Mt Whitney Webcam
Mt Williamson Webcam
Feature Topics
Who's Online
0 registered (), 11 Guests and 5 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
3771 Members
10 Forums
5595 Topics
51212 Posts

Max Online: 382 @ 11/07/12 05:45 AM
Page 3 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#22167 - 03/23/12 07:15 AM Re: Yosemite: Fewer People Should Climb Half Dome [Re: Jonishiker]
Bob West Offline


Registered: 11/13/09
Posts: 828
Loc: Bishop, CA, USA
FYI, here is a summary of the year 2000 draft plan to reduce crowding in Yosemite Valley. I don't know the current status of this plan. My wife and I went into the Valley last October, and saw that the big parking lot at the Yosemite Falls area has been removed. Does anyone know what else has been done?

http://home.nps.gov/news/release.htm?id=24

P.S. Here is the link to Yosemite projects as of 2010, including Half Dome rehab: http://parkplanning.nps.gov/parkHome.cfm?parkID=347


Edited by Bob West (03/23/12 07:30 AM)

Top
#22171 - 03/23/12 09:23 AM Re: Yosemite: Fewer People Should Climb Half Dome [Re: Bob West]
Steve C Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 7739
Loc: Fresno, CA
Yosemite has just released a completely new management document with five alternatives.
Comment period is 03/19/2012 - 04/20/2012.

This has been forced on the park by an environmentalist lawsuit aimed at limiting access to the park and the Merced River. Their demands are so extreme that even the Sierra Club stayed out of it.

Here's the Yosemite document: Preliminary Alternative Concepts Workbook

Fresno Bee articles:
Quote:
March 20, 2012
Yosemite Valley peak capacity is 20,500 visitors

After a decade-long lawsuit and $15 million legal costs, Yosemite National Park is going the extra mile to get folks involved in its third Merced River protection plan.

Park planners this week put out five preliminary options and asked the public to take a look. The options included something I've never seen before -- a limit to Yosemite Valley visitors. It's 20,500, the National Park Service says.

Read more here: http://fresnobeehive.com/news/2012/03/yosemite_valley_peak_capacity.html#storylink=cpy


Quote:
EDITORIAL: Public must get involved in developing plan for Yosemite
Park Service is shaping rules that will change visitor access to Yosemite.
Thursday, Mar. 22, 2012

....As we have said many times, we don't believe that restricting access to the park is the answer to Yosemite's problems. But its capacity must be aggressively managed during the most popular months when Yosemite Valley is overwhelmed by visitors.....

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/03/21/2770285/editorial-public-must-get-involved.html#storylink=cpy

Top
#22173 - 03/23/12 10:06 AM Re: Yosemite: Fewer People Should Climb Half Dome [Re: Steve C]
John Prietto Offline


Registered: 06/01/11
Posts: 56
Loc: Vista, ca , united states
Originally Posted By: Steve C
Yosemite has just released a completely new management document with five alternatives.
Comment period is 03/19/2012 - 04/20/2012.

This has been forced on the park by an environmentalist lawsuit aimed at limiting access to the park and the Merced River. Their demands are so extreme that even the Sierra Club stayed out of it.

Here's the Yosemite document: Preliminary Alternative Concepts Workbook

Fresno Bee articles:
Quote:
March 20, 2012
Yosemite Valley peak capacity is 20,500 visitors

After a decade-long lawsuit and $15 million legal costs, Yosemite National Park is going the extra mile to get folks involved in its third Merced River protection plan.

Park planners this week put out five preliminary options and asked the public to take a look. The options included something I've never seen before -- a limit to Yosemite Valley visitors. It's 20,500, the National Park Service says.

Read more here: http://fresnobeehive.com/news/2012/03/yosemite_valley_peak_capacity.html#storylink=cpy


Quote:
EDITORIAL: Public must get involved in developing plan for Yosemite
Park Service is shaping rules that will change visitor access to Yosemite.
Thursday, Mar. 22, 2012

....As we have said many times, we don't believe that restricting access to the park is the answer to Yosemite's problems. But its capacity must be aggressively managed during the most popular months when Yosemite Valley is overwhelmed by visitors.....

Read more here: http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/03/21/2770285/editorial-public-must-get-involved.html#storylink=cpy


***This is my opinion if you might be offended please dont read***

how do we fight against these environmentalist? This is crazy talk. I love the world god has given to us but their platform is based fuzzy thinking. When global warming came out alot of people jumped on board and it becaame a platform for special interest groups to foce environment frieldy products that people dont want to buy, taxing people on the amount of polution the produce and ect while using the lie of destroying the environment to gather support. The majority of scientist have spoken out against such claims that were causing the destruction of the planet but rather the planet is slowly decaying at a steady rate and theres nothing you can do to stop it. anyways im sure some will disagree but alot of good intentioned people jump on board with this. The national forest wasnt given to any one person rather given to mandkind to share it and it is definately our job to take care of it together but to put limits as such is dictatorship and rediculous in my opinion, i say all this with respect to others but i personally think this is crazy.

I understand trailhead quotas the way there are currently in place and anymore i think in my opinion is not great. It is unfortunate that some people go out who just dont give a crap and trash the land or those who have a "im just going to go once so who cares what i do " mentality. But one shouldnt give up freedom for security, now that might not sound relevant but we cant live in fear or srupulosity. Once you start down that road it will continue until no one is allowed or some say since you barely use such land lets just use it and build.

on the other hand i know that alot of people just drive into yosemite and crowd the streets. I wander if entrance to the park was for people with trailhead qouats and campground reservation and maybe leave a certain amount for people who just want to check it out but ive been to yosemite more than once and it not bad enough to where i think we should limit it more than it is.


Edited by John Prietto (03/23/12 10:39 AM)
_________________________
"God has not called us to be successful but he has called us to be faithful"- Mother Teresa

Top
#22252 - 03/25/12 09:49 AM Re: Yosemite: Fewer People Should Climb Half Dome [Re: John Prietto]
SierraNevada Offline


Registered: 09/05/11
Posts: 1145
Loc: NorCal
The environmental process provides an opportunity to express your input into the decision that is eventually made. You can get involved as much or as little as you have time and energy for. It's a long and expensive road that requires sustained effort if you really want to be heard.

I've seen climate change debates completely hijack many a forum that have nothing to do with it. Your claims about this topic indicate to me that you've been listening to one particular point of view on it rather than looking at the science. This is not the place to debate that emotional-political topic so let's get back to the Half Dome quota discussion.

Top
#22256 - 03/25/12 12:18 PM Re: Yosemite: Fewer People Should Climb Half Dome [Re: SierraNevada]
Jonishiker Offline


Registered: 02/06/12
Posts: 30
Loc: Socal,US
Agreed! My father who was a minister always told me that if I wanted to have meaningful discourse," Never discuss religion or politics." So let me close this chatter with one final opinion regarding law suits and climate change..
Just kidding. Thank you Bob for forwarding the postings and dialogues from the park service.
It appears to me that the park service is trying their best to be fair and objective with access to Half Dome and other national treasures. We do need to study objectively about these issues because the methods and rules will be applied to other hikes and sensitive access areas. And dagnabbit I want conservative and carefully managed access to all of it.
_________________________
"If you don't have a strategy, you're part of someone else's strategy."
-- Alvin Toffler

Top
#22259 - 03/25/12 02:27 PM Re: Yosemite: Fewer People Should Climb Half Dome [Re: Jonishiker]
Steve C Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 7739
Loc: Fresno, CA
I'll write down a couple of points on my views on the Half Dome issue:

1. Regarding the Half Dome numbers being cut down: They have cut the trail access first to 400 per day on weekends; then to 400 per day 7-days a week, and now 300 per day 7-days a week.

I see people on this forum and others complaining about the tourist hikers, hikers in flipflops, too many injuries/deaths/rescues, even complaining about "sniveling about quotas".

I understand the local Sierra Club chapter's "official" response was to ask for the even more limited numbers.

And the Yosemite Valley lawsuit to limit access to the valley brought on by some extreme environmentalist views is yet another example of trying to limit access.

2. Using safety as a reason to limit access: Anyone remember enjoying Hot Creek? or swimming in the pool above Vernal Fall in the late summer? Officials can always find experts who can cite a few observations to justify their actions, and then close off access. Saying the number of accidents on "Half Dome is head and shoulders above the rest" without actually quantifying the number of accidents against the number of hikers who go is "putting a spin" on the facts.

One poster on another forum stated: "Not having to read about Another Half Dome Death; Priceless." How about not having to read about another: Vernal Falls death? Yosemite Falls disappearance? Mt Whitney death? Highway death? There is no way to completely protect people from accidents. It is reasonable to post warnings and educate people. But to make it a crime to actually go??? At that point, government has gone too far, in my opinion.

Half Dome is one of America's iconic locations and hikes. They even put it on a coin!

The hike, the view, the experience, the memories -- all of those things come together to make it a highly sought-after hike. It is not reasonable to say that people should just look elsewhere. There may be other locations with similar views, similar fame, etc. But none is the same. In my opinion, the park service should try to enable as many people as possible to enjoy the Half Dome experience. It truly baffles me that more people don't share my view.

I guess I can be included in the list of those complaining about quotas. But here's the problem: Over the years, I have seen trail quotas imposed that are WAY too tight. Trails where I can't get a permit, or get the very last one, and then hike in and see barely a handful of other hikers, and camp where there is nobody around for miles. Yeah, I got that sacred "solitude" experience, but the frustration of not getting a permit, or the potential of being locked out is way more frustrating. If I want a solitude experience, there are plenty of places I can go.

It is my opinion that the Wilderness Act has been misinterpreted when they use it to exclude reasonable numbers of people from the wilderness. When will "environmentalists" and the rest stop their continuing and endless attempts to reduce access to the wilderness???

I've been a Sierra Club member for years, but this latest round of events has convinced me that it is time to end that.

Top
#22260 - 03/25/12 02:55 PM Re: Yosemite: Fewer People Should Climb Half Dome [Re: SierraNevada]
John Prietto Offline


Registered: 06/01/11
Posts: 56
Loc: Vista, ca , united states
Originally Posted By: SierraNevada
The environmental process provides an opportunity to express your input into the decision that is eventually made. You can get involved as much or as little as you have time and energy for. It's a long and expensive road that requires sustained effort if you really want to be heard.

I've seen climate change debates completely hijack many a forum that have nothing to do with it. Your claims about this topic indicate to me that you've been listening to one particular point of view on it rather than looking at the science. This is not the place to debate that emotional-political topic so let's get back to the Half Dome quota discussion.


Well I appreciate your opinion and while I might not be a expert this science that you talk about has been shown by a good majority of scientist to be misrepresented by the other scientist side.

It's funny, for example the past 50 years the medical community has been convinced that fat is bad especially saturated fat and that it was the cause of cholesterol and medical problems. The thing is the doctor who started such claims didn't really have any proof but merely theories and from there people have followed his ideas. Problem is that more people despite the low fat diets are getting more heart disease, doctors have now after more objective data found that based on evidence and observation not just theory that it's the lack of fat and good cholesterol that causes heart problems and also they intake of carbs and America's biggest problem sugar.

My point is that while there might be some truth to the environmentalist side there appears to be a lot of data they are leaving out, my comments are far from emotion.

That aside I like Steve's recent post. It's a touchy subject and an important one. I agree that the world has lots of beauty and mankind should do what it can to take care of it and most people's positions are sincere.

On the half dome issue, I'm not sure I have a great answer. I don't agree that because people are idiots and either intentionally disobey the law and get hurt or unintentionally get hurt should we place law after law. You could make it mandatory to have a class certificate of some sort but that's doesn't prevent people from being stupid it will just cost more people money and time. It's impossible to protect people from themselves, part of freedom. We could work our way to socialism where government decides what's better for you than you deciding what's good for you. We have become a people that after every sad incident we need a law for it. The problem is that laws only affect the innocent because criminals don't obey laws and neither do idiots. Limiting the amount of people? Ok so now 5 are dead what's next? Eventually just close it right? " if you trade freedom for security you deserve neither and will loose both" benjamin Franklin

Always with respect, well not always but I try

John


Edited by John Prietto (03/25/12 03:44 PM)
_________________________
"God has not called us to be successful but he has called us to be faithful"- Mother Teresa

Top
#22263 - 03/25/12 03:20 PM Re: Yosemite: Fewer People Should Climb Half Dome [Re: Steve C]
Bee Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1261
Loc: Northern California
Originally Posted By: Steve C
Saying the number of accidents on "Half Dome is head and shoulders above the rest" without actually quantifying the number of accidents against the number of hikers who go is "putting a spin" on the facts.


Bob West & Bob R, this one is for you: How many deaths/accidents per capita are "acceptable"? Say, 500 people a day go up Half Dome, but "only" 8 a year die & 20 are rescued -- are those "good" numbers based on the ratio of hikers to incidents? (My answer is that the decision to cut the numbers/install permits was to cut down on the deaths/rescues, period.)

Originally Posted By: Steve C
It is reasonable to post warnings and educate people. But to make it a crime to actually go???


It seems that the "warnings & education" did not help those folks back in June 2009, who insisted on entering the cables 1. After the 2:00pm "warned" cut off time 2. After the first drops of rain fell 3. After the hail began 4. After the snow began to fall 4. After the traffic going up ceased to move... It was really unreasonabe when two helicopters spent the next 8 hours plucking those very same "reasonably warned" individuals off the dome. I know, because my friends and I were camped out on Mt Watkins watching the whole drama unfold.

There are a lot of things that seem reasonably warned at the onset: Wear your seatbelts, Don't text while driving, Don't cluster the cables at any time -- especially during a storm.....but it seems that because some folks insist on being unreasonable, the "cost" (in the cases of car crashes, death...clustering the dome has had similar results) have to be mitigated by mandatory regulation.


Originally Posted By: Steve C
Half Dome is one of America's iconic locations and hikes. They even put it on a coin!


It's sweet of them to do that & further up the popularity of the place, but it does not make all of the problems magically disappear.



PS I think that there are still a few hold-outs whining & sniveling about having to wear seatbelts, too.
_________________________
The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.

Top
#22264 - 03/25/12 04:19 PM Re: Yosemite: Fewer People Should Climb Half Dome [Re: Bee]
Ken Offline


Registered: 10/29/09
Posts: 742
Loc: Los Angeles
Quote:
It's funny, for example the past 50 years the medical community has been convinced that fat is bad especially saturated fat and that it was the cause of cholesterol and medical problems. The thing is the doctor who started such claims didn't really have any proof but merely theories and from there people have followed his ideas. Problem is that more people despite the low fat diets are getting more heart disease, doctors have now after more objective data found that based on evidence and observation not just theory that it's the lack of fat and good cholesterol that causes heart problems and also they intake of carbs and America's biggest problem sugar.



This is a factually and demonstrably false statement.

Top
#22265 - 03/25/12 04:27 PM Re: Yosemite: Fewer People Should Climb Half Dome [Re: Steve C]
Ken Offline


Registered: 10/29/09
Posts: 742
Loc: Los Angeles
Steve, I think you fall prey to the American concept of "I want what I want, period."

Wilderness preservation is FAR more complex than how many people you can stuff into a meadow at a time.

Take, for example, the case of Mirror Lake, on the MMWT. It has been closed to camping for FORTY YEARS. And yet, even today, it is easy to see the damage and erosion, even in photographs taken from high on the mountain above. That also gives you an idea of how long it takes for such things to heal----decades and decades---if ever.

You appear to look at capacity in terms of how many people can physically fit into a space, but I hope you see that it is more involved.

Top
#22269 - 03/25/12 05:59 PM Re: Yosemite: Fewer People Should Climb Half Dome [Re: Ken]
John Prietto Offline


Registered: 06/01/11
Posts: 56
Loc: Vista, ca , united states
Originally Posted By: Ken
Quote:
It's funny, for example the past 50 years the medical community has been convinced that fat is bad especially saturated fat and that it was the cause of cholesterol and medical problems. The thing is the doctor who started such claims didn't really have any proof but merely theories and from there people have followed his ideas. Problem is that more people despite the low fat diets are getting more heart disease, doctors have now after more objective data found that based on evidence and observation not just theory that it's the lack of fat and good cholesterol that causes heart problems and also they intake of carbs and America's biggest problem sugar.



This is a factually and demonstrably false statement.


Ken I will refrain from pilling a pile of articles and studies on your desk, in fact maybe I should. It actually shows right off the bat how intellectually dishonest people are. The reaction you have shows that even if you were given such proof you wouldn't believe it. As a paramedic going for my nursing and with a family of doctors it amazes me your rude comment calling an out right liar. I have to laugh because every couple years I have to get recerted as well as all the medical community and you know why? Because we were wrong about what we were just taught. Lol funny is that we are far from perfect. Even the information around I wouldn't gamble my savings on but usually such information takes a while before it reaches the main stream community. It is the same for some of history. There is such blatent lies or even mis information in the history community that the correct information it will take a while before it makes it's way into the main stream. Just life. So your comment is just ignorant or maybe arrogant . Now am I perfect? Nope far from it. Am I very smart? Maybe maybe not. Every person knowledge is dependent on alot of factors. Your or my knowledge even if not right is not our fault. Since not everything is objectively correct I thinks it's more correct to say you or me have knowledge not that either is smarter than the other. Being smarter tends to denote one has a clear truth while another doesn't. Even if I memorized everything not understanding the info is useless. My point is gosh I'm far from being the know it all wizard but neith are you. I was sharing some recent info , info that has more proof than previously.


Edited by John Prietto (03/25/12 06:09 PM)
_________________________
"God has not called us to be successful but he has called us to be faithful"- Mother Teresa

Top
#22275 - 03/25/12 07:36 PM Re: Yosemite: Fewer People Should Climb Half Dome [Re: Steve C]
Jonishiker Offline


Registered: 02/06/12
Posts: 30
Loc: Socal,US
Steve, My husband and I have both been members of the Sierra Club for years as well. We also cancelled our membership a few years ago but recently,they have moved more to the right due to some of the extremist groups that want to limit all access to everything. I am not one of these people, I just want careful thoughtful management because like it or not the fight is on. The Sierra Club has put up some of the money to fight for access to Half Dome and other areas. I feel like there is a club called (PFAPW)People for a Perfect World, and yet we all know that nobody can make people stop being well..Stupid at times. I don't want anyone to lose their life, this is for keeps but Accidents happen to all of us at times. And it steams me when people act like it would all be solved if just one more law was passed to restrict all access to all peaks or climbs. Half Dome needs people to admire it from the top. That even makes me laugh but we do have to do our part to protect our right to climb and explore.

_________________________
"If you don't have a strategy, you're part of someone else's strategy."
-- Alvin Toffler

Top
#22278 - 03/25/12 09:24 PM Re: Yosemite: Fewer People Should Climb Half Dome [Re: Jonishiker]
Steve C Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 7739
Loc: Fresno, CA
Bee wrote:
> Say, 500 people a day go up Half Dome, but "only" 8 a year die & 20 are rescued -- are those "good" numbers based on the ratio of hikers to incidents? (My answer is that the decision to cut the numbers/install permits was to cut down on the deaths/rescues, period.)

Those numbers are hugely out of proportion to the actual numbers of people who have died on the cables of Half Dome. Before the quotas, there were way more than 500 on a busy day. And the number of accidents and rescues on the summit or the cables is far fewer in a given year.

And that is part of the problem... Why do people put such exaggerated numbers out there when they feel the quotas should be reduced???

Regarding watching helicopters in a rescue mission: It is unfortunate that people do such things. Maybe if there weren't such restrictive quotas, people wouldn't be so inclined to take on bigger risks.

Jonishiker's words answer this for me: "...nobody can make people stop being well..Stupid at times. And it steams me when people act like it would all be solved if just one more law was passed to restrict all access to all peaks or climbs."
It steams me too!

The same people could be advocating for tighter quotas on Mt Whitney because we all know -- people die here. Saying they should remove the Half Dome cables is a step away from saying they should blast those cliffs at trail crest to return them to their natural state.

Ken wrote:
> I think you fall prey to the American concept of "I want what I want, period."

I have not, and am not, advocating a free-for-all. Reasonable quotas are part of the solution. But there are other things that can be done to alleviate the crowding and safety issues on the Half Dome cables. I am really angry that so many people seem to think that lower quotas is the only solution.

> You appear to look at capacity in terms of how many people can physically fit into a space, but I hope you see that it is more involved.
That's sure twisting what I am saying. Your Mirror Lake camping example doesn't fit well with the quota problem on Half Dome. It is reasonable to stop people camping at Mirror Lake on the Mt Whitney Trail. But that situation is not comparable to the reasons they are citing to close Half Dome access to so many.

There ARE ways to spread the numbers of people accessing Half Dome out over any given day, achieving both reduced crowding on the cables AND allowing a lot more people to go. But it seems most just want to lock it down.

Top
#22284 - 03/25/12 10:24 PM Re: Yosemite: Fewer People Should Climb Half Dome [Re: Steve C]
Bee Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1261
Loc: Northern California
Originally Posted By: Steve C

And that is part of the problem... Why do people put such exaggerated numbers out there when they feel the quotas should be reduced???


You missed my point: the point being that no number of deaths is acceptable when the cause repeatedly has been overcrowding & bad judgment. Now that ranger rick is stationed at the subdome, he can wag his finger during lightning storms and say "no, dear, this is NOT a good time to go up the dome". In a way, I don't like it any better than you do, but people have proven themselves unable to manage their own mass effect on the cables.

To address the usual response that "deaths are going to happen...it's the risk one settles with". I beg to differ when the setting is much like a stack of dominoes waiting to be knocked over by a falling cannon ball; the consequences of one person's actions could have the potential to be much more tragic than loss of one's own life. I have no problem with people risking their lives and killing themselves in the process (it's good for business*inside joke) However, in an extremely tight, public setting such as the cables, there is not much room -- even less when packed like sardines -- for "individual" error. It is a unique setting.

Originally Posted By: Steve C
Regarding watching helicopters in a rescue mission: It is unfortunate that people do such things. Maybe if there weren't such restrictive quotas, people wouldn't be so inclined to take on bigger risks.


Wrong. The June 2009 incident was BEFORE the quotas. That particular fiasco was said to be one of the last deciding factors in the initiation of the permit system.

_________________________
The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.

Top
#22286 - 03/25/12 11:56 PM Re: Yosemite: Fewer People Should Climb Half Dome [Re: Bee]
Steve C Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 7739
Loc: Fresno, CA
> the point being that no number of deaths is acceptable when the cause repeatedly has been overcrowding & bad judgement. Now that ranger rick is stationed at the subdome, he can wag his finger during lightening storms and say "no, dear, this is NOT a good time to go up the dome".

Stationing a ranger is a good thing. It helps counteract bad judgment. So is cutting down the numbers as to avoid gridlocked knots on the cables.

But cutting the number down all day because there is a knot during a single hour in the day is a ridiculously oversimplified attempt to fix the problem. The park service has not explored all its options, and keeps reducing the quota without doing anything else.

Top
#22289 - 03/26/12 01:33 AM Re: Yosemite: Fewer People Should Climb Half Dome [Re: Steve C]
Bee Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 1261
Loc: Northern California
Early on in the permit discussions, I had suggested that they bracket the "arrival" times at the cables, but a good buddy brought up the dilemma:

A large amount of the hikers (I am not going to make up any numbers here; I do not know the exact ratio) are day hikers, and there really is not that large of a window to arrive at the cables when everyone has to start at daybreak just to finish the hike in daylight.

Perhaps those receiving permits as part of an overnight package could be required to make a morning entry on the cables?

I am not sure what the answer is, but I am sure that after the disasterous 2009 season, there was a lot of "we gotta do something now" and reaching for the hammer was the first line of defense.
_________________________
The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.

Top
#22295 - 03/26/12 07:18 AM Re: Yosemite: Fewer People Should Climb Half Dome [Re: Bee]
Bob West Offline


Registered: 11/13/09
Posts: 828
Loc: Bishop, CA, USA
Thank you for your comments, Bee. Eventually the Park Service will do what it has to do, regardless.

The "hammer" could have been a "sledge hammer" by completely removing the cables, but that probably will not happen.

In the final analysis, hikers have to take personal responsibility for their actions, no matter how many warning signs or ranger monitors are employed. The Park does what it can to educate the public to potential dangers in the Park, but individuals must exercise some degree of judgment. This is why, in spite of the many climbing fatalities and rock climbing accidents in the Valley, climbing has not been banned. Climbers are, in general, fully aware of the risks involved in their sport, but many hikers are not aware of the hazards of ascending a cable supported (5.3?) climb. So, the Park Service has to walk a fine line between protecting the public and restricting the public's freedom. (Hmmm...this is starting to sound political!)

Top
#22298 - 03/26/12 08:03 AM Re: Yosemite: Fewer People Should Climb Half Dome [Re: Bob West]
MooseTracks Offline


Registered: 11/02/09
Posts: 582
Loc: Bishop, CA, United States
Originally Posted By: Bob West

In the final analysis, hikers have to take personal responsibility for their actions, no matter how many warning signs or ranger monitors are employed.


Ah, now there's the rub, eh, Bob? Since when do we take responsibility for our own actions? It's infinitely easier to find fault in someone, anyone else. Why else would we investigate the safety of existing railings? Why would hit the 911 button on my SPOT because the water tastes salty? Exercising judgment takes, well, energy and effort, and DAMN these heels are hard to hike in up all these hills! Oh, and do you have some extra water?

_________________________
Facebook

Flickr Pics

Think outside the Zone.

Top
#22301 - 03/26/12 08:38 AM Re: Yosemite: Fewer People Should Climb Half Dome [Re: Bee]
Steve C Offline


Registered: 09/22/09
Posts: 7739
Loc: Fresno, CA
> A large amount of the hikers are day hikers, and there really is not that large of a window to arrive at the cables when everyone has to start at daybreak just to finish the hike in daylight

There they go again: "We've never tried it, but I am sure it will not work"

I could scream! mad

Let me see.... I think I recall someone saying that, somewhere close by..... wait.... wait... Oh yeah, isn't it down there somewhere around Mt. Whitney? Oh yeah, that's it! Dayhikers down there sometimes start at midnight or 3 AM. And sometimes the day hikers finish late at night.

...but I am sure nobody would ever want to try that up here in Yosemite. It is a completely different situation. cry

Top
#22302 - 03/26/12 09:04 AM Re: Yosemite: Fewer People Should Climb Half Dome [Re: Steve C]
Ken Offline


Registered: 10/29/09
Posts: 742
Loc: Los Angeles
Originally Posted By: Steve C
Bee wrote:
>
Ken wrote:
> I think you fall prey to the American concept of "I want what I want, period."

I have not, and am not, advocating a free-for-all. Reasonable quotas are part of the solution. But there are other things that can be done to alleviate the crowding and safety issues on the Half Dome cables. I am really angry that so many people seem to think that lower quotas is the only solution.

> You appear to look at capacity in terms of how many people can physically fit into a space, but I hope you see that it is more involved.
That's sure twisting what I am saying. Your Mirror Lake camping example doesn't fit well with the quota problem on Half Dome. It is reasonable to stop people camping at Mirror Lake on the Mt Whitney Trail. But that situation is not comparable to the reasons they are citing to close Half Dome access to so many.

There ARE ways to spread the numbers of people accessing Half Dome out over any given day, achieving both reduced crowding on the cables AND allowing a lot more people to go. But it seems most just want to lock it down.


I appreciate that I didn't make it clear, but I was more responding to your description and example of obtaining BACK{ACKING permits and going into a wilderness and being disappointed in finding relatively few people. You mixed that in with your diatribe about HD.

Top
Page 3 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >