Via Ferrata(s) Tetons, WY?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 41 - 60 of total 73 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
alpinerockfiend

Trad climber
Jackson, WY
May 13, 2008 - 11:23am PT
Just like they told you in elementary school, pay more attention Dave. Please take the time to read my whole post, as well as all the other posts on this ridiculous thread. You'll find that this ISN'T a precedent setting development.
I'm glad you've been here Dave. Now go join the GYC and fight a battle that matters. This one doesn't. From a local's perspective, it's really sad to see so many people up in arms about some choss at a ski area when this ecosystem is besieged every day by forces WAY bigger than the Kemmerers.
MZiebell

Social climber
Prescott, AZ
May 13, 2008 - 11:37am PT
Cables?? At a Ski Resort??? Good God, what next!!

Seriously, if THIS is the issue you need to rally around you're missing the boat. Please visit the web page below for information on the real issues facing the area (and what you can do to help). The concern shown for the area is laudable. Cables at the ski area are NOT the issue.

http://www.greateryellowstone.org/
FredtheRed

climber
May 13, 2008 - 12:04pm PT
once the cables are installed hold onto your hats - next thing will be an ADA legal action demanding handicapped access. It's been tried on the Appalachian Trail - and the jury's still out - but the clear ban on wheeled vehicles and horses as regards the trail have been useful - I can see it now - winches installed next to the cables so chair bound folk can have the same experiences (especially if it's on public land) that the rest of us can have ...
And in spite of the cables, you know some idiot is gonna get drunk and fall, bringing loads of legal action (perhaps they should insist on a sobriety test before allowing access).

FredTheRed
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
May 13, 2008 - 12:15pm PT
Well, unless someone can show me a recent, formally permitted via ferrata on federal land then it actually is a precedent setting development. Again, everyone is free to pick their own battles, keeping via ferratas contained on private land is one I'll take time out to pursue.

The issue has nothing whatsoever to do with any distinction between 'us vs. tourons' or ego - but just like several other threads, the issue is about yet another class of permanent installations on rock. They've started on private land, are attempting to jump to commercially-leased public land, and will then go after state / national parks and wilderness areas.

Thirty years later this is no different in any way from '78 and the advent of the spread of sport climbing from the EU. But via ferratas will be commercially driven, guide services will eventually jump on board, and we'll be fighting the installations of via ferratas in most major climbing venues within ten to fifteen years. Me, taliban that I am, would prefer to fight them before they can make the leap to public lands.

If you think this is just a local issue, you are sadly mistaken. If you think via ferratas couldn't make it to our main climbing venues, you are naive. If you think there are bigger issues afoot in the world, you are correct - hell, there are human disasters in China and Burma as we speak - not a word about them? There's always bigger fish to fry, but that all has little relevance to this issue in it's own scope.

ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
May 13, 2008 - 12:32pm PT
A via ferrata at ski area is the biggest environmental non-issue of the year. It actually seems a lot less lame than some of the other stuff you see at resorts. I hope folks enjoy seeing some air under their feet.

I doubt this install (or others at ski areas) will open the via ferrata flood gates.
Tarbuster

climber
right here, right now
May 13, 2008 - 12:47pm PT
I like the via ferrata experience.
I've been to Cortina Italy and done a handful of them in the surrounding Dolomites and I could see some benefit to a bit of this type of installation in the states.
But I wouldn't say that Healyje's concerns are fringe quackery.
Anguish

Mountain climber
Jackson Hole Wyo.
May 13, 2008 - 01:02pm PT
"The Tetons don't have areas like this. If there must be a sacraficial area, I hope its far away from the crown jewels that we climb on. I'd be sad to see cables leading up to the Lower Saddle, or on the belly roll."

There already is a permanent fixed rope at the Lower Saddle and a fixed rappel anchor on the Grand Teton, both in a proposed wilderness area. Also, there's an old cable from Suprise-Ampitheater Lake to the Teton Glacier (North Face approach) that's left over from the horse packing days when they took turons up to see the ice.
Shingle

climber
May 13, 2008 - 01:21pm PT
Anguish - I think you're missing his point. Permanent anchors for his desired uses are OK, it's permanent anchors for the use of others that are a threat and must be stopped.
Dingus Milktoast

climber
NorCal
May 13, 2008 - 03:48pm PT
Its a fun-da-mental religious issue. NO FUN FOR THEM! The infidels must be stopped.



The mountains are no place for fun.

DMT
alpinerockfiend

Trad climber
Jackson, WY
May 13, 2008 - 11:05pm PT
MZiebell, first of all, thanks so much for visiting the Greater Yellowstone Coalition site. In case this thread has piqued any of yall's interest in IMPORTANT land use issues facing the Jackson area, here's their site again: http://www.greateryellowstone.org/

Healy, first of all, I admire your passion. But remember that picture of the Cables Route Dingus posted? There's your precedent. Good enough?

You're going down a hell of a slippery slope saying that because of this one development, we can soon expect via ferratas popping up at all our favorite crags. THIS issue is not about someone drilling some iron and shooting "adventurous" tourists across the Cookie, the Grand, or Castleton Tower. Take a look at much of Spain, France, and Switzerland. Tons of climbing, lots of via ferratas. Show me a major conflict. (Not that I'm condoning their general approach to land use)

Ever wonder why you don't hear any LOCAL climbers opposed to this idea? If this were proposed for one of the popular sport crags around Jackson, or (god forbid) an iconic Teton summit, you can bet your ass it would never happen. Too many climbers here! To reiterate, this development does not displace climbers or affect them in any way. And I'm sorry, but I just can't give in to your doomsday theory that this will soon be happening at all of our favorite crags. This IS a local issue at heart, friendo.
Mimi

climber
May 13, 2008 - 11:33pm PT
I recall the iron rod sticking out of drilled holes and chain placed along the base of the Argentiere glacier and other places around Chamonix. Most of the work was damaged due to rockfall, ice damage, and neglect. It provided a handhold on occasion but it was mostly worth avoiding altogether.

I understand the historical sentimental acceptance of these trails in Europe, but have a harder time with the idea here in the States.
Dingus Milktoast

climber
NorCal
May 13, 2008 - 11:44pm PT


Let the climber who has never hiked a trail hewn from the country rock itself cast the first stone. I call an emphatic BULLSH#T on the whole thing.



More iron ways. HOW DARE these ttttttouristssssss, these VALLEY DWELLERS, how DARE THEY come to MY hallowed mountains and foul them with their Nike clad feet???

DMT

DMT
Mimi

climber
May 13, 2008 - 11:49pm PT
DMT, I get your gist. The US does have many examples. My impression was of a modern version of the HD cables or what I saw in France.
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
May 13, 2008 - 11:53pm PT
The HD cables route is a historic installation and was not vetted through any modern formal regulatory or administrative process. But, you are right - it is a stark precedent in that historic role, and it will be used as such in any significant fights over via ferratas on public lands. Take the cables route, add one or two new uncontested ones on public lands, and throw in the ADA and you have a recipe for a precendent which will be bulldozing any local objections to future installations.

It is politically naive in the extreme to think you can fight these one at a time based on whether you happen to like the particular [LOCAL] rock proposed to receive one. Let via ferratas on public lands go into [LOCAL] choss you don't happen to care for and all that will accomplish is allowing them to establish a successful regulatory track record. And then that track record won't be easily contested based on your [LOCAL] perceptions of rock quality or location. That's because the majority of the folks you'll be making your case to are likely to think one rock is pretty much the same as another and that higher quality must actually be better (think the HD cables route).

Off the top of my head I'd say that via ferratas on the Flatirons, in the Valley, and in Red Rock will all be easy targets sooner rather than later if commercial via ferratas on public lands are allowed to propogate uncontested. Again, this is not a local issue, it's a national one when we're talking federal lands - you might make that case for state lands, but by that time it will probably be too late...

couchmaster

climber
May 14, 2008 - 01:40am PT
Healy said: The HD cables route is a historic installation and was not vetted through any modern formal regulatory or administrative process. But, you are right - it is a stark precedent in that historic role, and it will be used as such in any significant fights over via ferratas on public lands. Take the cables route, add one or two new uncontested ones on public lands, and throw in the ADA and you have a recipe for a precendent which will be bulldozing any local objections to future installations.

It is politically naive in the extreme to think you can fight these one at a time based on whether you happen to like the particular [LOCAL] rock proposed to receive one. Let via ferratas on public lands go into [LOCAL] choss you don't happen to care for and all that will accomplish is allowing them to establish a successful regulatory track record. And then that track record won't be easily contested based on your [LOCAL] perceptions of rock quality or location. That's because the majority of the folks you'll be making your case to are likely to think one rock is pretty much the same as another and that higher quality must actually be better (think the HD cables route).

Off the top of my head I'd say that via ferratas on the Flatirons, in the Valley, and in Red Rock will all be easy targets sooner rather than later if commercial via ferratas on public lands are allowed to propogate uncontested. Again, this is not a local issue, it's a national one when we're talking federal lands - you might make that case for state lands, but by that time it will probably be too late...


So friggan what? Big friggan deal. I'm with Dingus.

Then are you going to try and ban, remove and eliminate all ski lifts and accompanying buildings and resorts on public property next? Because they are huge in size and impact. And well utilized and enjoyed by many of the very people who own the land: US. You don't want to ski, don't go there. You don't want to utilize the via Ferrata, then don't.

Then next will you try and eliminate all roads on public land? Mining? Logging? Cattle raising? The roads alone are massive installations and have massive environmental impact as well. Yet many many people benefit both directly and indirectly from those as well.



alpinerockfiend

Trad climber
Jackson, WY
May 14, 2008 - 01:59am PT
Couchmaster: I think Healy's not making an environmental impact argument so much as he's saying that the "precedent" being set by this particular via ferrata will soon spin out of control, and we can expect to see these things pop up at crags much dearer to our hearts (correct me if I'm wrong here Healy).

I just don't buy it. Call me politically naive. I probably am (I'm young!). But I've been involved in enough efforts in which a small minority of public land users stopped some form of development from taking place. Here's an example--I've helped stop oil and natural gas developers from drilling certain parts of the Wyoming Range.

True, these efforts have involved users from many sides of the spectrum, from hunters and snowmobilers to your (sorry for the stupid generalization) typical wilderness-loving Sierra Clubber.

In this case, the group of those opposing development was really diverse. However, look at what groups like the Access Fund have done to help save crags all over the country! Don't you think your proposed via ferratas on the Flatirons etc... would be met with intense opposition from the Access Fund and other more local groups of climbers? Again, call me politically naive, but I just don't see this type of development taking place on a large scale.

Dingus, sweet pics. Are those your kin from Tennessee?
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
May 14, 2008 - 02:05am PT
No Bill - mining, logging, cattle, and ski areas are entirely different issues with independent scope and scale of there own - they have little to nothing to do with this particular issue beyond being other uses of public resources and lands.

But, since you bring them up - the mining, timber, and cattle industries in this country have operated with some of the longest and largest federal (blue state) subsidies of any businesses in our nation's history. The mining industry in particular has essentially raped US taxpayers under the protection of antiquated 19th century law. In fact, I find it extremely amusing of late to read of the plight and indignation of wealthy republican ranchers in Wyoming having their aquifers destroyed by gas companies who just appear on their properties and start sinking injection wells.

But hey, no doubt it's all good and for the best...
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
May 14, 2008 - 03:59am PT
AlpineRock, you are correct. I do have an email into the policy director of the Access Fund inquiring as to their stance. However, by their very name - "Access" Fund - they will likely have a bit of a tough time taking what will seem to be a regulatory and legal stance against something which, by all appearances, would foster 'access' for more people. We'll have to see how that one shapes up, but I don't suspect it's a policy issue anyone at the AF is going to be real happy getting involved with.

As for fighting them on a case-by-case basis, it's just a much, much harder affair politically and you're only going to win a few before they establish a regulatory track record. After that they'll build enough momentum to roll over local opposition efforts when it's a matter of federal public lands.
Dingus Milktoast

climber
NorCal
May 14, 2008 - 10:09am PT
I think liability insurance and ulitmately lawsuits will be a huge issue for any private via ferrata. Some overweight papa keel over, takes a 20 footer down a cable and ends up in a wheel chair - I don't think the well established ski-liability laws will apply.

I just don't think there will be lot of people or companies willing to risk their finaancial fortunes on something like that. One successful liability suit would doom this 'industry'

I still have no problem with a few public via ferratas. If they encourage folks who would otherwise go gambling or something, to scramble up in the mountains, good.

DMT
MZiebell

Social climber
Prescott, AZ
May 14, 2008 - 11:35am PT
"I just don't think there will be lot of people or companies willing to risk their finaancial fortunes on something like that. One successful liability suit would doom this 'industry'"

So there is a plus side to liability law!

I'm with you DMT - this is unlikely to go far...
Messages 41 - 60 of total 73 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews