbers. We can expect more of this regulation. Climbers buy gear--expensive gear--why shouldn't they buy permits? And the gumby cable climbers we didn't defend--will they be there to help stop that?
4. A smarter interim approach would be to:
(a) Close the cables when major storms come in during peak season (what’s that, a dozen days?)
(b) Tighten up stanchions, fix steps/improve their design.
(c) Announce at the Valley start in a well-done graphic (i.e., not done by the NPS), with photographs that exaggerate the angle of the cables (we’re good at that), that the cable route is a technical climb where you could die.
5. For the long-term, study:
(a) putting in another cable (don’t recite rules—they are broken all the time).
(b) employing a first-come-first-serve, free, early morning lottery system if it is determined that crowds must be limited on certain weekends (I still don’t buy it). This would at least get people hiking early.
(c) the importance of maximizing the freedom of our fellow citizens to experience as much of the wonders and difficulties of nature as possible.
|
|
Fluoride
Trad climber
Hollywood, CA
|
|
BUMP!!
This needs to be on the front page.
|
|
SilasCL
Sport climber
San Francisco, CA
|
|
1. Proposed permit system would not reduce the potential for a major accident (6 dead would be on the nation's eyeballs for at least 1 24 hr. news cycle) because the cables are in terrible shape (sagging, wiggly stanchions, missing/worn 2x4s). Also because there's only 1 lane.
While I don't think the permit system will be some kind of panacea, I think it's a pretty safe bet that it will reduce the potential for a major accident. I read a first hand account of a recent accident on there, and one of the key factors was how fatigued and panicked everyone became after spending a long time on the cables. By decreasing the traffic, you are solving one of the many problems with the cables...IMO.
|
|
tarek
climber
berkeley
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 9, 2010 - 12:48pm PT
|
Silas CL
As per previous posts:
If there are "only" 100 people on the summit of Half Dome and a major storm comes in suddenly, given the condition of the cables, etc., the potential for a major accident would not be reduced compared to 200 people on the summit. The magnitude of the accident might change, but it would still be terrible with 100 people trying to descend. We've all seen it: a few people bottle the thing up, others would panic, try to go outside, or might slip under trying to pass, etc.
To reduce the potential, all else remaining the same, I'd argue that the total # allowed on the summit would have to be down to a few dozen. That reduction isn't going to happen.
A better solution, again, imo, would be to shut the cables down when a storm is imminent.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Cross posted.
I believe the rangers had no power to enforce the ascension of the cables except in extreme emergencies only ( could be wrong), hence this permit thing.
When we were recovering one of the victims a couple of years ago who slid/fell all the way down to west side base we came back to the shoulder to wait for the helo back to the valley floor.
A storm was now approaching again and these 4 people show up and walk by us in sneakers and Venice Beach clothing. I asked "We're not letting them up there?".
The ranger in charge said we have no authority to stop them.
So I tell the 4 people what the conditions are (terrible, ice and snow, and for how they were prepared) and suggested they not go as we just recovered a body from the accident day before.
It took them a while to get it into their head that it wasn't a good idea to go up there with a snow storm approaching. Also told them if something happened later after we left we will be hours before we could respond as we would loose the helo due to the weather.
They turned back.
|
|
hossjulia
Social climber
Eastside
|
|
The cables are a human installation in the wilderness, no?
Or is Little Yosemite Valley conveniently out of the wilderness zone?
Make it wilderness and get rid of the damn cables, they are a disgusting eye sore and should not be there. Period.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
The cables are a human installation in the wilderness, no?
And all the bridges to cross the streams and the trails are human installations etc.
hossjulia seems you ran into a very angry extreme out of the ball park rant.
The whole planet is a wilderness in true reality .......
|
|
hossjulia
Social climber
Eastside
|
|
you nailed it Werner.
Bad mood today and the whole permit thing seems really silly to me.
|
|
gonzo chemist
climber
a crucible
|
|
Moosie wrote:
"Whitney is a different problem because people have to overnight for the most part. Few can do it in a day."
But what bums me out is that I CAN do Whitney in a day, via the Mountaineer's Route. And yet I still have to get some permit. That's lame...
As for HD, the permitting idea is dumb. I'm with Largo. Many people really look forward to doing the hike. And I do believe that for many people getting to do something like that could really be an eye-opener for them about how precious and beautiful our national parks are, and how we should strive to protect and expand them...
Fact is, the accident rate is pretty damn low on the cables...might as well leave it alone...
my opinion doesn't count for much, but there ya go...
|
|
tarek
climber
berkeley
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 9, 2010 - 09:53pm PT
|
Is reducing the magnitude not a goal worthy in itself?
It would be, if that were possible. A major disaster has not happened, and so it is impossible to say whether the permit system as designed would function as you describe, to proportionately reduce the magnitude of an accident.
For all we know, the great Half Dome disaster will happen when there are 15 hardy souls on the summit, and five of them perish.
|
|
MVM
Trad climber
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2010 - 12:37am PT
|
The original intent of the National Park Service (NPS) system was to protect these areas from the destructive greed of self-interested entities, such as the logging, real estate, and cattle industries. In the intervening years since the founding of the NPS, modern transportation has made these areas more and more accessible. Unfortunately, the Park Service, the automobile industry, and the tourism industry have grown up side-by-side and are now inextricably linked. Tax-payers are half right in believing they have a right to drive cars on Federally maintained roads into the Valley and pull on Federally maintained cables to get them up Half Dome, simply because they pay taxes. Guess what, the tax-paying timber industry made the same complaints when the Forest Reserve system was originally set up. We, as a society, preserved the forests anyway, at least to a certain extent. We need to do the same thing for the National Parks: pull back and take an honest look at what is threatening them. The inevitable conclusion of any EIS or other analysis is that the most basic threat to these globally-significant resources are the roads built by the National Park Service which provide access to unsustainable numbers of tourists. Let the roads disappear and most of these issues disappear as well. People can only do so much damage when they have to carry all of their crap around on their back. If you can hike 15 miles to get to the base of Half-Dome and then pull your way up an ancient, unmaintained cable ladder to the top, go for it! Think of how challenging big aid walls now become! It ain't Disneyland and there is no reason the Federal government has to make it easy for you to thrill or kill yourself. The primary threat to most of the National Parks in this day and age is the NPS's apparent mandate to facilitate tourism at any cost and they do this through road construction and maintenance. I have worked for the Federal government (incl. the NPS) as an archaeologist for 18 years, so I don't need any civics lessons, but will someone please tell me why we can't just get rid of the f!@#ing cars!?!?!!
|
|
landcruiserbob
Trad climber
Maui or Vail ; just following the sun.......
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2010 - 02:19am PT
|
Rip them out; if they don't some wired climber who just finished snake hike will be making a hurried decent & freak out some yahoo & 20 people will fall to their death. National news coverage = Bill O'Reilly plastering this all over the air & web. Remember all of the coverage on Mt Hood?The NPS will then close all climbing in the park. It's F'd but big brother wants us alive & paying taxes.
rg
|
|
Don't let go
Trad climber
Yorba Linda, CA
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2010 - 03:51am PT
|
Is a permit still required if you ascend the rock a few feet outside of the cables without touching them? From the earlier discussion, it seems that the NPS has no problem with climbers using the cables for a descent route. Does this mean as long as you don't touch the cables going up you are permit free? What happens if someone who thinks they can free solo next to the cables gets sketched out and grabs on? At that point do they get a citation?
Another idea, although I am sure it will gain some controversy, have climbers add two parallel fixed lines. I know this would require adding bolts and I know there are many ethical issues with that. But putting aside the ethical reasoning, do you think the NPS would immediately remove the ropes and chop the bolts or would we be able to make a separate "climber's highway" that required rope ascension techniques i.e. jumars or prusiks?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!