Mt Whitney Webcam
Mt Williamson Webcam
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 207 guests, and 16 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
interesting thread on the north fork
#6721 08/18/10 11:22 AM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 742
K
Ken Offline OP
OP Offline
K
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 742

Re: interesting thread on the north fork
Ken #6728 08/18/10 07:08 PM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
W
Offline
W
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,253
Ken,

What exactly do you find interesting? To me, it is the same story, different day. The man keeps getting in way of my fun at exact time I want to have fun.

Re: interesting thread on the north fork
wbtravis #6743 08/19/10 10:28 AM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 742
K
Ken Offline OP
OP Offline
K
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 742
Well, that is a somewhat select crowd-climbers in the true sense of the word. Those guys are not likely to be on the main train at all, but on technical routes in the area.

And you are right, they remain as ignorant of the problems/issues, issues of wilderness, as the lay people who are plodding up the main trail.

I guess what I'm getting at is that understanding the area is not a function of experience and mountaineering skill. In fact, the note about Fred Beckey adamantly refusing to use WAG bags points that out.

Re: interesting thread on the north fork
Ken #6746 08/19/10 12:16 PM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 8,507
Likes: 103
S
Offline
S
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 8,507
Likes: 103
Wow, what a thread -- 99 posts and climbing as we speak!

That Tony fellow sure does like to rant. And I love the "entitlement brigade" moniker "Chief" Rick uses.

I myself don't particularly like the permit system, and might make a few changes to it if I had any say. But it's a very difficult situation to manage no matter what rules they put into place.

Re: interesting thread on the north fork
Steve C #6748 08/19/10 05:33 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 742
K
Ken Offline OP
OP Offline
K
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 742
Steve, those of us who know the system well realize what you say, and that:

-There is no simple solution.
-There is no way 10,000 people a year won't have an impact
-There is no way to make everyone happy
-without some sort of permit process, there would be TWENTY thousand people a year up there
-The managers are dedicated people who are really trying to do their best

"We the unwilling, on behalf of the ungrateful, are doing the impossible.
We've done so much, for so long, with so little,
that we are now qualified to do anything with nothing."

Re: interesting thread on the north fork
Ken #6755 08/19/10 10:06 PM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 8,507
Likes: 103
S
Offline
S
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 8,507
Likes: 103
So true, so true.

Re: interesting thread on the north fork
Steve C #6785 08/21/10 12:59 PM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 28
H
Offline
H
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 28
I agree with the complaints on that thread about the system.

The worst part of it is the north fork quota only allows 10 people per day for overnights!!!!Only 6 are reservable.

I blame that one on all the guided services pulling people up the MR all summer for $500 a head. Why should the public be limited to 10 per day so these quide services can charge a fortune and have 6, 8, 10, 12 people per group.

Re: interesting thread on the north fork
hikehigh #6789 08/21/10 06:52 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 249
Likes: 1
dbd Offline
Offline
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 249
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: hikehigh
I agree with the complaints on that thread about the system.

The worst part of it is the north fork quota only allows 10 people per day for overnights!!!!Only 6 are reservable.


I don't find any complaint about the numbers in the North Fork overnight quotas in the thread. What numbers do you think would be more appropriate for a region the size of the North Fork?

Quote:

I blame that one on all the guided services pulling people up the MR all summer for $500 a head. Why should the public be limited to 10 per day so these quide services can charge a fortune and have 6, 8, 10, 12 people per group.


I can't tell whether this response is mean spirited towards those who can afford to pay $500 or elitist towards those who couldn't get up the mountaineers route without a guide. To avoid seeming narrow minded I'll accept either. But either way, those people are part of the public whether you like them or not. The guide services are monitored and their usage of the area controlled under the special use authorization system of the national forest and also regulated by the state. I believe there are currently no special use authorizations for guiding on the main trail. What are your sources for the figures of 6, 8, 10, 12 people per group in the North Fork?

Dale B. Dalrymple

Re: interesting thread on the north fork
dbd #6792 08/21/10 08:52 PM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 28
H
Offline
H
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 28
Originally Posted By: dbd
What numbers do you think would be more appropriate for a region the size of the North Fork?

25-30 seems reasonable. How can the main trail handle 60 overnights and probably 90% of the 100 available day hiker permits but north fork only gets 10? Doesn't make sense.

Originally Posted By: dbd

I can't tell whether this response is mean spirited or elitist.........

A little of both. I have no problem with people hiring guides. Just the unreasonable quotas.

Originally Posted By: dbd
The guide services are monitored and their usage of the area controlled under the special use authorization system of the national forest and also regulated by the state.
I understand and I think that's why they only give 10 spots per day for the general public. I am sure what ever bureaucracy regulates the guide services gets a good amount of money in licenses and fees. They need to keep the number of available permits low so they can have room for the guide services. It always comes down to money.

Originally Posted By: dbd
What are your sources for the figures of 6, 8, 10, 12 people per group in the North Fork?

First hand experience. A few weeks ago I saw a group of 8 and a group of 6. A few months ago, 2 groups of 8.

Re: interesting thread on the north fork
hikehigh #6797 08/21/10 11:42 PM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 249
Likes: 1
dbd Offline
Offline
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 249
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: hikehigh
Originally Posted By: dbd
What numbers do you think would be more appropriate for a region the size of the North Fork?

25-30 seems reasonable. How can the main trail handle 60 overnights and probably 90% of the 100 available day hiker permits but north fork only gets 10? Doesn't make sense.

What you say does not make sense. Under the constraints of wilderness classification, The Whitney main trail does not handle 60 overnights in a reasonable manner. The north fork is already suffering under the level of use it has. If the north fork is drawing as small a percentage of the 100 day use quota as you suggest there doesn't seem to be the interest there to justify an increase in any quota there. If you want to remake the north fork in the image of the main trail by increasing the overload, you need to sell the upgrade of the north fork trail to the level of the main trail. Find the money to pay for that first. Maybe you can accomplish that by converting the whole drainage to national park. When you do, you will find the fee structure much steeper than today's.

Guide services are available to the general public. Anyone is free to use such such services or not, but no one deserves any bigger (or smaller) share in a quota because of that choice.

Your assertion about the guided quota being fee driven is nonsense. If it were true, there would a guide quota in place to insure that income from the main trail.

I expect that most of the readers of this thread understood that you were including made up numbers. That demonstrates more of the nature of the denigrated cliche bureaucracy than the quota system shows.

Dale B. Dalrymple

Re: interesting thread on the north fork
dbd #6798 08/22/10 12:10 AM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 8,507
Likes: 103
S
Offline
S
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 8,507
Likes: 103
Mercy, Dale!

I have to agree that ten overnighters per night is a pretty small number when there are multiple natural areas to stop and camp.

And I think building a trail like the MMWT would alter and degrade the area far more than the current situation.

I would like to see the tight quotas opened up all over the Sierra, with fees charged to support more rangers on the trail to make sure people don't abuse the areas.

But I know the USFS won't be opening anything up anytime soon. They bring up that "need for solitude" every time anyone talks about access limits.

Re: interesting thread on the north fork
dbd #6799 08/22/10 05:06 AM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 28
H
Offline
H
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 28
Originally Posted By: dbd
Maybe you can accomplish that by converting the whole drainage to national park. When you do, you will find the fee structure much steeper than today's.


That would be great! They could handle it like half dome. 20 bucks a car to park at the portal for 7 days, no permits needed for day hikes durring the week, 400 spots on weekends, permits are are $1.50 and can be reserved instantly online or over the phone. No lottery, wait 2 months bureaucracy to deal with. No come to the visitor center at 9, now come back at 11, now come back at 1, now come back at 4 nonsense. You wouldn't even need to be lectured before you got your permit!

Sounds good.

Re: interesting thread on the north fork
hikehigh #6800 08/22/10 06:46 AM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 129
B
Offline
B
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 129
A little history.

The overnight quota for private climbs up the North Fork used to be more generous, at least 15 and perhaps as high as 25. Activities of the guide companies, however, are controlled out of the Lee Vining Inyo National Forest office, and are entirely separate and additional. Guided trips had a maximum party size of 12. I don't know how many guided trips per day were allowed.

About ten years ago, someone in the INF offices thought too much resource damage was occurring. They developed a plan to reduce the guided quota significantly, but leave the private quota unchanged. When the plan reached the adjudication level, the person in charge listened to the arguments and concluded "I don't think you guys have a clue about what is going on up there. Go back and do a credible study, and return to me with some recommendations that can be backed up with data and analysis. In the meantime, to make sure the terrain is protected, I am arbitrarily reducing the private daily quota to ten." I'm not positive about what was done about the guided quota, but I believe it was left intact.

In fact, it was a good friend of mine--an INF ranger in Lee Vining, now retired--who used to be in charge of managing the guide and pack companies. He was the one who told me this story.

Nothing has changed since. The daily quota for private trips is still at ten, and the guided quota is whatever it is.

-----

Day climbs. As many know, there used to be no quota for day climbs, and no permit required. People could even go up the Mountaineer's Route and down the Main Trail in a day without a permit. Then it was decided that if someone walking on the MT from the Portal to the summit needed a day permit, they could require someone walking in the opposite direction to have one, too. They instigated the policy of requiring day climbers going up the MR and down the MT to have a permit, thus competing with the regular MT crowd.

Then they realized that "a wilderness permit is for entering on a specific day at a specific trailhead," and people stepping foot on the MT at the summit were not entering a trailhead. So the regulations did not allow them to require a permit for this situation. Furthermore, the summit is in SEKI National Park, so if any permit was to be issued, it was SEKI's job, not Inyo's.

They got around it last year by extending the daily quota for entering the MT to also include the MR--which is Inyo's prerogative--thus creating the anguish that we now all feel. This policy has been under review since the beginning, and I was surprised when it was not changed for 2010. I suspect it will be changed in the near future.

This is probably more than you wanted to know.

Last edited by Bob R; 08/22/10 09:08 AM.
Re: interesting thread on the north fork
Bob R #6801 08/22/10 08:14 AM
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 648
Likes: 52
Offline
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 648
Likes: 52
Bob:

I've heard a different explanation of why they required day hike permits on the north fork. The problem was supposedly newbies attempting the Mountaineers' Route when they couldn't get a permit for the main trail. I hate having to jump through all the hoops to get a north fork day permit, but this explanation makes sense to me. Can you comment on this?

Bob

Re: interesting thread on the north fork
bobpickering #6802 08/22/10 09:00 AM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 129
B
Offline
B
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 129
I edited my post to remove the impression that Inyo unilaterally decided to add the permit requirement for summit to Portal via the MT.

The last 400' of the MR is in SEKI. My INF boss told me that SEKI was worried about people in that section being at risk, but they had no way of knowing anything about them in case of a problem. Maybe they were primarily concerned about newbies, I don't know. SEKI wanted some sort of a permit system in place, but they couldn't issue them because these people start in from INF, not SEKI. So they got INF to do it.

SEKI wanted it, and INF had the authority.

Re: interesting thread on the north fork
Bob R #6803 08/22/10 09:17 AM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,261
Bee Offline
Offline
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,261
Being unfamiliar with most of the permitting system in general (and also qualified to be a rank newbie to the Portal area), I am curious if the no-permit-required day-hike destinations of Lone Pine Lake & LBL have always been permit-free?


The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.
Re: interesting thread on the north fork
Bee #6805 08/22/10 09:56 AM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 742
K
Ken Offline OP
OP Offline
K
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 742
Bee-yes, along with everywhere else on the Inyo.(save the whitney zone)

I am troubled by the aggressively anti-guide posting. In reality, the guide services provide a very significant service to the rest of the hiking community, even the ones who are not partaking of the service directly. To wit:

1. The guide services have a hugely smaller impact footprint than private trips: the guides are repeat customers, so they have a strong incentive not to cause impact. They make sure their clients are doing the right thing, and help them when neccessary.

2. My experience is that guides end up being "vacuum cleaners" for litter wherever they go. They just pick things up as a matter of course. Even micro-litter that many of us hardly notice.

3. Although not paid to do so, my experience is that guides invariably interact and inform others in the area, who have questions. "is this the best way", for example. I've also seen them, as a matter of course, help people who were sketched, inviting them onto ropes, advising them as to technique, giving them food and water, etc.

4. The guides are the first-line SAR folks on the scene of an accident. They have advanced first aid training, and are assertively willing to get involved. When a guide is on the hill, the mountain is safer.

In fact, I assert that the community would be better off if guides were allowed to guide on the main trail. They would be one more element of a backup system to those who get into trouble.

Re: interesting thread on the north fork
Steve C #6806 08/22/10 11:15 AM
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 249
Likes: 1
dbd Offline
Offline
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 249
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: Steve C
...
I would like to see the tight quotas opened up all over the Sierra, with fees charged to support more rangers on the trail to make sure people don't abuse the areas.
...


That seems like a reasonable argument to make. If you want to actually go anywhere with it you need to consider: "How do we get there from here?"

Today you'd need to remove wilderness designation or alter the wilderness charter mandated by law. hikehigh is ready to go there, are you? Which approach do you suggest and what are the details?

When you've achieved that, you'll need to sell the general public on paying the higher fees.

Dale B. Dalrymple

Re: interesting thread on the north fork
Ken #6807 08/22/10 01:25 PM
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 648
Likes: 52
Offline
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 648
Likes: 52
We've gotten away from the original topic, but I want to comment on guides too. I generally agree with Ken. However, not all guides are as considerate of the environment as we might like. The guides on my first Denali trip quietly dumped all our garbage into a crevasse, rather than bring it down as required.

On my second Denali trip, two guide services teamed up and shared fixed ropes in the couloir on the West Rib route. They also let a private group share the same fixed lines. We camped at 11,000 feet on the way down from the summit. Another guided group was on the way up, and one client was having altitude problems. Our guides welcomed her into our group and saw that she got off the mountain safely so the other guide service could continue up the mountain. This kind of cooperation appears common.

In 1989, I hired a guide to climb the Maroon Bells in Colorado. These peaks aren't terribly hard individually, but I didn't have the skills or equipment to do the traverse alone. As my guide and I were on North Maroon Peak preparing for the traverse to Maroon Peak, another climber appeared. He signed the register and asked how tough the traverse was. The guide told him it was class 5. The other climber looked disappointed and started back down the way he came. The guide called to him and said, "Wait! You can go with us!" Then he turned to me and asked if that was OK with me. I said "Sure! I was going to ask you the same thing!" The three of us had a great time doing the traverse together.

Re: interesting thread on the north fork
bobpickering #6846 08/23/10 03:57 PM
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 28
H
Offline
H
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 28
I am not trying to rid the world of guided trips. I just think that the amount of guided trips allowed on the north fork is part of the reason for only 10 permits allowed for overnights. Thanks Bob for the info on the behind the scene reasons.

I think the best thing to do would be to get rid of the separate north fork/ main trail over night permits and make it all the same system. 70 overnight permits for the entire mt. whitney zone. The actual north fork portion of the "mt. whitney zone" is just as big as the main trail portion, but it only gets 15% of the available overnight spots?

Another thing that would be good is making the reservations online and not so far in advance.It would be great if they could release the permits 3 or 4 months prior to the actual hike date rather than the entire season all at once in February.

The Half Dome system seems like a good way to go. Permits are available up to about four months in advance to one week in advance only through the National Recreation Reservation Service. Its instant, and only costs 1.50 a permit.

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.4
(Release build 20200307)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.4.33 Page Time: 0.043s Queries: 55 (0.035s) Memory: 0.6895 MB (Peak: 0.8437 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-03-29 13:37:05 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS