"There is no justification for saying Half Dome can handle 300-400 people per day, Mount Whitney 160 per day, Kearsarge Pass 60 per day, NF Lone Pine Creek 10 per day, and Baxter Pass only 8 per day."
I'll be kind and just say that this statement is naive, really, really naive. Actually, there's lots of justification for placing limits on use. Just because you don't understand or acknowledge those reasons does warrant removing them.

Thanks to Sean for injecting a much needed counterpoint to the "I want to climb it so I should be able to climb it" crowd. We're talking wilderness, not playgrounds, even if the attitude has been to treat them as such. Also, while I acknowledge that the Cables have been grandfathered into the Park's notion of what's permanent, removing them would not present a danger to others. Hikers simply could not climb that face without the cables and climbers topping out from other routes will have no problem getting down without them.

Thanks fatdad, we can start removing the bolts from the technical routes.

fatdad wrote:Thanks to Sean for injecting a much needed counterpoint to the "I want to climb it so I should be able to climb it" crowd. We're talking wilderness, not playgrounds, even if the attitude has been to treat them as such.

Thanks for simplifying my long-winded posts. I'm sure those who read through them caught that this complex issue interests many folks enough that it seemed no fun and downright painful to boil it down to the principle of wilderness. It leaves a bad taste in the mouths of many, which may have unintended results.

Keeping the appropriate balance in nature amid the politics that will always get mixed in will continue to provide complex challenges. I'm looking forward to returning to the simplicity of wilderness areas more remote and uncrowded than those mentioned in this thread next month.

(Edited for quotation error)

MoapaPk wrote:Thanks fatdad, we can start removing the bolts from the technical routes.

You're going to have to explain your logic. I don't see any correlation between a permit system and removing bolts (really BIG ones of which are holding the cables in place). Again, a few bolts that very few people ever see always seems to become a popular target when the Park Service doesn't permit the parks to become Disneyland. I guess you'll also call for filling in the tunnels that permit cars to enter the Valley.

P.S. I've soloed Half Dome (Snake Dike), so didn't need bolts anyways.

fatdad wrote:P.S. I've soloed Half Dome (Snake Dike), so didn't need bolts anyways.

For me, one point is that if it is wilderness that should be the only way to do it and it should be limited if overcrowded. The other point is that maybe that particular area should not be wilderness.

Getting into the debate a bit late. Growing up in Europe, I had a very good opportunity to see what harm we can do to our most beautiful places if we are not careful. Europeans were (mostly) totally careless with their wild places and the result is a sea of hotels, paved trails, ski lifts up to restaurants on top of some of the highest peaks of Europe, in short a huge urban mess. In America, those who cared in the late 1800s, saw a different concept. Wild lands without human intrusion, accessible by foot, to be treasured by future generations. That concept more or less provided my generation and yours with an incredibly wonderful mountain experience all throught out the Western part of the US. For the last several years now, people are starting to be heard that the European concept really wasn't that bad and that US Parks and Wildlands should be sold to the highest bidder and developed. The above debate fits into that scheme. After 45 years of climbing and backpacking in the West, I stand totally on the side of those who want to keep wild places WILD. Half Dome as an urban attraction? People should rethink the idea, IMO.

asmrz wrote:in short a huge urban mess

Oh come now, wouldnt an Aiguille d'Whitney telepherique be awesome?

The tragedy of the commons is alive and well, especially in our high lands

asmrz wrote:Getting into the debate a bit late. Growing up in Europe, I had a very good opportunity to see what harm we can do to our most beautiful places if we are not careful. Europeans were (mostly) totally careless with their wild places and the result is a sea of hotels, paved trails, ski lifts up to restaurants on top of some of the highest peaks of Europe, in short a huge urban mess. In America, those who cared in the late 1800s, saw a different concept. Wild lands without human intrusion, accessible by foot, to be treasured by future generations. That concept more or less provided my generation and yours with an incredibly wonderful mountain experience all throught out the Western part of the US. For the last several years now, people are starting to be heard that the European concept really wasn't that bad and that US Parks and Wildlands should be sold to the highest bidder and developed. The above debate fits into that scheme. After 45 years of climbing and backpacking in the West, I stand totally on the side of those who want to keep wild places WILD. Half Dome as an urban attraction? People should rethink the idea, IMO.

A good warning, but I'm not sure it fits based on the specific area and what has been proposed, nor what I am aware of going on in the current U.S. NPS. Urban is an interesting word...I was making a distinction, albeit not thoroughly researched, between wilderness designation and national park designation. I suppose Yosemite Valley could be described as urban and most of the crowded places in the park are in it or near it. I would appreciate much less developed and less crowded national parks, especially Yosemite, but I worry that could hurt government funding more than help it. In another thread, increasing the shuttle system/no cars on park roads mandates in YNP was proposed.http://www.summitpost.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=59269 Edit: link added

fatdad wrote:"There is no justification for saying Half Dome can handle 300-400 people per day, Mount Whitney 160 per day, Kearsarge Pass 60 per day, NF Lone Pine Creek 10 per day, and Baxter Pass only 8 per day."
I'll be kind and just say that this statement is naive, really, really naive. Actually, there's lots of justification for placing limits on use. Just because you don't understand or acknowledge those reasons does warrant removing them.

Well fatdad, how about you back up your statement with something that is meaningful, rather than just calling the statement naive and implying you imagine there might be some logic to the alternative?

Where is the logic fatdad?

I was making a distinction, albeit not thoroughly researched, between wilderness designation and national park designation.

So I was out running in a local forest thinking about what wilderness is and places I've visited that were designated as wilderness, then got back and googled some on wilderness.

Key words I kept seeing were, "natural", "solitude," "primitive," "non-mechanized"....also came across quotes such as,"The purpose of wilderness is "to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness .... devoted to the public purposes of recreation, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use." (from the Wilderness Act)

In other words, various non-mechanized forms of recreation, especially historically enjoyed ones, seem to be permitted as long as impact on nature, solitude, and primitive environment is deemed low enough by those managing an area. Historical levels of usage come up as being considerations when setting quota levels in Yosemite. Climbers can generally place new anchors/bolts following etiquette and climb in wilderness areas, but in many cases need permission.

Some will argue that the current definition of wilderness is not wild enough, some will watch out mostly for their own interests, some will blend compromise, science, and research in various ways to impact management plans in an area, and many will probably pay little attention to any of it. This thread seems to be a microcosm of what goes on.

As for me, I would find it troubling to say that it is fine for me to support maintaining trails in remote wilderness areas that see very few visitors, and maintaining roads to the edges of those areas so that it is convenient for me to hike and camp there, yet object to folks climbing Half Dome via sensible climbers routes or the cables.

Does anyone remember the talk about building a cable car to the summit of Half Dome?

When the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed by Congress and signed into law, some disabled people were demanding cable-car access to the summit of Half Dome. There were similar controversies at Mount Rainier, disabled people were demanding motorozed access to the summit of Mount Rainier.

Cable car to the summit of Half Dome? Over my dead body.

fatdad wrote:

MoapaPk wrote:Thanks fatdad, we can start removing the bolts from the technical routes.

You're going to have to explain your logic. I don't see any correlation between a permit system and removing bolts (really BIG ones of which are holding the cables in place). Again, a few bolts that very few people ever see always seems to become a popular target when the Park Service doesn't permit the parks to become Disneyland. I guess you'll also call for filling in the tunnels that permit cars to enter the Valley.

P.S. I've soloed Half Dome (Snake Dike), so didn't need bolts anyways.

Fatdad, look, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone on SP who doesn't value true wilderness where it exists and doesn't share a lot of your sentiments on this. But the cables on Half Dome (which I have never used) seem like a longstanding, relatively harmless way to give Mr. & Ms. Non-elite, hardworking public a taste of, and a stake in, the mountains we love. We benefit from that.

Your comment on the tunnels reveals a bit of myopia on your part about this. By your logic, yes, we SHOULD fill the tunnels. They have done much more to harm the wilderness character of Yosemite than the cables ever did. And if filling the tunnels means that fat dads can't make it to Snake Dike without taking a month off work and hiking up from the Central Valley, well, so be it. You wouldn't want your mountains any other way, would you?

Sierra Ledge Rat wrote: some disabled people were demanding cable-car access to the summit of Half Dome. There were similar controversies at Mount Rainier, disabled people were demanding motorozed access to the summit of Mount Rainier.

So, I'm guessing one aspect that got in the way of such demands is the rule to keep things non-motorized in wilderness areas. What about non-wilderness areas of National Parks...is it up to discretion of a management plan? Anyone have examples of government built motorized assistance for people with disabilities in National Parks or case law preventing the building of such assistance? I won't be researching this one myself !

Today's elitist quote:
"We are, I know not how, double in ourselves, so that what we believe we disbelieve, and cannot rid ourselves of what we condemn." (Montaigne)

In most parks or USFS recreation areas, you will find that >90% of the populace uses just a few small corridors of trails or established rock climbs. Maybe good established trails to popular destinations help keep the use pattern that way.

In my nearby recreation area -- Charleston Peak, about 45 minutes from my house-- I have 13 different routes I take to the Charleston Peak, only 2 of which are on established trails. In July through November, the mountain is normally just a walk-up, class 1, if one uses the trails. Essentially, I never see people (other than my group) on the off-trail routes. Yet I have decided to abandon some off-trail routes, because our own few footsteps have started to mark and erode the ground.

It is important to think of all the reasons trails exist. A well-engineered trail erodes little and puts little stress on the environment. Yes, the natural life along that narrow corridor is disturbed, but that's a small part of the whole land. Even rock-climbing can be a big disruption; the approach routes to popular climbs in Red Rock are, in some cases, pretty bad. Climbing can disturb birds that nest on the cliffs. Some times it is good to localize most of the populace, to keep most of the land wild.

+1 what ChugachMnt.boy says, regarding giving people a chance to get up there.

Look, the cables were installed way back. . .when? 1911 or so? I doubt there coming down anytime too soon, esp. now with the permit/small fee system in place.

I'm all for wilderness; let's have more of it. But, the cables are there, and it does give the normal, non-climbing person a taste of what it's all about up high, along with having the presumed fitness for hiking those miles roundtrip, and pulling oneself up the cables. And, while I didn't have to deal with the permit system(we were there midweek, and it was the weekends when permits were required), it seemed like it all worked smoothly enough.

I remember last summer, being there with my son, and hanging out with some friends at Tenaya lake before my son and I did the hike from Tenaya down to the valley, via Clouds Rest and Half Dome. My buddy's girlfriend, now a proficient climber, said to my son and I,
"You guys are gonna love Half Dome. I remember doing it with a girlfriend of mine, way back when, and I loved it so much, I decided to get into climbing. . . "
My son and I did it, and we both really, really loved it. We haven't become rock climbers yet, don't know if we ever will, but that crystal blue day up on Half Dome was one we will never forget. I didn't want to come down.