SummitPost.org

The only way they can enforce this, it would seem, is by parking a ranger at the base of the cables pretty much all day, and checking for permits, since the trail is the same as used for Clouds Rest and other destinations. So it the ranger going to camp out up there all summer or hike up each morning? Doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

This may sound stupid, but how about putting in another lane? The traffic jams seemed to result from people going both directions and some folks afraid to let go of one side of the cable. Maybe they need an up lane and a down one.

Bob Burd wrote:The only way they can enforce this, it would seem, is by parking a ranger at the base of the cables pretty much all day, and checking for permits, since the trail is the same as used for Clouds Rest and other destinations. So it the ranger going to camp out up there all summer or hike up each morning? Doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

Apparently this is what they have in Idyllwild to check for adventure passes. The collected fines don't pay his salary. (His own words)

I agree, take the cables down and just have one or several sport routes bolted. That should take care of 90-95% of the crowds and increase the safety 99%...

Its either that, or leave the cables as they are and have a watchman posted at the bottom of the cables and not let anyone up that doesnt have the equipment to attach themselves to the cables (via ferrata style)... yeah, I think taking the cables down is a better idea...

Or, go Mon. thru Thur. when no permit is needed. . .

squishy wrote:I'm leaning toward this being a good idea...

We've had day hiking permits in place in the San Gorgonio Wilderness for, what, 30 years? 35 Years?

The Apocalypse has yet to occur.

ksolem wrote:And you can bet that the administrative fee to get the free permit will be $20.00 soon enough.

Probably.

Our national government is having a bit of a budget crisis these days, one that isn't going to go away any time soon. It's in all the papers.

Most government services that used to be "free" will probably require a fee within the next five to ten years, even access to government-owned lands.

So for $600 a day you can half-dome to yourself?

Even 10 years ago when the NFS started charging $5 for a wilderness permit reservation I was wondering how much it cost the federal government to process the payment. It has to be a losing proposition. Banks and insurance companies, which are relatively efficient, adminstratively, compared to the federal government, can't process a payment for less than $5. Charging $1.50 (for a free permit) probably costs the NPS $25 dollars in overhead.

redneck wrote: ...even access to government-owned lands.[/color]

Public lands, my friend. Public lands.

Not "government owned."

It is time for the custodians, employees of the public, to learn the difference.

ksolem wrote:Public lands, my friend. Public lands.

Not "government owned."

It is time for the custodians, employees of the public, to learn the difference.

I found this wikipedia ("Public Land") statement interesting, after ksolem's comment intrigued me:
"The majority of public lands in the United States are held in trust for the American people by the federal government and managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the United States National Park Service, Bureau of Reclamation, or the Fish and Wildlife Service under the Department of the Interior, or the United States Forest Service under the Department of Agriculture."

I was interested in who "owned" the NP land, public or the government. That "trust" part takes it beyond what I understand. Is it similar to holding a trust for a minor? The party that holds the asset in trust can essentially act as owner?

Not that I object to this arrangement. I am only trying to understand it.

Matt Worster wrote:I was interested in who "owned" the NP land, public or the government. That "trust" part takes it beyond what I understand. Is it similar to holding a trust for a minor? The party that holds the asset in trust can essentially act as owner?

Not that I object to this arrangement. I am only trying to understand it.

It seems semantics, really. Isn't anything owned by the US government in effect owned by the citizens of the US? Like the national debt? Or the White House? Or BLM lands? But the laws that we've allowed to be enacted give the government agencies the authority to manage and govern these things.

The rock climber exclusion is for those " who reach the top ..without entering the subdome area" . On my Face climbs we entered the subdome area when we walked over to the climb start near the base of the cables. I've descended from the Face to Mirror Lake but have never seen anyone acsending or had any desire to ascend to the climb that way. So maybe the rock climber exclusion is limited .

So the "subdome area" would be after the John Muir Trail fork? The portion of the trail that is on solid rock?

Bullshit. Events like this seem small in nature at first, but they are indeed precedent setting.

$1.5 processing fee? For the safety of people? Sounds great!

10 years down the road, there's a lottery system, the costs have ballooned to $15, & guess what? It's still inherently dangerous!

There's the trickle-down effect to consider too. The more restrictions put in place on hiking, trailhead access, etc., how long 'til the park starts regulating climbs? 'Shit man, the daily permits for the Salathe Wall got taken by a European party 20 minutes before we got here! Oh well, it is all about the wilderness experience, & it is for the safety of all, I guess...'

Thanks, Big Brother!

I would strongly suggest everyone send in letters voicing their disapproval to this act. Nip it in the ass before it has the chance to get worse.

Bob Burd wrote:It seems semantics, really. Isn't anything owned by the US government in effect owned by the citizens of the US? Like the national debt? Or the White House? Or BLM lands? But the laws that we've allowed to be enacted give the government agencies the authority to manage and govern these things.

Personally, I'd like to visit Plutonium Valley in the Nevada Test Site. It's owned by the federal government. I can't see why not.