4 ms·

>> A via ferrata is essentially rock climbing. It provides all of the same sensations,” says Michele Van Hise, managing partner at Zion Adventures, a guiding se

>> A via ferrata is essentially rock climbing. It provides all of the same sensations,” says Michele Van Hise, managing partner at Zion Adventures, a guiding service and outfitter based in Springdale, Utah. Between 2018 and 2022, the company built three via ferratas near Zion National Park, including Shorty Town, which snakes up and down across a cliff suspended over the flowing water of Oak Creek. I cannot express how strongly I am against this. The first rule of most every outdoor activity is "take only pictures, leave only footprints". That applies for everything from scuba diving to mountaineering. Hammering in rods and installing ladders on otherwise perfectly climbable rocks is just wrong. There is a time and place for fixed protection, and regular climbers have huge debates about this, but installing ladders so people can more easily "climb" in hiking boots doesn't meet anyone's standard. I've known many climbers who, if seeing any of this, would actively destroy such installations if anywhere close to existing routes. And in Zion? I guess it isn't halfdome or dawn wall but this is still a climbing mecca that that should be left unaltered. I was once at a very popular toproping area when an army unit of about eight people showed up. They were about to hammer pitons into the cracks to "practice". The word when quickly around the crag and they were basically run out of town by a hundred climbers. You don't damage rock casually, not established climbing routes.

blakeburnette 3y ago
Pitons are something I think are already controversial enough. Necessary in some rock types to enable climbing...but that's a debate for another day. I would say I lean to, only if necessary. Via Ferratas make me cringe and am wholeheartedly opposed.
digital-cygnet 3y ago
I've come to believe that there's a place for the more accessible enjoyment of the outdoors that the via ferrata seems to represent. Every park represents a different place on the spectrum of accessibility vs true wilderness -- from Manhattan's Central Park (millions of visitors of all types, requiring hard paths, railings etc) to Denali National Park (other than the road, limited to very small dispersed groups, kept few enough that it can remain a "trackless wilderness"). I don't begrudge someone who is not a very skilled climber their use of a via ferrata, provided that impact to the area (e.g. sightlines) is kept to a minimum and other options for more purists remain. I'm not a climber per se but this is the same attitude I have towards hiking, skiing, mountain biking, etc. I'm careful not to gate-keep casual folks using the Mt Washington cog railway because they get a lot of enjoyment out of it and it's a small blip in my Prezzie Traverse -- if carefully managed, there's enough nature for everyone.
- sandworm101 3y ago
  >> there's enough nature for everyone. Climbing is different. It is about very rarified and somewhat delicate places. Climbing is also always about balancing safety with ability. Anyone can hammer in ladders and assent a cliff. That isn't climbing. Make a route too "accessible" to the masses, make it easy, and the masses will loose respect. They will destroy it. Have a look at Everest base camp. It is effectively a landfill of garbage and human waste.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - jltsiren 3y ago
    Accessibility is not the issue. Prestige is. A lot of people have heard of Everest, and many think it would be cool to climb it. Other equally accessible mountains in the region see much less human activity. Also, the waste issues in the area are mostly due to serious climbers who go to less accessible places. Casual tourists stick to settlements, some of which have existed for centuries. Because the settlements are relatively wealthy and connected by decent paths, there seems to be less waste than in the average rural area in a third-world country.
- themaninthedark 3y ago
  I'm not against making something more accessible but I against destroying nature in order to do so. If in order to provide access to a waterfall; you have to cut a road through a mountain and then clear out the trees at the base so you can construct a ramp for wheelchairs, you have disfigured the very thing that you wanted to preserve by having a park. What is the difference, if any, between hammering these iron rungs and jack hammering steps into the rock face? Why would we say that "via ferrata" is an acceptable amount of defacement while jack hammering is not?
  - digital-cygnet 3y ago
    My point is that it's a spectrum, not a bright line. We do, in fact, have roads that go into parks. Some parks even have trails; some even provide bathrooms and campsites, with varying degrees of amenities. All of these things increase accessibility at the expense of the nature and wilderness of an area, so it's important to have lots of diversity in degree of hardening: does every waterfall need an ADA ramp? Probably not; should no waterfall in the world have an ADA ramp? No, that's needlessly cruel to disabled folks who deserve reasonable access to natural beauty. There should be (and are) sites of natural beauty you can take pubic transit to, drive to, roll to, bike to, ski to, hike to, climb to, ice climb to, and yes, even cannot access at all, each category with it's own sub spectrum of difficulty (eg some one mile hikes, some weeks long treks). To me a via ferrata seems like the left hand side of this spectrum -- something in an already heavily impacted area that gives casual users access to something they otherwise wouldn't. If someone starts proposing putting them there they don't belong (real wilderness, serious climber spots) I'll be with you in advocating against that.
Ajedi32 3y ago
How is this any different from, say, a gravel hiking trail? I see plenty of those in state parks all over the place. Makes things far more accessible with a very minimal impact on the overall environment.
- sandworm101 3y ago
  A gravel trail isn't there to make the user's life easier. It is there to prevent damage to the park. The gravel prevents people cutting a deep trench through the mud, which inevitably become a series of parallel mud trenches across the terrain. A gravel trail or even a pavement allows for more people to transit an area without doing damage. A ladder on the side of a cliff is just about making life easier and does nothing to protect the cliff.
listenallyall 3y ago
> would actively destroy such installations if anywhere close to existing routes. And in Zion? Your claim is contradicted by the fact that the most popular hike at Zion, Angels Landing, has an established set of fixed heavy chains to guide people up and down. Not to mention Walter's Wiggles, without which most people wouldnt be able to reach Scout's Lookout, the base of Angels Landing. Also, these via ferratas you're objecting to are located outside Zion NP.
anthomtb 3y ago
I can see the opposition here if a via ferrata is built such that an existing climbing route is altered or reduced in difficulty. > would actively destroy such installations if anywhere close to existing routes "anywhere close" implies visible but not interfering. Would it really ruin the climbing experience if the 5.12b route you are attempting happens to have an accessible option within view? I am neither a climber nor someone who would use a via ferrata, but I do see parallels to my mountain biking hobby here, where skilled riders (and more often "expert beginner" types) are threatened when newbie-friendly trails are created.
petsfed 3y ago
I don't have any particular objection to via ferrata, and all of my first ascents have eschewed fixed protection. I'm pretty sure one's never seen a repeat because of that. Its certainly worth pointing out that both Half Dome in Yosemite and Angels Landing in Zion feature VERY popular quasi-via ferrata as the primary descent route for famous and historic routes like the Regular Northwest Face of Halfdome, or Prodigal Sun on Angels Landing. And we're completely ignoring the role artificial holds play at Mesa Verde, both the ladders and hand rails installed by the NPS, and the surviving Anasazi installations. The environmentalist argument against fixed gear or chipping, or via ferrata, always seemed pretty hollow to me, given that not many people are objecting to the trail building to get to the crag, or the frequently heavy cleaning that happens to remove loose rock and lichen and things to make a climb safer during the development (which happens even with routes completely bereft of fixed equipment). Nobody complains about the establishment of descent trails, or leaving slings to strangle trees, even as those have a much greater impact on the environment than a few dozen bolts, or even a few hundred pounds of metal handles and steel cable. There's a fair argument, amongst climbers, about whether or not fixed anchors, or chipping, or via ferrata is sporting, but "sporting" is only a valid restriction for people playing the same game as you. But if there are no established routes on that rock, and you own the rock in question, who has a right to complain? I don't want to see them on public land, certainly, but on the continuum of human impact to rock faces, via ferrata is a lot closer to leaving only footprints than the roads through Zion or Yosemite, or Mt. Rushmore, or an open pit mine.

blakeburnette 3y ago

Pitons are something I think are already controversial enough. Necessary in some rock types to enable climbing...but that's a debate for another day. I would say I lean to, only if necessary. Via Ferratas make me cringe and am wholeheartedly opposed.

digital-cygnet 3y ago

I've come to believe that there's a place for the more accessible enjoyment of the outdoors that the via ferrata seems to represent. Every park represents a different place on the spectrum of accessibility vs true wilderness -- from Manhattan's Central Park (millions of visitors of all types, requiring hard paths, railings etc) to Denali National Park (other than the road, limited to very small dispersed groups, kept few enough that it can remain a "trackless wilderness"). I don't begrudge someone who is not a very skilled climber their use of a via ferrata, provided that impact to the area (e.g. sightlines) is kept to a minimum and other options for more purists remain. I'm not a climber per se but this is the same attitude I have towards hiking, skiing, mountain biking, etc. I'm careful not to gate-keep casual folks using the Mt Washington cog railway because they get a lot of enjoyment out of it and it's a small blip in my Prezzie Traverse -- if carefully managed, there's enough nature for everyone.

sandworm101 3y ago
>> there's enough nature for everyone. Climbing is different. It is about very rarified and somewhat delicate places. Climbing is also always about balancing safety with ability. Anyone can hammer in ladders and assent a cliff. That isn't climbing. Make a route too "accessible" to the masses, make it easy, and the masses will loose respect. They will destroy it. Have a look at Everest base camp. It is effectively a landfill of garbage and human waste.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- jltsiren 3y ago
  Accessibility is not the issue. Prestige is. A lot of people have heard of Everest, and many think it would be cool to climb it. Other equally accessible mountains in the region see much less human activity. Also, the waste issues in the area are mostly due to serious climbers who go to less accessible places. Casual tourists stick to settlements, some of which have existed for centuries. Because the settlements are relatively wealthy and connected by decent paths, there seems to be less waste than in the average rural area in a third-world country.
themaninthedark 3y ago
I'm not against making something more accessible but I against destroying nature in order to do so. If in order to provide access to a waterfall; you have to cut a road through a mountain and then clear out the trees at the base so you can construct a ramp for wheelchairs, you have disfigured the very thing that you wanted to preserve by having a park. What is the difference, if any, between hammering these iron rungs and jack hammering steps into the rock face? Why would we say that "via ferrata" is an acceptable amount of defacement while jack hammering is not?
- digital-cygnet 3y ago
  My point is that it's a spectrum, not a bright line. We do, in fact, have roads that go into parks. Some parks even have trails; some even provide bathrooms and campsites, with varying degrees of amenities. All of these things increase accessibility at the expense of the nature and wilderness of an area, so it's important to have lots of diversity in degree of hardening: does every waterfall need an ADA ramp? Probably not; should no waterfall in the world have an ADA ramp? No, that's needlessly cruel to disabled folks who deserve reasonable access to natural beauty. There should be (and are) sites of natural beauty you can take pubic transit to, drive to, roll to, bike to, ski to, hike to, climb to, ice climb to, and yes, even cannot access at all, each category with it's own sub spectrum of difficulty (eg some one mile hikes, some weeks long treks). To me a via ferrata seems like the left hand side of this spectrum -- something in an already heavily impacted area that gives casual users access to something they otherwise wouldn't. If someone starts proposing putting them there they don't belong (real wilderness, serious climber spots) I'll be with you in advocating against that.

Ajedi32 3y ago

How is this any different from, say, a gravel hiking trail? I see plenty of those in state parks all over the place. Makes things far more accessible with a very minimal impact on the overall environment.

sandworm101 3y ago
A gravel trail isn't there to make the user's life easier. It is there to prevent damage to the park. The gravel prevents people cutting a deep trench through the mud, which inevitably become a series of parallel mud trenches across the terrain. A gravel trail or even a pavement allows for more people to transit an area without doing damage. A ladder on the side of a cliff is just about making life easier and does nothing to protect the cliff.

listenallyall 3y ago

> would actively destroy such installations if anywhere close to existing routes. And in Zion? Your claim is contradicted by the fact that the most popular hike at Zion, Angels Landing, has an established set of fixed heavy chains to guide people up and down. Not to mention Walter's Wiggles, without which most people wouldnt be able to reach Scout's Lookout, the base of Angels Landing. Also, these via ferratas you're objecting to are located outside Zion NP.

anthomtb 3y ago

I can see the opposition here if a via ferrata is built such that an existing climbing route is altered or reduced in difficulty. > would actively destroy such installations if anywhere close to existing routes "anywhere close" implies visible but not interfering. Would it really ruin the climbing experience if the 5.12b route you are attempting happens to have an accessible option within view? I am neither a climber nor someone who would use a via ferrata, but I do see parallels to my mountain biking hobby here, where skilled riders (and more often "expert beginner" types) are threatened when newbie-friendly trails are created.

petsfed 3y ago

I don't have any particular objection to via ferrata, and all of my first ascents have eschewed fixed protection. I'm pretty sure one's never seen a repeat because of that. Its certainly worth pointing out that both Half Dome in Yosemite and Angels Landing in Zion feature VERY popular quasi-via ferrata as the primary descent route for famous and historic routes like the Regular Northwest Face of Halfdome, or Prodigal Sun on Angels Landing. And we're completely ignoring the role artificial holds play at Mesa Verde, both the ladders and hand rails installed by the NPS, and the surviving Anasazi installations. The environmentalist argument against fixed gear or chipping, or via ferrata, always seemed pretty hollow to me, given that not many people are objecting to the trail building to get to the crag, or the frequently heavy cleaning that happens to remove loose rock and lichen and things to make a climb safer during the development (which happens even with routes completely bereft of fixed equipment). Nobody complains about the establishment of descent trails, or leaving slings to strangle trees, even as those have a much greater impact on the environment than a few dozen bolts, or even a few hundred pounds of metal handles and steel cable. There's a fair argument, amongst climbers, about whether or not fixed anchors, or chipping, or via ferrata is sporting, but "sporting" is only a valid restriction for people playing the same game as you. But if there are no established routes on that rock, and you own the rock in question, who has a right to complain? I don't want to see them on public land, certainly, but on the continuum of human impact to rock faces, via ferrata is a lot closer to leaving only footprints than the roads through Zion or Yosemite, or Mt. Rushmore, or an open pit mine.