What's the SP consensus on this push to get rid of the Half Dome permit process and add a third cable?
http://savehalfdome.com/www.SaveHalfDome.com/The_Solution.html

I oppose it and am wondering how one voices an opposing opinion. Is there a site like the above one for people who'd rather see the cables come down?

It's a good thing. Why do you oppose it?

Why limit the number of people able to do such a trip? It's a fun and memorable experience for most who go, was one of the first hikes I did in CA years ago. If adding a third cable eliminates the need for a quota and gets more people out of the valley itself for a few hours that's fantastic.

If you want less people and that's the issue, just go somewhere else.

BTW- if your objective is to remove the cables altogether, and not just prevent a 3rd one, you can bet that would never happen. Might as well ask them to remove the railing from the top of Vernal Falls and close the Mist Trail.

IMO they should take down the existing cable. If someone want's to get to the top, do it without those drilled in cables.

Maybe they should take all the trails out of Yosemite too. If someone wants to hike, do it cross-country.

A new cable should be added, but only if it is randomly electrified.

I like that they introduced the permit system. Adding another cable and allowing everyone to go would make the route more dangerous.
I agree with Chad that removing the cables altogether is hardly an option that will be considered, unless something really bad happens and dozens of people die on that conga line. Furtunately, with the permit system in place the big accident is less likely to happen.

I think they lost the battle to save Half Dome when they installed the cables.

mrchad9 wrote:Maybe they should take all the trails out of Yosemite too. If someone wants to hike, do it cross-country.

Good point. I guess it's a slippery slope in both directions. Maybe they should put a gondola from the valley floor up El Cap. They have stuff like that in the Bernese Oberland - they're pretty fun. I guess it's a matter of opinion. I can live with the cables, but I agree with the limit on traffic. Adding a third cable and removing permits would make it even more of a zoo than it used to be. I've never done Half Dome, and never considered it until the permit system was put in place. Now it sounds pretty nice, only 300 folks per day. I could actually enjoy that - assuming I could get a permit....

Trawinski wrote:

mrchad9 wrote:Maybe they should take all the trails out of Yosemite too. If someone wants to hike, do it cross-country.

Good point. I guess it's a slippery slope in both directions. Maybe they should put a gondola from the valley floor up El Cap. They have stuff like that in the Bernese Oberland - they're pretty fun. I guess it's a matter of opinion. I can live with the cables, but I agree with the limit on traffic. Adding a third cable and removing permits would make it even more of a zoo than it used to be. I've never done Half Dome, and never considered it until the permit system was put in place. Now it sounds pretty nice, only 300 folks per day. I could actually enjoy that - assuming I could get a permit....

Yeah...

Actually my preference would be leave the cables as is and no quota. I like the evil of a third cable more than limiting people, just not a fan of quotas. They are generally arbitrary and serve only to keep people from doing what they want to do.

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.

It seems they set the quota at about 1/2 what the normal demand might be regardless of the area. If there is no demand they set a quota of 8 just for the lols.

That is actually a good point. I have no idea why they have quota system usually. There are only a few days a year when a crapload of people get out. Maybe quota on those few weekends should be installed but weekdays shouldn't be limited. It leads to a bunch of HD permits getting sold to people trying to re-sell and make money from it. Quite sad.

It's unfortunate, but we live in a litigious world, and if the cables broke because there were ten thousand people hanging on it, there'd be a huge suit. I think the only solution is that they put up a sign and say "enter at your own risk", and let the Darwinian processes weed out the stupid and unfit. If I was in charge I'd leave it "as is" but put up giant signs that state "you are responsible for your own self, there will be no rescue". I would not add any more cables. As a matter of fact, taking the cables down would reduce the traffic, and perhaps help restore the area a little bit. I am a sucker for the good old days though, when we visited our national parks and were generally trusted to do the right thing without all the permit bullshit.

The thing that I do hate about the quota/permit system is that a mature, seasoned backcountry enthusiast who is very experienced and practices minimum impact ethics is treated exactly the same as a first time fool who wades out into raging rivers for a YouTube vid.

willytinawin wrote:The thing that I do hate about the quota/permit system is that a mature, seasoned backcountry enthusiast who is very experienced and practices minimum impact ethics is treated exactly the same as a first time fool who wades out into raging rivers for a YouTube vid.

willytinawin wrote:The thing that I do hate about the quota/permit system is that a mature, seasoned backcountry enthusiast who is very experienced and practices minimum impact ethics is treated exactly the same as a first time fool who wades out into raging rivers for a YouTube vid.

Unfortunately true. But would you like to submit your climbing resume to get a permit? You have to do that to solo Rainier or to register at all for Denali, for example.

Of course some of the lies that people tell on their permit applications might be good for lolz.

Anyone have any documentation of Yosemite NP being sued because of an accident on Half Dome? If not, then you can't assume the issues have anything to do with litigation.

Even worse about the permit system, than the arguement about how experienced someone is, is that is puts the same constainsts on someon who hikes two miles in and camps at a lake the first day as someone who goes 18 miles in and camps 2 miles from the nearest trail (someone who isn't affecting anyone else). There should be zones for the first night of camping, if you go far enough to be out of the zone, permit requirement need not apply. Isn't hard to do.