7 ms·

I personally would rather not see these in the wilderness. One of the things that make the little remaining wilderness we have in the US "wild" is the friction

I personally would rather not see these in the wilderness. One of the things that make the little remaining wilderness we have in the US "wild" is the friction to entry. I have some seasoned experience with mountaineering and wilderness stays and what makes it remarkable is the smaller footprint from humans. The more accessible it is the less wild it becomes.

AlotOfReading 3y ago
People used to complain about Yosemite having a road built to it, because it'd detract from the natural beauty of the valley and bring in too many "lazy" tourists. To some extent those critics were right, but it's pretty undeniable in hindsight that the cause of the parks system has been better served by having parks like these accessible to the public than it would have been by keeping them pristine and largely unvisited. We still have parks like that too. Gates of the Arctic and Isla royale come to mind as inaccessible, and both are tragically undervisited / unknown as a result. It's not like you can't escape the crowded masses in busy parks either. A half hour hike towards the backcountry will free you from the bustle of crowds at almost all of them.
- snowwrestler 3y ago
  Yosemite already has a via ferrata: the cable route on Half Dome.
  - stagger87 3y ago
    Yes, and it's a huge attraction. For better or for worse?
    - snowwrestler 3y ago
      I think it’s for worse, but NPS obviously disagrees. They seem to have essentially designated most of the Valley a sort of tourist sacrifice zone, what with all the hotels, roads, stores, paved hiking trails, etc. There was a similar cables route up Longs Peak in Rocky Mountain National Park for decades, but NPS took it out, leaving the Keyhole Route as the easiest (but not easy) remaining way to the summit.
      - zmj 3y ago
        Wasn't that due to lightning strikes on the cables?
        exabrial 3y ago
        Allegedly. I’m skeptical though…
  - treprinum 3y ago
    That's not a real via ferrata. Via ferratas in Europe require a helmet, a harness and a double hook lanyard, and being secured to a steel rope at all times.
- sandworm101 3y ago
  The balance is that if the park doesn't let enough people in, the people stop supporting the park. America is democratic. Parks are not protected by royal proclamation. If the park is inaccessible then people don't visit. Then they don't care about it. Then one day someone wants to drill for oil in the park, and nobody cares enough to vote that down. I really don't mind the car-camping crowd. They stay inside their gravel circles and don't impact the real wilderness much. But come time to vote they will always far outnumber the dedicated rock climbers. I want the car campers on my side. If that means giving them their parking spots then so be it.
  - wahnfrieden 3y ago
    Re: your democracy comment, note that Trump and Biden have both converted public land reserves and in cases near/impacting national parks into private oil drilling sites. Not to the point of drilling inside national parks yet, but expanding and encroaching. Given the bipartisan efforts to convert public land and the reversals on campaign promises without perceptible consequence, I'm skeptical of relying on the "voting and waiting" strategy to protect our undeveloped lands. You are overstating how democratic this process is.
    - sandworm101 3y ago
      >> relying on the "voting and waiting" strategy I don't know where you get that. Parks are old. Older than petty debates between recent presidents. They rely on support from the population over decades, even centuries. This isn't about the ebb and flow of current voting patterns. This is about keeping people on the pro-park side intergenerationally. It is about making sure that people know what a park means, even if they only visited it as a kid decades previous. Current political personalities are irrelevant to that longer perspective.
  - 1970-01-01 3y ago
    >Parks are not protected by royal proclamation. That's exactly how they're protected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lands_protected_by_Theodore_Roosevelt_through_executive_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lands_protected_by_The...
- nkrisc 3y ago
  > We still have parks like that too. Gates of the Arctic and Isla royale come to mind as inaccessible, and both are tragically undervisited / unknown as a result. Undervisited is a good thing for what remaining wilderness we have.
- foobarbecue 3y ago
  I'm with Edward Abbey on this one.
justrealist 3y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- hattar 3y ago
  Let them spend a weekend in the woods then. There’s no reason to spoil a very rare commodity so that someone with no experience or appreciation can make use of it. There are many, many “close enough” experiences, and very few that haven’t been tainted by improper use. We should preserve these priceless spots, not sacrifice them to the lowest common denominator.
  - Retric 3y ago
    It’s not a rare commodity. People complain because it’s the best/iconic spots that become accessible, but there’s a near endless supply of almost as good locations in the national park system that nobody visits.
- tekla 3y ago
  Gatekeeping is good. It keeps people out who simply don't give a damn about these spaces.
  - seattle_spring 3y ago
    Hate to say it, but agreed. This easily turns into a "tragedy of the commons" situation, where a place that used to be special to some is now special to no one. The general public has proven time and time again that they are incapable of respecting natural areas and following rules and accepted etiquette. We should not be spending money increasing access so the worst of the worst can ruin even more of the country's special places.
    - petsfed 3y ago
      The problem with gatekeeping like this is that it also becomes an obstacle to preservation, once the initial gatekeeping has failed. Consider the scenario where climbers descend by rappelling from trees, or using an informal climbers' trail. If sufficient quantities of people use that place, the trees will die and the trails will become significant erosion channels (where the Glacier Trail ascends out of Bomber Basin in Wyoming's Fitzpatrick wilderness is basically a groove in a steep hillside because the traffic it receives far exceeds the maintenance). Its certainly the case that installing bolted rappel anchors can encourage more people to climb a route, but the presence/absence of bolted belay/rappel anchors is far less of a deterrent than the presence/absence of protection bolts (which is why few people are disputing the the long-standing ban on power drills in wilderness areas). Put another way, if you claim the only reason you've never attempt Rocky Mountain National Park's Casual Route is because you're not good at building anchors, then I would argue you'll have a dangerously hard time with the rest of the route too. The right balance between access and preservation is a difficult one to strike, but I would argue that land managers should err on the side of enabling more access because it allows them to proactively direct traffic into areas that are more durable to greater traffic, and stave-off potentially preventable accidents like this one: https://washingtonclimbers.org/index.php/2014/09/01/12534/ https://washingtonclimbers.org/index.php/2014/09/01/12534/ and this one: https://gripped.com/201304/rock-climber-dies-on-rappel-from-rockfall-accident/ https://gripped.com/201304/rock-climber-dies-on-rappel-from-... (I've rappelled from the anchor that killed Heung, and the fact that it must be somewhere where tat can be wrapped/tied is, I think, a major factor in why it was so exposed to rockfall. Its also a cautionary tale about backing up and testing tat anchors before fully committing to them, a lesson that people don't seem to learn even in the absence of "fixed" anchors. Consider this accident as well: https://americanalpineclub.org/news/2023/6/7/the-prescription-june-2023 https://americanalpineclub.org/news/2023/6/7/the-prescriptio...)
unit_circle 3y ago
The one counterpoint I'd like to make here is tat. Imo it's better to leave minimal high quality, long lived gear than soft goods that deteriorate over time that can make for a dangerous descent and produce a fair bit of garbage.
- themaninthedark 3y ago
  The stuff I saw pictured looks like rebar bent into rungs, so now you have steel left out that will deteriorate, possibly in an undetectable manner(remember, your anchor point is in the rock face). Also you are drilling into the rock. So much for leave no trace.
willcipriano 3y ago
> little remaining wilderness The US is mostly wilderness. Drive across it sometime staying off the highways.
- schaefer 3y ago
  Within the context of land management and the BLM, "wilderness" is a technical designation. Here is a map[1] for land designated wilderness. [1]: https://gbp-blm-egis.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/BLM-EGIS::blm-natl-nlcs-wilderness-areas-polygons/explore https://gbp-blm-egis.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/BLM-EGIS::blm-n...
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    Alternatively: As of 2016, roughly 36.21% (about one-third of the U.S.) is forested.[0] A reasonable person will come to my conclusion if they do as I suggest in my comment. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forests_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forests_of_the_United_States
    - mrosett 3y ago
      Forested is not wilderness. Most forests have lots of roads, power lines running through them, etc. You're just trying to redefine a defined term.
      - willcipriano 3y ago
        Prior to 1946 there was no wilderness as the BLM didn't exist to define it as such. Or they don't own the definition.
        nullindividual 3y ago
        Congress owns the definition via the Wilderness Act, which are tracts of land with no human presence or impact. Perhaps that will give you context in this discussion.
legohead 3y ago
As a rock climber, I hope it grows. Tired of seeing these debates and fights with authorities on putting up anchors, which are far less visible than these via ferratas. If these catch on and people like them, I think it will be good for climbers.
mateo1 3y ago
I wholeheartedly agree. I used to visit my grandpa's village every year (somewhere in europe) surrounded by beautiful mountains. The nature was accessible by everyone - warranted they'd do a 2 hour drive on rough road, get a hiking map and hike to the top. You'd also have to pack lunch and coffee. Now a new road is build, several hotels including a luxury resort with pools, coffee shops, tourist traps selling "traditional" "local" products etc. It's just terrible. Before, you'd "buy" your way there with effort, now you just pay, and you take your laziness with you all the way to the mountain top where you buy your $10 coffee and instagram snaps. If you want to sidestep the "nature" part of nature just go to a city park.
- treprinum 3y ago
  You can still find traditional unspoiled places in Europe and Alps have plenty of closed off areas. However, more accessible routes are good for old and disabled (e.g. post-COVID effects destroying one's athletic abilities etc.)

AlotOfReading 3y ago

People used to complain about Yosemite having a road built to it, because it'd detract from the natural beauty of the valley and bring in too many "lazy" tourists. To some extent those critics were right, but it's pretty undeniable in hindsight that the cause of the parks system has been better served by having parks like these accessible to the public than it would have been by keeping them pristine and largely unvisited. We still have parks like that too. Gates of the Arctic and Isla royale come to mind as inaccessible, and both are tragically undervisited / unknown as a result. It's not like you can't escape the crowded masses in busy parks either. A half hour hike towards the backcountry will free you from the bustle of crowds at almost all of them.

snowwrestler 3y ago
Yosemite already has a via ferrata: the cable route on Half Dome.
- stagger87 3y ago
  Yes, and it's a huge attraction. For better or for worse?
  - snowwrestler 3y ago
    I think it’s for worse, but NPS obviously disagrees. They seem to have essentially designated most of the Valley a sort of tourist sacrifice zone, what with all the hotels, roads, stores, paved hiking trails, etc. There was a similar cables route up Longs Peak in Rocky Mountain National Park for decades, but NPS took it out, leaving the Keyhole Route as the easiest (but not easy) remaining way to the summit.
    - zmj 3y ago
      Wasn't that due to lightning strikes on the cables?
      - exabrial 3y ago
        Allegedly. I’m skeptical though…
- treprinum 3y ago
  That's not a real via ferrata. Via ferratas in Europe require a helmet, a harness and a double hook lanyard, and being secured to a steel rope at all times.
sandworm101 3y ago
The balance is that if the park doesn't let enough people in, the people stop supporting the park. America is democratic. Parks are not protected by royal proclamation. If the park is inaccessible then people don't visit. Then they don't care about it. Then one day someone wants to drill for oil in the park, and nobody cares enough to vote that down. I really don't mind the car-camping crowd. They stay inside their gravel circles and don't impact the real wilderness much. But come time to vote they will always far outnumber the dedicated rock climbers. I want the car campers on my side. If that means giving them their parking spots then so be it.
- wahnfrieden 3y ago
  Re: your democracy comment, note that Trump and Biden have both converted public land reserves and in cases near/impacting national parks into private oil drilling sites. Not to the point of drilling inside national parks yet, but expanding and encroaching. Given the bipartisan efforts to convert public land and the reversals on campaign promises without perceptible consequence, I'm skeptical of relying on the "voting and waiting" strategy to protect our undeveloped lands. You are overstating how democratic this process is.
  - sandworm101 3y ago
    >> relying on the "voting and waiting" strategy I don't know where you get that. Parks are old. Older than petty debates between recent presidents. They rely on support from the population over decades, even centuries. This isn't about the ebb and flow of current voting patterns. This is about keeping people on the pro-park side intergenerationally. It is about making sure that people know what a park means, even if they only visited it as a kid decades previous. Current political personalities are irrelevant to that longer perspective.
- 1970-01-01 3y ago
  >Parks are not protected by royal proclamation. That's exactly how they're protected: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lands_protected_by_Theodore_Roosevelt_through_executive_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lands_protected_by_The...
nkrisc 3y ago
> We still have parks like that too. Gates of the Arctic and Isla royale come to mind as inaccessible, and both are tragically undervisited / unknown as a result. Undervisited is a good thing for what remaining wilderness we have.
foobarbecue 3y ago
I'm with Edward Abbey on this one.

justrealist 3y ago

[flagged]

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
hattar 3y ago
Let them spend a weekend in the woods then. There’s no reason to spoil a very rare commodity so that someone with no experience or appreciation can make use of it. There are many, many “close enough” experiences, and very few that haven’t been tainted by improper use. We should preserve these priceless spots, not sacrifice them to the lowest common denominator.
- Retric 3y ago
  It’s not a rare commodity. People complain because it’s the best/iconic spots that become accessible, but there’s a near endless supply of almost as good locations in the national park system that nobody visits.
tekla 3y ago
Gatekeeping is good. It keeps people out who simply don't give a damn about these spaces.
- seattle_spring 3y ago
  Hate to say it, but agreed. This easily turns into a "tragedy of the commons" situation, where a place that used to be special to some is now special to no one. The general public has proven time and time again that they are incapable of respecting natural areas and following rules and accepted etiquette. We should not be spending money increasing access so the worst of the worst can ruin even more of the country's special places.
  - petsfed 3y ago
    The problem with gatekeeping like this is that it also becomes an obstacle to preservation, once the initial gatekeeping has failed. Consider the scenario where climbers descend by rappelling from trees, or using an informal climbers' trail. If sufficient quantities of people use that place, the trees will die and the trails will become significant erosion channels (where the Glacier Trail ascends out of Bomber Basin in Wyoming's Fitzpatrick wilderness is basically a groove in a steep hillside because the traffic it receives far exceeds the maintenance). Its certainly the case that installing bolted rappel anchors can encourage more people to climb a route, but the presence/absence of bolted belay/rappel anchors is far less of a deterrent than the presence/absence of protection bolts (which is why few people are disputing the the long-standing ban on power drills in wilderness areas). Put another way, if you claim the only reason you've never attempt Rocky Mountain National Park's Casual Route is because you're not good at building anchors, then I would argue you'll have a dangerously hard time with the rest of the route too. The right balance between access and preservation is a difficult one to strike, but I would argue that land managers should err on the side of enabling more access because it allows them to proactively direct traffic into areas that are more durable to greater traffic, and stave-off potentially preventable accidents like this one: https://washingtonclimbers.org/index.php/2014/09/01/12534/ https://washingtonclimbers.org/index.php/2014/09/01/12534/ and this one: https://gripped.com/201304/rock-climber-dies-on-rappel-from-rockfall-accident/ https://gripped.com/201304/rock-climber-dies-on-rappel-from-... (I've rappelled from the anchor that killed Heung, and the fact that it must be somewhere where tat can be wrapped/tied is, I think, a major factor in why it was so exposed to rockfall. Its also a cautionary tale about backing up and testing tat anchors before fully committing to them, a lesson that people don't seem to learn even in the absence of "fixed" anchors. Consider this accident as well: https://americanalpineclub.org/news/2023/6/7/the-prescription-june-2023 https://americanalpineclub.org/news/2023/6/7/the-prescriptio...)

unit_circle 3y ago

The one counterpoint I'd like to make here is tat. Imo it's better to leave minimal high quality, long lived gear than soft goods that deteriorate over time that can make for a dangerous descent and produce a fair bit of garbage.

themaninthedark 3y ago
The stuff I saw pictured looks like rebar bent into rungs, so now you have steel left out that will deteriorate, possibly in an undetectable manner(remember, your anchor point is in the rock face). Also you are drilling into the rock. So much for leave no trace.

willcipriano 3y ago

> little remaining wilderness The US is mostly wilderness. Drive across it sometime staying off the highways.

schaefer 3y ago
Within the context of land management and the BLM, "wilderness" is a technical designation. Here is a map[1] for land designated wilderness. [1]: https://gbp-blm-egis.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/BLM-EGIS::blm-natl-nlcs-wilderness-areas-polygons/explore https://gbp-blm-egis.hub.arcgis.com/datasets/BLM-EGIS::blm-n...
- willcipriano 3y ago
  Alternatively: As of 2016, roughly 36.21% (about one-third of the U.S.) is forested.[0] A reasonable person will come to my conclusion if they do as I suggest in my comment. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forests_of_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forests_of_the_United_States
  - mrosett 3y ago
    Forested is not wilderness. Most forests have lots of roads, power lines running through them, etc. You're just trying to redefine a defined term.
    - willcipriano 3y ago
      Prior to 1946 there was no wilderness as the BLM didn't exist to define it as such. Or they don't own the definition.
      - nullindividual 3y ago
        Congress owns the definition via the Wilderness Act, which are tracts of land with no human presence or impact. Perhaps that will give you context in this discussion.

legohead 3y ago

As a rock climber, I hope it grows. Tired of seeing these debates and fights with authorities on putting up anchors, which are far less visible than these via ferratas. If these catch on and people like them, I think it will be good for climbers.

mateo1 3y ago

I wholeheartedly agree. I used to visit my grandpa's village every year (somewhere in europe) surrounded by beautiful mountains. The nature was accessible by everyone - warranted they'd do a 2 hour drive on rough road, get a hiking map and hike to the top. You'd also have to pack lunch and coffee. Now a new road is build, several hotels including a luxury resort with pools, coffee shops, tourist traps selling "traditional" "local" products etc. It's just terrible. Before, you'd "buy" your way there with effort, now you just pay, and you take your laziness with you all the way to the mountain top where you buy your $10 coffee and instagram snaps. If you want to sidestep the "nature" part of nature just go to a city park.

treprinum 3y ago
You can still find traditional unspoiled places in Europe and Alps have plenty of closed off areas. However, more accessible routes are good for old and disabled (e.g. post-COVID effects destroying one's athletic abilities etc.)