Deflection, at its finest..

I recently caught a little bit of flak for using 3 cam hook placements on Moonlight Buttress. I now want to deflect any blame put on me for damaging the rock (which I did not do) by pointing out what Angel's Landing looks like:

IMO, letting a couple Tourons deck each year is worth not having to do this in a National Park. Being up there and seeing all of the initials carved into the rock as well as people feeding the squirrels (thereby making them super-agressive) makes me vomit in my mouth a little.

--Marc

Do you work for the government? if not, you should look into it.

Wow, I thought I was the only person upset with all the hardware on Angel's Landing. The chains are an eyesore and the paved trail with the switchbacked hillside encased in concrete is awful.

Tico wrote:Do you work for the government? if not, you should look into it.

Um, yes. Appalling as it is, they (NPS) cannot turn back the clock. The only way that stuff could probably go away, is if they close the trail. As it is, they have made "improvements" to the trail, sanctioned it use, and by precedent, liable for the equipments' maintenance, upkeep, and the continuous planning of future improvements that "safeguard visitor safety" on this trail.

If they had left it alone, as "nature" made it (with a footpath made only by, well, feet) they are generally free from any liabilities associated with visitors hiking the trail. This whole situation is a tricky balance between visitor, park service, its mission statement, and todays' litigious society.

Am I off subject though?

Adam Stackhouse wrote: Um, yes. Appalling as it is, they (NPS) cannot turn back the clock. The only way that stuff could probably go away, is if they close the trail. As it is, they have made "improvements" to the trail, sanctioned it use, and by precedent, liable for the equipments' maintenance, upkeep, and the continuous planning of future improvements that "safeguard visitor safety" on this trail. If they had left it alone, as "nature" made it (with a footpath made only by, well, feet) they are generally free from any liabilities associated with visitors hiking the trail. This whole situation is a tricky balance between visitor, park service, its mission statement, and todays' litigious society. Am I off subject though?

I think you're right on target. Simply stated the NPS started down the slipperiest slop of all, I guess you could say. It detracts tremendously from the area, IMO. There were at least two different sections of the trail with large maintenance equip roped off with caution-type tape. The 'trail' is made of some sort of concrete; I imagine that it's not too often there isn't maintenance happening somewhere on that trail. It's probably just a matter of time before someone falls off, in spite of the thousands of pounds of chain already up there. Then they'll just have to chain up another section.

I think they turned what was once a spectacular 4th class scramble into a mess. Maybe it's just a symptom of the our societies mindset; I don't understand why they can't put sign at the bottom that says:

"This is a technical 4th class scramble. If you are not comfortable keeping yourself balanced with all four limbs, then please enjoy the view from the saddle."

Not that I'm for excessive warning labels (in fact, I'm opposed) but it's a better than the destruction caused by what's up there currently.

Of course the chains leading to the top also inspired the age-old 'art' of inscribing ones initials in the rock. Judging by my 'hike' up Angels Landing, sadly, I'm probably in the minority of people who felt cheated on my experience, even though I avoided all of the chained areas as much as possible. Although, I'm probably preaching to the choir on this particular site.

At some point you gotta say 'enough is enough.'

--Marc

Marc Horan wrote: It's probably just a matter of time before someone falls off, in spite of the thousands of pounds of chain already up there. Then they'll just have to chain up another section. --Marc

Unfortunately, this is probably an accurate prediction.

Flak for using cam hooks? I guess it depends on how you're using them. . . but I'd guess they're no more destructive than an aided camalot. (I've seen weighted cams slide out of sandstone, leaving grooves.)

I don't know which came first, Half Dome cable route or Angles Landing. . . I would certainly guess Half Dome.
How about Yellowstones extensive boardwalks thru the geyser fields (came first)?
What I'm really looking forward to is the glass bridge/walkway above the Grand Catastrophe (canyon).
What about the road up Pikes Peak or Elbert. . . or the cable route up Longs?
I think that the road and tunnel system thru Zion is worse than their cable route by far. . . (though by no means am I calling their concrete and steel trail addition good.)
Poor Abbey went off the deeper end when they graded and paved and extended the roads infrastructure of his beloved Arches. . . .
And how about them sequoia tree drive-thrus?
Maybe the Carlsbad cavern elevator system will get your goat too (it sure should!)
Of course the biggest travesty may very well be Glen Canyon dam - but wasn't it needed to support the growing populations and economies?

"Concrete is heavy; iron is hard; but the grass will prevail" - E. Abbey (maybe not in our lifetime. . . but someday)

As ATS (Adam) said, it is a "tricky balance" for managers to walk when dealing with the variety of our masses. Although I do believe that we (all people) have become more sensitive to the fragility of nature, it is pretty amazing to look back on our lack of effort in the past.

It seems a cam hook could be nice on the second pitch, after you go around the roof. I can recall trying to place a ball nut and having it come out while damaging the rock. I wish I was better at placing those, but don't get much practice with them. An offset nut worked.

I can see and agree with the argument against the cam hook in soft sandstone. It's not really necessary here and has the potential to cause more damage than well used SLCD's or nuts. However, even from my limited aid climbing experience, those too cause damage in sandstone if you're not careful.

I recall being a bit shocked when I read "Leeper Cam Hooks are nice" when I read the recommended rack on bigwall.com.

bigwall.com/topos.html

All that said, I don't base or defend my actions based on the park services lead. After all, there's an old layer of asphalt on the first part of the approach to Emerald Lake.

I liked the Angel's Landing hike as it is. The paved sidewalks, rails, chains, and chopped steps were a new experience and that's why I liked it. I'm a climber because I like the feeling of accomplishment when I reach the top; whether its a boulder problem in the gym, sport chains, Yellow Spur, summits, hills, rocks, buildings, anything with a view. Climbing generally has a simple objective to tackle - get to the top.

Angel's Landing has a manufactured "easiest way to the top." It's still fun but if you think that way is too destroyed, there looks to be some steeper paths that tourists won't (shouldn't) ever be able to carve their initials in.

My only regret when I look at Angel's Landing is that I didn't rent a Segway for the ascent.

Adam Stackhouse wrote: Um, yes. Appalling as it is, they (NPS) cannot turn back the clock. The only way that stuff could probably go away, is if they close the trail. As it is, they have made "improvements" to the trail, sanctioned it use, and by precedent, liable for the equipments' maintenance, upkeep, and the continuous planning of future improvements that "safeguard visitor safety" on this trail. If they had left it alone, as "nature" made it (with a footpath made only by, well, feet) they are generally free from any liabilities associated with visitors hiking the trail. This whole situation is a tricky balance between visitor, park service, its mission statement, and todays' litigious society. Am I off subject though?

No, it's on-subject. My point was that the "deflection" (somebody else is doing something worse, so i can do something bad) is indicative of our current gov't thinking.

The Angel's Landing trail does what it was meant to do; concentrate user impact in the front-country. People are going to visit certain areas, you can limit their impact to the greater system by making a small area attractive to the masses. I'd rather have some iron and thousands of people (i don't like the word "touron", especially when used by a Coloradan visiting my state) on Angels Landing than those same people wandering around the less-traveled areas. Zion is a day trip from the Grand Canyon for the vast majority of visitors.

When I worked for the NPS, there was a big drive about "It's the mission (stupid)". It is important to remember the mission of the NPS when considering (and making high-and-mighty proclamations about) it's actions. If you don't like it, as we used to say, call your congressman and write to the superintendent.

As for cam-hooks, i think the major transgression is BRINGING them on trade routes. The majority ethic these days is to not cam-hook in sandstone. I know for a fact that you don't need them on any of the trade routes, since my wife and i have both lead every pitch on them without. We were recently on Lunar X, and man, they would've come in handy, but we didn't have any. Still got up the route.

cameron wrote:Flak for using cam hooks? I guess it depends on how you're using them. . . but I'd guess they're no more destructive than an aided camalot. (I've seen weighted cams slide out of sandstone, leaving grooves.)

Sorry, but I don't agree at all here. Camalots don't flare a crack like cam hooks do. In thin cracks, because of downward flaring, repeated placements eventually become useless.

Tico wrote:No, it's on-subject. My point was that the "deflection" (somebody else is doing something worse, so i can do something bad) is indicative of our current gov't thinking.

The deflection was meant to be a joke, I guess it didn't hit its mark, sorry.

Tico wrote:The Angel's Landing trail does what it was meant to do; concentrate user impact in the front-country. People are going to visit certain areas, you can limit their impact to the greater system by making a small area attractive to the masses.

I think this is a good point. However, I still hate seeing what was once probably a beautiful scramble turned into a mess.

Tico wrote:(i don't like the word "touron", especially when used by a Coloradan visiting my state)

A Touron is a special term for that group of people that fall under both titles of Tourist and Moron. Not all tourists are morons, and not all morons are tourists. However, some (maybe lots) of tourists are morons.

Tico wrote:As for cam-hooks, i think the major transgression is BRINGING them on trade routes.

I can appreciate this criticism. One of the best points I've heard about my particular situation. Thank you.
In response: The topo I brought said cam hooks are nice, so I brought them. Maybe I should have done a little more research. I don't treat topos as gospel, but when I'm aiding, I'm generally going to bring everything they suggest during my first ascent of a route. Furthermore, I did not use them in an irresponsible manner, regardless of what some of the other MP.com users will have you believe. There are a couple users out there that appear to know everything about my ascent, regardless of the fact they weren't present.

Tico wrote:The majority ethic these days is to not cam-hook in sandstone. I know for a fact that you don't need them on any of the trade routes, since my wife and i have both lead every pitch on them without. We were recently on Lunar X, and man, they would've come in handy, but we didn't have any. Still got up the route.

I think this is a good point also. I would have gotten up the route without them; I definitely wasn't going to have to bail because I didn't have them. But keep in mind that I probably would have used a Lowe Ball on the higher section and possibly done more damage with that device than the cam hooks that I used, in the manner that I used them. Check out this thread if you want to know exactly what I did:

zionguidebookforum

--Marc

After reading more and talking more I would like to recant my earlier posting regarding cam hooks.
I do agree that when a hook does damage, it cam be more significant than a popping cam. I guess I've been lucky. Not saying I won't use them, but I will not on established routes that go clean (actually, I've never used them on established routes that go clean, so maybe that's a mute point).
However, I have a few on my rack that I'm fixin' to place in a manky sand/mud crack. . . though once we're done, and it's cleaned up, we won't be using them, cause it'll be one of them shiny new clean aid routes!

Happy Thanksaiding!

cough. ooo? cough.

cameron wrote:After reading more and talking more I would like to recant my earlier posting regarding cam hooks. I do agree that when a hook does damage, it cam be more significant than a popping cam.

Props, man. Thanks for making it known that your opinion changed.

--Marc