Another Half Dome death – Saturday, June 13, 2009

[Dave .]

Firstly, I agree that this is a sad, unfortunate event.

Also, I'm in agreement with Lynn that these "non-technical" climbs are scarier than technical rock climbing. On a climb like Half Dome or some slide hikes in the Adirondacks, it is very, very improbable that you're gonna fall if you know what you're doing. But if you do, you will be seriously injured or killed. In technical climbing, you place your own protection or clip bolts, so you're as safe as you are technically competent (for the most part).

I can't help thinking we wouldn't need to fret over extra safey measures at Half Dome if someone just ripped the cables off the rock and left the climbing to people who know what they're doing.

In any case, the cables are there, so… My main reason for posting is to ask this: why do most of the posters on this thread feel responsible for protecting Half Dome climbers from themselves?

Personally (and I repeat, I think it's a shame this guy died) I think it's fortunate that he didn't hit anybody else on the way down as he fell.

[Rog Tallbloke]

Some good points there Dave H.

In my avatar picture, I'm edging along an old bit of rusty girder, unsupported at one end, clipped to a rusty piece of 3/8" steel cable tack to the rock with rusty ironmongery, above a 250 foot sheer drop.

I was scared.

This was on the 'Caminito del Rey' in southern Spain. The authorities blew up the first 100 feet of the dilapidated concrete walkway to discourage inexperienced people from going onto it. We had to traverse across old steel brackets bolted to the cliff and climb a section on ropes to reach it. People die on it most years, but mostly they are experienced rock climbers who trot along it without clipping on to reach the amazing pitches in the El Chorro gorge. Familiarity breeds contempt.

Proper via ferrata routes are well protected and maintained, and expensive to use.

[Jim MacDiarmid]

I don't think I feel a responsibility for protecting anyone from themselves, necessarilly. As I pointed out earlier, it really isn't that dangerous when you look at the number of deaths per attempts.

The issue is, the NPS put those cables up and by doing so made it more accessible to inexperienced people who may not realize what they're getting themselves into. I think, rightly, people have an assumption that the NPS wouldn't let them do it if it was really unsafe. And in good weather, it is safe. Of 10 deaths on Half Dome since 1971, the only one where weather wasn't a factor was the Japanese man in 2007. The rangers can't really stop anyone from doing it in bad weather, but maybe they could be assertive in discouraging people. Or, they could just close it during bad conditions. I don't think that would be too Nanny State(whatever that moronic phrase means).

So, putting the cables up enables people who otherwise wouldn't attempt it to do it. (and of course there were 3 deaths in 2007; 2 of them the the cables were DOWN, so) The question is, are the cables enough for it to be safe, or, if you are going to put up cables, should you also provide something to clip on with? (not a climber myself, so I don't know what you use)

I'd say "no" as statistic show it's not that unsafe, but possibly something should be done about preventing people from doing it in bad weather. This is essentially what they do by taking down the cables in winter, so why not at other times?

Here's an article about the chaos that can be the cables on Half Dome that was written a few weeks after Nohara fell.

[Chris Morgan]

I recall when visiting Ayers Rock/Uluru in Australia, which has a similar smooth rock face with a chain link ascent, that there was a placard indicating several deaths a year. I think in this case some of the deaths might have been heart attacks, however I think a few of them were due to the ascent. I believe the Australian government allows anyone to climb the rock (even though the natives consider it sacred), but they close the ascent when weather conditions (wind, heat) do not allow for a safe climb. Perhaps similar restrictions could be made for half dome.

[Dave .]

>>I don't think I feel a responsibility for protecting anyone from themselves, necessarilly…I think, rightly, people have an assumption that the NPS wouldn't let them do it if it was really unsafe.

Okay, so that's more or less indicative of you feeling a responsibility for protecting people from the NPS.

>>The rangers can't really stop anyone from doing it in bad weather, but maybe they could be assertive in discouraging people.

Maybe they should stand at the base of the cables and taser anyone who attempts to ascend Half Dome *into* a cloud.

>>So, putting the cables up enables people who otherwise wouldn't attempt it to do it.

Really? The dead guy might argue that point.

>>The question is, are the cables enough for it to be safe, or, if you are going to put up cables, should you also provide something to clip on with?

Maybe someone should install an escalator and start charging people $25 to go to the top. They can also install a Starbucks at the halfway point.

As frustrating as it is at times, at least it's amusing to be a part of a culture that wants to somehow remove the risk from mountain climbing but still get off on it too.

Mountains aren't here to be domesticated. They aren't here to be enjoyed. And they definitely were not put here so people could have a nice time climbing up them in total safety. They're just here.

If someone thinks he might like to walk up Half Dome into a storm cloud, that's his business. So is the risk involved in doing so.

[Rog Tallbloke]

> risk is a part of life.

True. I guess it's partly a question of how stupidly you don't mind dying. As you pointed out earlier, it's fortunate he didn't take out anyone else as he fell. most people are happier with taking risks they are in control of. Half Dome sounds dangerously overcrowded to me, judging by the article linked to the 2007 death of the Japanese guy.

Since my lucky escape in 2006 I'm not afraid of death anymore. I am, however, more appreciative of the value of my life complete with all arms and legs working.

[Dave .]

>>I guess it's partly a question of how stupidly you don't mind dying.

I like that, Rog. Well put.

>>Half Dome sounds dangerously overcrowded to me

Yep. Sounds like clown town.

[Jim MacDiarmid]

edited to correct bad linkage.

>>I don't think I feel a responsibility for protecting anyone from themselves, necessarilly…I think, rightly, people have an assumption that the NPS wouldn't let them do it if it was really unsafe.

Okay, so that's more or less indicative of you feeling a responsibility for protecting people from the NPS.

– Maybe I didn't express this in the clearest way; If I decide to ford a river, I'm taking the chance that I can safely do it. Hopefully, I've educated myself well enough to know the risks and how to do it. If I haven't, that's my failing.

However, is someone builds a bridge across that river, I have a very reasonable expectation ('right" might be too strong a word) to assume that bridge is safely maintained. I'm not a bridge engineer, I can't tell by looking at it if it is safe. If it's not safe, it should be closed by people who know. And from the sounds of Larry's story, it sounds like the cables were not well-maintained.

>>So, putting the cables up enables people who otherwise wouldn't attempt it to do it.

Really? The dead guy might argue that point.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

>>The question is, are the cables enough for it to be safe, or, if you are going to put up cables, should you also provide something to clip on with?

Maybe someone should install an escalator and start charging people $25 to go to the top. They can also install a Starbucks at the halfway point.

This is so unfair that I'm trying to figure if you're joking. What you're doing here is taking a point I made that you disagree with (fair enough) and exaggerating what I said to the point where it is clearly ridiculous, and then mocking me for something I didn't even come close to suggesting

I'm not sure how wondering if maybe there could/should be some sort of harness system leads to a jump to escalators and Starbucks.

I don't think we really disagree on that much. I just may not have been articulate enough in.
I'm not suggesting
taking the risk out of everything. But we do do a lot of things to remove risk – like building trails or putting cables on mountains – on the assumption that people are going to wander into the wilderness, so it's reasonable to take a few steps to prevent people from getting themselves in (too much) trouble.

I'm just wondering out loud, once (if) you've taken the initial step, is there a continuing responsibility? If so, how much? How far do you go?

[Lynn Tramper]

"Maybe someone should install an escalator and start charging people $25 to go to the top. They can also install a Starbucks at the halfway point."

Naaah, they've already done that atop most of the European alps, but they put the restaurants at the top of the gondolas instead of half way up the mountains (though there is often a refreshment stop halfway up as well).

[Dave .]

>>I'm not a bridge engineer, I can't tell by looking at it if it is safe. If it's not safe, it should be closed by people who know.

Right. The world is full of uber-parents and guardian angels who just happen to be bridge engineers and cable maintainers and they want nothing more than for you to come through all life events unscathed so that, when you get to the end of that bridge or the top of Half Dome, you can turn around and flash them a smiley thumbs-up and assure them that you've been enlightened via safer living.

Wait a second, I forgot about the bridge in Minnesota that collapsed not too long ago…

>>What you're doing here is taking a point I made that you disagree with (fair enough) and exaggerating what I said to the point where it is clearly ridiculous, and then mocking me for something I didn't even come close to suggesting

More or less, yeah, that's what I'm doing. Nothing personal though. It's just that it isn't my fault that your arguments are so illogical that, when you follow through on them, they end up being ridiculous.

My point is this: where does it stop? Obviously, cables aren't enough to keep everyone safe. Harnesses with daisy chains and bolted anchors would make it safer for some. But what about obese tourists? What if one of them falls and flips upside down and comes out of his harness? What about people in wheel chairs? Blind people? What about people who are just really stupid? People who are high? People with seizure disorders? People with bad hair cuts? Harnesses clearly won't ensure their safety. To ensure the safety of everybody who wants to go to the top of Half Dome, you need to build an escalator. Even then, that guy in the wheelchair will say you need to build an elevator.

Once you've done this Half Dome stops being Half Dome and getting to the top means being taken to the top, in which case, why bother?

What about dehydration, man? How many people die of dehydration in the woods every year? A lot more than the few deaths on Half Dome. Should the people that blazed the trails build water fountains at regular intervals to prevent deaths due to dehydration?

I think we should just start assuming that some of those people that wander into wilderness are not going to wander out again. Cest la vie.

[Dave .]

I've got it.

I think the short version goes like this:

Half Dome is to backpacking what swine flu is to public health.

[Jim MacDiarmid]

Whoa, man. I know sometimes things seem harsher than they're meant when presented in a text-based forum, but still, you seem to be jumping down my throat in an awful harsh way. I hope I'm misreading it, because it's hard to have a interesting discussion this way. And that's what I thought I was having. Like I said, I think in the end we probably agree on a lot of this. But I think our personal styles of discussing things might not conducive to us finding our way to that conclusion.

Besides, most of what you're doing here is still in the vein of astraw man argument

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position

Actually, I'm not sure you're even really refuting my position. I think you're just making fun of me.

Right. The world is full of Uber-parents who just happen to be bridge engineers and cable maintainers and they want nothing more than for you to come through all life events unscathed so that, when you get to the end of that bridge or the top of Half Dome, you can turn around and flash them a smiley thumbs-up.

Okay, I get it you don't agree with me on this point. You've made that clear. But to call my argument 'illogical' when your response is not to respond to it in a meaningful way, but just to make fun of me, be careful about tossing around words like 'illogical.' My ego isn't that big, I'm comfortable being wrong (the point of debate to me is to come to the correct conclusion, not 'win'), so elucidate the error of my logic. Please. I use sarcasm all the time myself, but it doesn't really lend itself to teaching anyone anything.

I'm not handing down verdicts from on high here. I'm just wondering things aloud.

My point is this: where does it stop? Obviously, cables aren't enough to keep everyone safe. Harnesses with daisy chains and bolted anchors would make it safer for some. But what about obese tourists? What if one of them falls and flips upside down and comes out of his harness? What about people in wheel chairs? Blind people? What about people who are just really stupid? People who are high? People with seizure disorders? Harnesses clearly won't ensure their safety. To ensure the safety of everybody who wants to go to the top of Half Dome, you need to build an escalator. Even then, that guy in the wheelchair will say you need to build an elevator.

That's the question I'm trying to answer too. Is it really all (escalators to the top, or a chair lift) or nothing (not even a trail for people to follow)? Once you've decided it's not black or white, (if that's what you decide)its' a matter of deciding the shade of grey. And yes, that opens it up to the possibility of ending up with escalators. If you're arguing that there should be nothing; no trails, no cables, nothing at all. Then that's a universals kind of position, and there's really no arguing about it. I would disagree, but I'd respect your principle. But in my experience, most people don't really believe in universal positions when it gets down to it. They're usually exceptions. And once you've admitted one exception, it doesn't have to be a slippery slope, but you do have to make a case for drawing the line here as opposed to over there.

[Dave T]

.

[Roleigh Martin]

James, it appears the National Park Service is thinking along your lines — see these links:

http://www.nps.gov/yose/naturescience/half-dome-cables.htm

http://www.nps.gov/yose/parkmgmt/upload/6.08%20Half%20Dome%20Survey.pdf

[Dave .]

This isn't a straw man argument. Have you ever read A Modest Proposal? Ever heard Ralph Nader say that cars should come with spears on the steering column to encourage people to drive safely?

What I'm trying to do is higlight the fact that I think that the ideology underlying your argument is rubbish.

It's an ideology of use. At root all of your solutions (to a problem which I don't think is really a problem) are derrived from an ideology of use. It's the belief that Half Dome is there to be used (and safely at that!) for recreation that I object to.

Half Dome is a geological feature. It is indifferent to humanity and if someone decides to walk up it because he thinks it might be fun to do so, the consequences of that decision are soley his responsibility.

So it's not about shades of grey. "Shades of grey" is a Dr. Phil-ism. It's about me not wanting to have Half Dome tampered with by misguided anthropocentric knuckleheads who mistook a mountain for a recreational resource.

Also, it's just about common sense: sometimes people fall down. If this happens when they're on Half Dome, they're probably toast. If someone stands at the base of Half Dome and thinks otherwise, well…we're right back to my initial question: why would you ever take it upon yourself to be responsible for protecting Half Dome climbers from themselves?

[Jim MacDiarmid]

I must be terrible at articulating my thoughts though, because I never thought I'd get accused of having an 'ideology of use.' I like trees. I think people should live in densely populated cities to reduce our impact on the land. I've read the Monkey Wrench Gang. etc.

In my original post on this whole topic, I was the one who pointed out that if the NPS stats are correct, 50,000 people a year ascend Half Dome. 4 people have died since 2007. (2 of them died when the cables were down, and I don't know how many people had serious falls) I maintained that it didn't seem particularly dangerous in light of these statistics, and so probably nothing had to be done to make it safer.

But it was being tossed around here and elsewhere, that perhaps something should be done to make the cables safer.

Since it was being kicked around, and I found the idea interesting philosophically, I did throw the question out there(I thought I was being Socratic): If you leave the land untouched, fine. Everyone is responsible for themselves. My gut feeling is that the cables should not be there, despite a relatively safe record. I could be convinced otherwise though.

Yosemite has road and trails allowing people into the park, so 'untouched' is out the window. Now, though once you've 'improved' (and believe me, I don't like that word) things by making a trail and putting up cables, do you have a further responsibility for people's safety?

At minimum, to restate again, I should be able to trust the cables are well-maintained (possibly an issue in this death beyond the weather). Beyond that, they should at least be informed in no uncertain terms that what they are doing is dangerous, and why. (You'd think this'd be obvious, but shockingly, it isn't. But then most people don't spend a lot of time outdoor and so don't really grasp that it can be a dangerous place) Beyond that, we helped you get there, you've been warned, you're on your own.

But, I think other people could reasonably argue that more is required in that situation. I'm not that person though.

My one quibble with the way HD is managed is that the NPS does take down the cables in winter. That's a tacit admission that sometimes it is too dangerous and they're actively discouraging the inexperienced. So why then but not in a late-season storm?

Now, should the land be improved? That's another question. Most if not all animals alive use (improve) their environment. Bird's build nests, foxes dig burrows, humans generally mess everything up.

Is it an ideology of use to be happy there are trails out there? Trails are a concession to people like me that haven't learned how to use a map and compass well yet, and prevent me from ever having to. Bad thing?

I'll also quibble with 'common sense' which is a relative and relatively meaningless term when used in an argument When people say 'common sense' they invariably mean their own, or their group of peers. Common sense has changed way too much over time – to borrow a page, It was once common sense (and still is in some places )that certain races are less than human. Any kind of debate will fall apart if people start using 'common sense' as a point of reference. And I even happen to agree with most of your stated 'common sense.'

As a backpacker and as someone who always thought of himself as environmentally conscious, I care a lot about how the land is used and what our place in it is. I'm finding this and the LNT thread fascinating because they get to the core of that.

[Ashley Brown]

James, I would like to compliment you on your ability to maintain a reasonable discussion in the face of hostile commentary. If everyone on the internet was able to do the same there would be no such thing as a flame war.

FWIW, I agree with you on most of your points. But I *really* hate it when the authorities try and stop people from doing things because they are afraid some idiot is going to do something stupid and then sue them. Spoils it for everyone. I do agree however that simple precautions which result in a significant increase in safety, without distracting from the enjoyment of the experience, should be welcomed. In the case of half dome, it seems to me that it would be good to have the *option* of using a cable harness and to make them available for a small fee at the park HQ (or wherever convenient). Or simply encourage people to bring their own.

Education is really the name of the game, so that people can make a decision for themselves. I agree that most folks probably don't properly understand the risks involved. Some will therefore argue that the cables should not be there at all (I think perhaps this is Dave's point). But I think so long as people are aware of the (very small) risks, it is great that non-climbers can experience a little bit of the world that is usually "off-limits".

Dave H, it would be nice if you could be a little less, um, argumentative in your arguments =-). Obviously you feel strongly about these issues, but lets all remember that this is meant to be a friendly and respectful community.

[Anonymous]

It's about me not wanting to have Half Dome tampered with by misguided anthropocentric knuckleheads who mistook a mountain for a recreational resource."

I hereby formally nominate Dave to be Emcee of the 2009 Darwin Awards. Who will second the nomination?

[Lynn Tramper]

"mistook a mountain for a recreational resource."

Yessss, strange argument IMHO. If we don't consider moutains/valleys/streams etc…as recreational resources then there's no point leaving our cities for the great outdoors. The key task is to manage these resources in the best way we know how. To this end, I think the Halfdome cables are an excelent example of this. They have allowed hundreds of thousands of 'ordinary' people to experience something truly special, in a safe way. Does it peeve me off that the roads and amenities of Yosemite attract millions of visitors per year? Yes. That's the selfish side of me that wants it all to myself. The charitable side of me thinks that Yosemite is something everyone should see at least once in a lifetime, and the NPS does a fabulous job of managing it.

[Ken Helwig]

All I know is that I will not be doing that hike again. I did Clouds Rest and Half Dome on consecutive days and would go to Clouds Rest anytime I feel like it and it is also with a small amount of danger. Not that many folks do Clouds Rest and it is much saner to me. Half Dome along the cables is a cluster F***. The amount of humanity going up and down is downright scary. All it takes is somone to tumble into a bunch of folks on those cables and…..dominoes. Done. One time was cool. Two times I will be a fool.

[Ken Helwig]

Also, look at the amount of folks that fall over Vernal and Nevada Falls each year. The amount of people that are in that vicinity is amazing. Most have never hiked a minute in their life.

[Jim MacDiarmid]

I have a 3 night trip to Sunrise HSC in August. I believe Clouds Rest is a nice dayhike from there?

[Raymond Estrella]

That is a sad story. I am going to be taking my wife to Yosemite in July with Half Dome being one of the reasons we are taking the route we are so she can climb it. (She is an experienced rock climber.)

As Half Dome is technically “easy”, meaning that it can be climbed without gear, it is going to be climbed no matter what. The cables add safety to it. The same thing is at Angel’s Landing in Zion. There are spots that could easily be fatal with a slip. I do think that a lot of people would forgo the climb were the cables not be there, but more people that did go for it would most likely have abrupt endings if this were the case.

I am on or around Mt Whitney a lot. That mountain too is a huge tourist destination. I hear of sad stories there a lot too. A nurse in Lone Pine told me about a 7 year old girl that died from altitude sickness because her parents did not know the symptoms. I have seen many people puking on the side of the trail.

Personally I think they are all fine with the amount of protection they have right now. It would be better to find a way to get tourons to understand beforehand what the risks are.

[Rog Tallbloke]

> why would you ever take it upon yourself to be responsible for protecting Half Dome climbers from themselves?

The parks service have taken it upon themselves to ,maintain the cables and steps. Therefore they are responsible if shoddy maintenance leads to deaths.

The overcrowding is a problem with the crowd. It seems likely to me that having to grip onto the cable for longer than should have been necessary was a contributing factor in this accident.

Which is why I like to hike far from the madd(en)ing crowd.

If i'd been up there, I'd have looked at the amount of time people were stationary on the steep section, seen that they didn't have any equipment to clip on with for a rest, and given it a miss.

Probably, most of the tourists up there wouldn't have the gumption, experience or training to arrive at the same conclusion, which is their lookout.

At the start of one of my favourite twisty mountain roads there is a sign telling me how many bikers died on it in the last 5 years. Some take note, some don't. Up at the pub carpark at the top of the pass, the police fatal accident investigation unit van often parks up and the officers engage the bikers in conversation. Nothing pushy, just a friendly chat.

The softly softly approach.

[Brian UL]

Last year I hiked up Half Dome. I had no idea what to expect since I had not seen any pics of the cables nor did I even know that there where cables. I just knew that a trail went up the Dome and followed it. I was staying at Little Yosemite campsite and figured it would be stupid to miss Half Dome since I was that close. So even though I was a little tired from traveling to the west coast and busing in I went.
I was lucky that I left late in the day and when I arrived there were only about 4 people on the cables. But when I first saw the cables I said out load " are you supposed to go up that? is it even possible?" or something like that. Since it looks like you would need climbing equipment to get up. A middle aged lady and here 3? small children just came off it and explained it to me and told me about the pile of gloves a the foot of the trail. I figured if 3 children and their mother could do it I should so I picked a pair of dirty used gloves and stared up it.
and it was worth it! Sure I was a little nervous but I just took my time, moved deliberately and had no problem.
So in my view the cables are not a safety device as much as a way to get up what would otherwise be unclimbable for me so I am glad they were there! Though it would be prudent to clip in, its up to you.

On a side note, I find Dave to be perfectly reasonable even if I don't agree with everything he says. The real issue here is the different styles of East vs West. Dave is just more abrasive its his NY style.

[Author]

Posts