Time to "FIX" the Skyline "trail"

[Rick M]

I promised myself that the next time I got called out on a search and rescue mission on the Skyline "Trail" I would have to speak up. Three in the morning on Sunday, February 3, I get a call asking me to respond to the upper tram for a technical mission on the Skyline. After driving over the Cajon Pass in a fog (I live in Hesperia) the pager goes off with a message that we can't run this mission with only two team members.

Would this be another case of hikers losing the "trail" in the snow and then slipping to what end? It would appear so. Three of us descended down 800 or so feet of fixed ropes and then two of us descended another 400 into a chute just to the south of the tram cables. We descended about 500 feet more where the person was found...remarkably, except for some bumps and being cold, alive. I was relieved when there was no response to our calls higher up that this was not going to be another body recovery. After warming in a sleeping bag, hot drink and food, he was able (on rope) to climb back to the Skyline "Trail" and up to the top and then to the tram.

I've hiked and climbed from the volcanoes east of Mexico City to the snow and ice of Denali and all sorts of things in between (Snow Creek round trip, Bad Water to Telescope Peak round trip, 50 mile hikes in the Sierra, Cascades, Sawtooths, etc) and believe that the upper portion of the Skyline "Trail" is simply poorly routed, marked, delineated, and maintained. I've been on many a trail maintenance/building trips with the Forest Service, Park Service, Sierra Club, and REI to realize something needs to be done. There are far too many posts on this site about the "Trail" for a simple sign or disclaimer about the dangers. Someone mentioned rerouting to the sunnier south, or getting the state park to survey a route and use all this energy I see on this forum to widen the tread and mark the way. Something needs to be done. Will it eliminate all future incidents? No, but in my experience, it should drastically reduce them.

I hope I don't get in trouble with this thread by my team, the State Park, or any of you that frequently use the trail without incident. If this were closer to my home I would probably take it upon myself to, little by little, "FIX" the "trail". As it is, anytime I'm on the Skyline with the team, I do what I can for it. Comments?

[halhiker]

I don't know that we need to fix the Skyline Trail any more than we need to fix the Mountaineers Route on Mount Whitney. I think it being a "route" instead of a maintained trail adds to the experience. And since the people on the 2/3 rescue couldn't have seen a trail under all that snow it wouldn't have made a difference.

What may help is this (and people may kill me for bringing it up): The State Park could require a permit just like on any other trail within the Park boundary. So if someone is going to hike the trail to it's completion they would be required to get a permit. Up to the SP boundary, you're free to hike without one.

The Park seems to just want to pretend that this trail/route does not exist but it has become a big draw since word unfortunately got out and people will keep coming. And way too many will not be up to the challenge.

One thing I love about hiking in the desert--other than the mere experience of hiking in the desert--is that I can go about anywhere at any time with no need for permits, quotas or any of the nonsense associated with other trails, esp, those in National Parks. However, for this one trail it might just be time to consider requiring permits if for no other reason than educating the permittee on what awaits.

And, if I had my way, to inform them that NO RESCUES are permitted on the trail. You're on your own.

But that's just me.

[Cy Kaicener]

The problem area is between 7400 feet and 8400 feet below Long Valley where you start to traverse north towards Coffmans Crag, especially with ice or deep snow. There is a flat area at 7300 feet. I have often wondered how nice it would be if there was a shelter there (a smaller version of the one below San Jacinto) People that get caught by nightfall when everything starts freezing over could spend the night there and go back the next day. It could be restocked from above. I dont think the State Park would go for this idea, but I think it would reduce the number of rescues. Most rescues are people that start too late. Anyone that injures themselves can hopefully make their way back to the shelter. The drawback of course, is that it might encourage more people. Anyone rescued should have to do volunteer duty for the Forest Service when they have recovered.
The family of a missing Mount Hood climber presents $90,000 to rescuers
http://www.examiner.com/a-1228525~Famil ... cuers.html

[Andy]

I agree with the "route" versus "trail" aspect of Skyline, especially in its current form. I also agree that it is the timing of the accent that is likely the most common issue with stranded hikers. When I summited Mt Shasta two years ago, the forest service required a special "summit pass" in addition to the typical wilderness permit. If nothing else, this served as a liability release and clearly identified the specific hazards that climbers would encounter on the accent (weather, ice, daylight window etc..). As I see it, the Park/Forest Service exists for the protection of the environment AND the enjoyment and protection of the people. Because of this I think that the wise decision for the local authorities would be to acknowledge the Skyline/c2c route and implement a simple permit, education and maintenance program that really would reduce the number of incidences on the mountain.

As far as the mandatory repayment of rescue services either fiscal or physical, I think that a strong campaign of guilting someone into giving back to SAR after a rescue might be a good option as well...

[simonov]

As I see it, the Park/Forest Service exists for the protection of the environment AND the enjoyment and protection of the people.

Just a quick nit: while the preservation of the environment is indeed the role of the Park Service, the statutory role of the Forest Service is in fact the exploitation of the timber, mineral and recreational resources of National Forests. In most cases, conservation and preservation are required to fulfill the Forest Service's third objective, but it is useful to understand and recognize the widely differing purposes of the two services (in two different Cabinet Departments) when discussing their respective land management policies.

- A former Forest Service volunteer

[Hikin_Jim]

There have been other discussions about this subject on this forum; it comes up from time to time. People have suggested more signage, permits, etc.

Specifically regarding improvements to the route, those familiar with the "trail" love the experience of being some place truly wild, a feeling that comes from not having a regular trail. Turning the route into a real trail might help a few. I do read about people losing time due to taking the wrong track, but I think relatively few rescues come from people getting off the route. I think the majority of rescues are due to poor judgement and lack of preparation, resulting in things like heat stroke, losing the route in the snow, getting caught out after dark, and ice accidents. Some of that poor judgement and lack of preparation is due to simple ignorance; people don't know what they're getting into. Poor judgement is particularly difficult to remedy, and probably wouldn't be ameliorated by improving the route into a real trail.

Regarding a permit system, I do know that in Zion National Park one has to have a permit in order to do a through hike down the narrows of the Virgin River. Among other things, the permit allows the park service to present some basic safety information. I don't know how successful that permit system or other such permit systems have been in reducing incidents. It would be really interesting to see the data if someone has tracked the results from instituting such permits.

A permit would facilitate a presentation of basic safety information. For persons who have already completed at least one successful ascent, perhaps a permanent permit could be issued so as to preserve the wild and free nature of the route. Of course a permit system would require overhead and enforcement, which may not be forthcoming given the current budget conditions.

All that being said, I think that education, while clearly imperfect, may be the best way to cut down on incidents. There will always be people who do dumb things even when warned, but on the other hand there will always be people who will pause to think when full information is laid out.

Hmm. Ice? Dead? Um, maybe I'll wait until spring.

[Andy]

Simonov, well noted thank you....and exploitation by definition for sure! I guess my main point being that since the route is on public land managed by a public agency(s) and there are no archaeological or environmental impacts (more so than any other area) that require restriction, it seems foolish to play dumb, ignore the issue and pretend that it doesn't exist.

The cats been out of the bag for years and it's time to acknowledge its growing popularity and deal with it in a way that both protects and benefits the people.

[Andy]

Hmm. Ice? Dead? Um, maybe I'll wait until spring.

Hikin_Jim you have an excellent point. I'm sure that you've all seen the blatant "People die on this river every year, don't be a number!" (shows graphic of drowning victim taking last breath) type warnings. A simple SCARY sign such as this with a few trail specific hints, (e.g. unmaintained route, crampons may be required, no water on mountain, travel in pairs etc) would surely reduce the number of inexperienced risk takers on Skyline but lets face it, they'll always be that one guy...

[Hikin_Jim]

... but lets face it, they'll always be that one guy...

Wouldn't it be nice if it would be just one guy! There is already some signage up there. There's one that says something like, "there's no water, 2 gallons of water should be carried" (I think that's what it says), which is often ignored. Of course, we don't know how many stop and think and then turn around or otherwise limit their hike because of the sign. Unfortunately, it's only the negative results of the sign that make the news.

I understand some of the blowing off of the sign. I know that it would be hard for me to plan a hike, gather my friends, take the time to travel all the way to the hike, and then turn around while already on the trail because of a warning sign.

Also, people are used to chains being required when there's no snow in sight and warnings about "you must purify all water" when the rangers/volunteers drink straight out of the creek. In today's litigious society, most people assume warnings are just a CYA thing to prevent lawsuits. It's the "boy who cried wolf syndrome." We're warned so often that we tend to disregard warnings.

HOWEVER, I completely agree with you that when a sign says "death" and cites a number, people tend to regard that a bit differently.

We'll never prevent idiots and jerks from doing stupid things that impact others, but I think education is going to help the rest of the populace, which, thank God, is still in the majority.

[drndr]

All good ideas from different points of view.

I personally hate the idea of regulating this trail and most of the outdoors with permits. Educating the public makes sense to me. Post more signs along the way about the dangers. Included would be the fact that if you need rescuing due to irresponsibility and bad trip planning. There will be a fine. A big fine. That way when you're one of the few that don't heed to being educated, be prepared to pay if you screw up. The idea of getting a fine keeps most people from parking where they shouldn't such as in a handicapped spot or in front of a hydrant. I think it would help cut down on resues as well.