High Sierra Topix

I'm sorry that you are unable to read properly and misquoting me again, so you have been reported to the forum. Clear now?

FYP is pretty common on internet message boards and I really see nothing wrong with it. However, I would ask that you all drop the sternum poking and stay on topic. Please and thank you.

That’s odd that replacing the bridge is such a low priority since some numbers show that the Rae Lakes loop is the most popular backpacking trail in the Sierra. Of course they may need a multi-year environmental impact study before installing a foot bridge

I vote 2 zip lines, one in each direction, to replace every trail bridge everywhere.

.

Adding a bridge in the wilderness is not taken lightly. That bridge is pretty new- for many years there was no bridge. When a bridge washes out they have to consider if it is in an appropriate location. Putting it up and then having it wash out again is not an answer. Decisions are not made simply to make it easier for early season Rae Lakes Loop hikers. The hikers are not stuck; they simply have to turn around and go back via Bubbs Creek. The PCT/JMT probably DOES have higher priority and may be more necessary given the current in the creek, and it is not as easy to turn around if that bridge is out.

In the 1997-8 floods, the bridge across Return Creek was washed out in the Grand Canyon of the Tuolumne. I recall it was 2-3 years before it was replaced. The National Parks are also getting reduced budgets, with increased usage, and more damage (such as big fires).

Personally, I would not care if it was rebuilt or not. Although the bridge was convenient, I do not see it as a necessity. The days it is actually needed are not that many.

Zip lines have their own set of problems. Not that easy to use either. And a zip line is still an added permanent structure in a wilderness.

Wandering Daisy wrote: ↑Sun Mar 10, 2019 7:40 pm The hikers are not stuck; they simply have to turn around and go back via Bubbs Creek.

But if that is not on the wilderness permit, then they just quit.

They just do what we always did before the bridge. 1) You do not go at peak flow or 2) you take appropriate gear and wade or find a log to cross. Perchance the flow is unexpectedly high, you turn around, permit be damned! My permit does not require me to do stupid things. The park service could simply give out in-and-out permits for the short time the river is not safe (obviously from the Bubbs start so you can actually get to Rae Lakes). Yes, they may have to reduce the number of permits for that time period. I do not see that as a bad thing.

.

The Parks can have different rules than the national forests but I think in this they are similar - structures do not go in easily. Zip lines are right out - this thing will be used a LOT and zip lines are far too dangerous for the kinds of people who would try to use it, and there's far too much maintenance.

After they do biological studies and send in folks to study the area for the best spot for a bridge, ie one where it is less likely to be eaten by the river, there will be paperwork -- for roadwork and other kinds of renovations in the park it can take a decade to get all the ducks in a row. And then there is the budget. When the money gets tight the first thing to go is the wilderness - anything they can afford to cut so far as safety will be cut. Granted it's Rae loop, and hella popular, which might save this particular bridge, but if it were in Cloud Canyon you could bet it would never have one again.

If the Conservancy raises money for it maybe sooner than later, but the park itself can't take donations.

bobby49 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 12:56 pm You know, it would not be a stupid idea if the park service would string up a rope or chain or cable there as an overhead aid to those crossing the river, at least on a temporary basis.

Unfortunately the park service is probably liability averse. Just my opinion. It's interesting that these aids exist on the AT, probably put there by the AT trail association, not the park service.