Regulations of the Tatran National Park in Slovakia

[kamil]

I'm starting a new topic as a spinoff of this one as I feel that was not an appropriate place for this discussion...

To get some things straight, as far as I know according to the TANAP regulations to climb Gierlach and other off-trail peaks sans guide you not only have to be a UIAA member but also carry a rope and climbing gear and use a route of III UIAA or above, only using the 'normal' route for descent. Correct me if I'm wrong.

(...) let's take my personal point of view. I'm a climber and mountaineer, also a UIAA member via my club (I would have to renew my membership now, I admit, as I lived abroad many years and only now returned to Poland) but let's say one day I don't feel like hauling my gear up a mountain and want to have a scramble instead, on a I, II or III-graded route (that's about 3rd, 4th or low 5th class YDS). This is is well within my skills, let's say the conditions and forecast are good, but doing this I'm breaking the TANAP rules unless I hire a guide.

Thus I think the guides have made a monopoly of all off-trail non-technical or semi-technical routes. While this is right for perhaps over 95% of the Tatras visitors, the system mostly hits the category to which I belong.

Kamil,
I understand your points and agree, that the adopted system is not right for everybody, but if you agree, that it is good for 95%, then it is a good system. You hardly find anything in life to make everybody happy as it is impossible. Remaining 5% must pay the price and comply. It should not be difficult for you or others. If you take some text books or guide lines on what should be in a backpack of a mountaineer- an accessory rope is a must and I do have it on my trips. Sometimes you don't need it, but when you do- you're ok!

Yeah, on a grade III route knowing my skills I'd feel safer having a rope and a little gear even if not actually using it. Or even sometimes on grade II in chossy or orientationally difficult terrain. But perhaps I wouldn't take it on Velicka Proba, L'adovy ridge, Vysoka normal route etc. Ah, I'm not allowed on those routes anyway no matter how much gear I carry, unless I hire a guide. For me personally I consider it a waste of money. So if I ever feel like doing one of them (day trip, no climbing partner, no time to climb a technical route etc.), I'll just sneak at dawn and play cat and mouse with rangers. Of course I would carry my climbing club ID as an extenuating circumstance in case I get caught.

This 'remaining 5%' (in reality perhaps 10 or 100 times fewer) of Tatras visitors we are talking about are most likely the most environmentally conscious group with the least impact on the nature, but still they are hard done by the system. Playing my game and leaving no trace I won't feel guilty...

[SzaniUherkovich]

I feel belonging to that 5%, too

[yatsek]

I do too – that's why I wish I'd left for another country. If there are too many people roaming the park in the high season, issue permits - the way they do in the crowded areas in the US - instead of having me become a member of a society, or feed the guides. They don't do such things in the Alpine states, do they

[visentin]

I've also thought from times to times that it should work like this: for example close the Morskie Oko gate (and consequently all other entrances to TPN, all trails being connected) after a certain amount of thousands have already gone up.
But imagine the following situation: you're planning a long hike, and for that you plan to sleep in a hut in whichh you need get by the end of the afternoon. The guy tells you "no, you can't today, too many tourists already". Nonsense, no ?
Besides, even if "good" mountaineers tend to start early, this doens't solve the problem of unexperienced people attempting goals that they underestimate.

[yatsek]

I've also thought from times to times that it should work like this: for example close the Morskie Oko gate (and consequently all other entrances to TPN, all trails being connected) after a certain amount of thousands have already gone up.
But imagine the following situation: you're planning a long hike, and for that you plan to sleep in a hut in whichh you need get by the end of the afternoon. The guy tells you "no, you can't today, too many tourists already". Nonsense, no ?
Besides, even if "good" mountaineers tend to start early, this doens't solve the problem of unexperienced people attempting goals that they underestimate.

Never have I slept in the hut in the Tatras - yep, I know hiking/climbing in the dark is against the rules

As to the last point, that problem will never be sorted out by anything, it seems that only good (local government or park-run) education could help in the long run.

[visentin]

As to the last point, that problem will never be sorted out by anything, it seems that only good (local government or park-run) education could help in the long run.

Thinking back about the legislation in SK, I think the UIAA licence is finally not a so bad idea. Nothing will prevent people from doing stupid things, but knowing that you "should" be from one alpine club suggests that unless you are competent to do what you plan, you shouldn't go.

[yatsek]

No they do not.

Does this mean there are more accidents/fatal accidents in the Julian Alps than there are in the Tatras

[visentin]

Does this mean there are more accidents/fatal accidents in the Julian Alps than there are in the Tatras

Borut, having been in the Triglav NP in summer and during a sunny week end, I can assure you there are 10 times less tourists in TNP than in its almost-homonym the TPN (polish Tatras). Even the amount of people on Triglav is unsignificant compared to those on Rysy on sunny days.
By "more", do you mean more by the raw number, or in proportion of the frequentation ? The reason to be of this thread (ask Kamil) is the disproportioned frequentation of the Tatras compared to their size, thus combined with their rocky jagged nature (understand dangerous), which becomes more and more problematic over the last years.

Many people die in the mountains in Slovenia every year, but I don't have the stats. Most deaths are among hikers. Slide (zdrs), avalanche, underestimation.

What do you mean by "hikers" ? This is ambiguous. Polish and slovaks refer rather to the term "tourist", which is also ambiguous.
Imho four categories should be sorted:
- Tourists with no adequate clothing neither equiment, who visit touristic sites in mountains out of the sporty scope (ex: Slav Savica, etc) and have no pretention to do more. I'm one of them when I take Mikolaj.
- Hikers, backpackers or one-day walkers who visit mountains on foot, without using hands. These are not always the less experienced, for example those who undertake the Pyrenees GR11 or Via Alpina are amongst them.
- Mountaineers, people who have a taste for challenge (but measured challenge), have proved orientation skills on unmarked terrain, use hands to scramble from time to time, enjoy reading documentation about access to mountains they plan, use occasionally crampons in winter but never attempt stuff that requires proper assecuration gear (that's what I was when I climbed most of my mountains)
- Rock-climbers with the adequate gear and skills (ropes, harness, climbing courses done, etc etc). If we transpose to winter, people with adequate snow knowledge, and avalanche gear (how many of us go with an ARVA ?)
Problems almost always occur when one is venturing into the next category with no concienciousness of what it involves. Sadly, Edward and his friend, althought good hikers, illustrate perfectly this. I had a look on his excursions, and Gerlach looked somehow like the next stage of an Europe's highpoints tour, after Ben Nevis and the Irish Reeks. Read his trip report of the peak in Austria, where the way he describes how he got rid of security advices is kind of frightening.
Coming back to Tatras national park, it is clear that category 1 and 2 shouldn't go offtrails. Clear also that the fourth category should be given access, otherwise the reason-to-be of their sport is questionable.
The ambiguity is for the 3rd category, which most of us here on SP are (Szani, Peterbud, Yatsek, etc ; I classify only you and Kamil into 4th. Are we really only 5% ? I doubt)
Because the ability of someone to go on a given place is always very subjective, and should be considered case-by-case, it is impossible to do in the background of regulations of a national park.

[visentin]

Did you notice that you misquoted me? The first quote is yatsek's. Nevermind.
Concerning the second quote (which is mine), what is meant is: hikers versus alpinists.
Most visitors are hikers, and most fatal accidents are among hikers. Is it due simply to statistics? Is it because alpinists are taught (in schools) how to protect themselves and others?
Both I guess.
BK

Sorry about the misquote. I just meant that statistics must me interpreted with care (however I do believe that into the percentage, more Tatras accidents occur, Poland and surrounding countries like CZ/HU being more flat than Slovenia)

Alpinist is in my opinion not a very accurate term (passing the historical definition of "Alpinism" being the activity of visiting the Alps, like Hymalayism, Andinism, Pyreneism and so on). Not each rock-climber is an alpinist, and not each alpinist is a rock-climber. However all alpinists are mountaineers, but not all mountaineers are alpinists.
I don't define myself as a real alpinist. I haven't taken any real climbing lesson and my knowledge of assecurating is not proved enough on the terrain. I once occasionally had an avalanche course but it's not enough and I'm sure of it concerning myself.
But, again, all is question of appreciation. Everyone can go to mountains, the question is to be able to recognize the categry in which we belong to and what are the limits. This is an individual approach and there is no way to regulate it, apart from sensibilization campaigns for the mountain visitors.

[Proterra]

A little bit OT, but I think that the single most hated rule in TPN is the complete ban of this member... Annoys me to no end...

[visentin]

A little bit OT, but I think that the single most hated rule in TPN is the complete ban of this member... Annoys me to no end...

Zone were dogs are permitted or not should be defined, instead of the current arbitrary rule. There are zones were dogs do disturb but not all of the mountain.

[peterbud]

A little correction: if I would to classify myself according into one of the categories Eric has outlined, I would put myself into the hiker group, with the intention and some, but not sufficient experience to jump to the next level (beyond which I do not intend to go).

[yatsek]

Hiking and gear-carrying aka technical climbing can get on well and go up hand in hand. If you can't believe it, have a look at what this strange guy says in a few words on his profile page.

[yatsek]

Talking of the guides, here's some news.

[visentin]

A little correction: if I would to classify myself according into one of the categories Eric has outlined, I would put myself into the hiker group, with the intention and some, but not sufficient experience to jump to the next level (beyond which I do not intend to go).

Im my opinion people who ventured in the Rodnei like you described in your last TR are slightly into the category III

In the Eastern countries (you know what is meant) it is a very accurate term. It is a title one gets after having been schooled for several years (for free or little money), and having passed an examination (based on theory, practice - up to improvised rescue, f.i.-, and experience). Sounds stiff but one learns a lot.
Eric, check out your local clubs for Alpinistichne Shole, not every club includes such a section.

Well everywhere not only Slovenia, people has to pass degrees to get skills in these fields. Don't forget Borut that I was a CAF member and there used to be a time I planned to do these trainings, I only lacked time for it, so I'm not so numb on the topic.
But you still haven't given a proper definition of the term "Alpinist". I'm giving a try: I would define the modern term of Alpinist as someone who is able to deal safely into the high mountain environment. Understand, one who masters all techniques of assecurating into hostile environment and has a proved experience of them on the terrain, rescuing experience & basic aid, winter experience about diagnosing the safety snowy layer, trained in avalanche finding, etc etc. Based on my classification the Alpinist covers "more or less" the fourth category. "More or less" because a rock-climber is not always someone who has all these skills, and in the opposite direction few alpinists might not define themselves as pure rock-climbers, despite having proved assecurating skills on wild terrain.
One can also have mountaineering skills, ahead of the hiking level (understand, able to evoluate on unmarked terrain), without being an alpinist. This is why, in my opinion, classifying someone who is not an alpinist directly as a hiker is too simple. I insist on it because most of my home Pyrenees is a terrain for the III.
However, for the very case of the Tatras the possibilities for category III are very thin, given the nature of the Tatras, as soon as you go off-route it means in 90% of the cases you go into terrain where alpinism techniques are needed, and also why in Poland and SK going to a mountaineering club means you'll do only rock-climbing (well, that was my constatation in Wroclaw - never heard there of winter courses neither orientation !).
These characteristics so specific to the Tatras are perhaps the reason why the topic about the Tatras regulations is so recurrent.