Time to "FIX" the Skyline "trail"

[asabat]

If a permit was issued on-line as Ken proposed, but no authorities patrol the trail and ask to see it, where are the teeth? We now have signs that warn about hazards and death, and they are apparently ignored by some. Would adding "permit required" result in any of these less-prepared hikers turning around?

[cynthia23]

I do think the permit would cause people to turn back, inasmuch as there would be a fine for violating it. No, there certainly wouldn't be enforcement on the trail--no need for that. They simply ticket people who come out of the "gate" at the top of Skyline into Round Valley, and who don't have a permit. It would work pretty much the same way the closures during the fire season worked--people who ignored the closure and hiked up anyway risked getting a ticket and fine as they crossed Round Valley to the tram.

I'm not necessarily arguing in favor of a permit, however. It would certainly be a downer for those of us who like the free and easy (read: Wild West) atmosphere of Skyline and prefer it to remain unregulated. But I do see the point of view of those who are beginning to advocate for it. A situation with near-weekly rescues is certainly not economically tenable for a very strapped State Park. I myself continue to argue that rangers should have the option to charge for Skyline rescues in which the rescuees have been extremely negligent and/or ignored warnings not to continue. Just yesterday, Cy told us, he ran into a group of five hikers who, at 10.15 (!!) were setting off "for the tram", minus, of course, any crampons or ice axe. Of course, they ignored his warnings that what they were doing was dangerous. Doreen strongly warned the Marines to turn back who later fell down the chute, and two weekends before, MarkHNJ strongly warned the Marines who ended up setting a fire and calling for rescue. I myself have twice warned people who later required rescue, once in person and once on this board, last summer. I think we may need a new and improved sign which mentions the crampons/ice issue, AND which threatens those who are negligent with the possibility of paying for their own rescue. This does not mean that all people will be charged for their rescues, as many times well-prepared and responsible people have simple bad luck (i.e. Ellen Coleman), it simply gives rangers the option to recover costs from those who arrogantly ignore warnings (sometimes, as in the case on this board which occurred last summer, multiple warnings from several people. This person chose to continue anyway, with the result that people on his hike required rescue.) I know there are those who are concerned that having the OPTION to charge negligent people for their rescues will increase the likelihood of people dying, but the data doesn't support this fear; charging for rescues has decreased deaths in the places the policy has been implemented.

You can educate until you are blue in the face, you can tell people to their face they are going to die if they proceed; in the end, sadly, it seems that Money Talks, when all else fails.

[cmachler]

How about a big sign at the trailhead that takes the opposite approach of the the "Accident free for X days" signs you see in machine shops. The sign could read "N hikers have required rescue on this trail since..." Someone in the know would increment the number after each rescue. Or maybe a big "N% of hikers attempting this trail required rescue" sign would be even better.

[Ken]

Ken: Just curious, but have you ever hiked the Skyline/C2C? If you haven't done the hike, it might be a good idea to do it sometime so that you can get a better idea what it's like.

There already is a very good site on the Skyline (C2C):

http://www.geocities.com/cactus2clouds/skyline.html

Also, the route is included in several guidebooks.

Kathy

From my previous post, Kathy:
"All the other arguments against this, without some other alternative, are for maintaining the status quo....which is fine with me, I don't hike this trail. But if you take that position, you can't grouse about the problem, because you voted for maintaining things as they are!"

I suppose that one could make the point that if I don't hike the trail, why should I have an opinion about all this?? Well, I do pay taxes, I don't like to see hikers get hurt, I don't like to see regulation of wilderness settings, I don't like to see a lot of signs along wilderness trails. But mostly, I don't like to see people get hurt.

I like Perry's site, although scanty on specifics, and that is no reflection on him.....it's a big topic, and a lot for one person to take on. I see that there are a LOT of "skyline trails" in the US, so finding the site may take the average person, not knowing if there is such a thing, some effort.
It's a great first step.

Although being listed in a guidebook provides publicity for a trail (which, in this case, I oppose), it rarely provides the opportunity for in-depth education that a book devoted to a single trail, like the Whitney guides provide.

Personally, I think there is little education that will turn a person around who is already on the trail, which is why I think it is critical to do the education BEFORE they ever leave their home. The ONLY regulation related to the permit as I've proposed it, it to HAVE a permit. By the way, this would also have the very useful side benefit of documenting the usage on the trail, which does not exist now. No one really knows how many people use this trail, compared with, say, 10 years ago. Documentation of greater usage might well justify placing better signage at the trailhead.

However, my experience with the agencies is that if this trail continues to suck up funds for rescues, pulls away resources from other needs, and keeps generating bad publicity for the agency unit.......something will be put in place that hikers will not like. I think it is much better for the hiking community to take action themselves and help resolve the situation. There are models where this has happened. Where the Gov't takes control, folks tend not to like the outcomes.

Getting 90% of what you want is better than 100% of nothing.......

[KathyW]

Ken: I understand you are just making helpful suggestions about how to "fix" the trail and certainly have every right to do that. I was just was trying to say that if you do the hike it will help you assess the situation better.

I don't have much of an opinion on "fixing" the "trail" - seems okay the way it is but if I had to get a permit I would - the permit wouldn't change the way I hiked the trail though or what I brought with me. I like the Skyline route when it's not too hot out, but I think there's too much emphasis put on that route when there are lots of other beautiful places to hike in the area.

Kathy

[Perry]

I like Perry's site, although scanty on specifics...

It's free. You get what you pay for!

[HikeUp]

It's free. You get what you pay for!

Throw in some Skyline Diablo Chicken Wings and it's a deal that can't be beat.

[dhstein313]

I agree with Wingding. the C2C is a good hike and a great challenge BUT for scenic hikes IMO it rates very LOW. Unless you like to see vies of civilization which I DO NOT when I am in the wilderness.

D

[Jennifer]

dhstein313, you mentioned something that I have been trying to figure out for a long time.

While beauty is in the eye of the beholder, certain hikes seem to have become popular not for the scenic nature of the hike, but because the name has become well known, and then has become a challenge. Even if the hike rates really LOW on everybody's list of enjoyable hikes due to the flora and fauna.

C2C is one of those hikes, it is talked about as being a tough hike by newbies and is overhyped by "veterans" who want to make themselves feel better about their abilities, even though there is virtually nothing on the hike that qualifies as hiking through a beautiful natural setting. Some will disagree - beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Nothing beautiful on that hike by this beholder.

Mt Whitney is another hike that is popular for the same reason. But at least in Whitney's case it has become a challenge (albeit a challenge which countless children have conquered) to hike the highest peak in the contiguous 48.

The Whitney board right now has an interesting thread where somebody asked how many times have you hiked Whitney? And a new person who hasn't hiked Whitney yet was really apologetic for asking "Why do you do the same hike over and over?" Some have summited at least 100 times in their life. Yet one poster (a newbie) tried to be tricky and tell everybody that he/she summited 3 times last year alone, and it was a small percentage of her/his total summits for the year. That would make one think that she/he summited many other times in previous years. Nope 3 is the total - lifetime total.

My point is that certain people feel the need to do certain hikes over and over again, not because they enjoy them from a beauty of the flora and fauna nature (most of Whitney is moonscape, and most of C2C is a good look at the city down below, though beauty is in the eye of the beholder), but it makes them feel like they are part of an important group of fellow hikers and share some sort of comraderie on the trail and more importantly on message boards.

Otherwise they would hike for the love and the beauty of it, and not feel the need to get right online and share every trip report and summit count, even to the point of reporting that they had 3 summits of Whitney last year, leading people to believe there must have been many more summits in previous years, to make themselves feel more like one of the "veteran regulars" - when the total is 3 - lifetime....

I'm not saying the comraderie/message board thing is bad - for those people who need it.

[AlanK]

dhstein313, you mentioned something that I have been trying to figure out for a long time.

While beauty is in the eye of the beholder, certain hikes seem to have become popular not for the scenic nature of the hike, but because the name has become well known, and then has become a challenge. Even if the hike rates really LOW on everybody's list of enjoyable hikes due to the flora and fauna.

C2C is one of those hikes, it is talked about as being a tough hike by newbies and is overhyped by "veterans" who want to make themselves feel better about their abilities, even though there is virtually nothing on the hike that qualifies as hiking through a beautiful natural setting. Some will disagree - beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Nothing beautiful on that hike by this beholder.

You worry a lot about why other people find things to be enjoyable. You also do a lot of unsupported (and unjustified) speculation as to their motives.

C2C is a beautiful hike through a beautiful natural setting. Sure, you can turn around and see the city below. But one faces into the hills for almost the entire ascent. One sees the beauty of several different climate zones and enjoys being immersed in them and transitioning between them. There are spectacular changes in scenery, both local and far off. I don't insist that you see it that way, of course. How you see it is up to you. But to proclaim that "nothing on the hike that qualifies as hiking through a beautiful natural setting" strikes me as pure philistinism.

Mt Whitney is another hike that is popular for the same reason. But at least in Whitney's case it has become a challenge (albeit a challenge which countless children have conquered) to hike the highest peak in the contiguous 48.

The Whitney board right now has an interesting thread where somebody asked how many times have you climbed Whitney? Some have summited at least 100 times in their life. Yet one poster (a newbie) tried to be tricky and tell everybody that he/she summited 3 times last year alone, and it was a small percentage of her/his total summits for the year. That would make one think that she/he summited many other times in previous years. Nope 3 is the total - lifetime total.

Tricky? Let's see what she actually said:

As for Whit, I stood on high 3x last year, all by different routes. MR in May, MT in June, and from the west in August. All three brought such a sense of pride and happiness! But it was only a small percentage (like TC) of all the peaks last year.

She implies nothing whatsoever about previous years. All she says is that she was on many peaks other than Whitney last year, which is true of many Whitney hikers. In Laura's case, one of the ascents was part of a solo 100+ mile loop involving the High Sierra Trail. She got a lot of positive feedback from a lot of experienced hikers and mountaineers over that one.

In fact, Laura had summited Whitney before last year, despite your fabricated claim to the contrary. But she claims to have climbed Whitney fewer times than you have. You lecture others about doing it too many times and knock others who have done it fewer times than you claim. The bottom line is: you spend an awful lot of energy, under various IDs, knocking other people.

My point is that certain people feel the need to do certain hikes over and over again, not because they enjoy them from a beauty of the flora and fauna nature (most of Whitney is moonscape, and most of C2C is a good look at the city down below, though beauty is in the eye of the beholder), but it makes them feel like they are part of an important group of fellow hikers and share some sort of comraderie on the trail and more importantly on message boards.

Again, you are speculating about the motives and feelings of other people of whom you know nothing. Instead of doing that, try actually hiking sometime and talking about the experience. Or say nothing at all.