Why not Clipping to Half-Dome Cables

[rlown]

The OP was from Canada, with his family. look at the original post (Sun Aug 14, 2011). So, we're waxing philosophic here. maybe waning...

It would be an interesting play to not put up the cables.

[John Dittli]

Waning for sure LOL.

It would probably take a "perfect storm" of high level NPS managers ready for retirement to put an end to the cables.

[LMBSGV]

It would probably take a "perfect storm" of high level NPS managers ready for retirement to put an end to the cables.

Right. But then I'm someone who also agrees with removing the cables and knows it will probably never happen anymore than the dam at Hetch Hetchy.

[rlown]

both HH and the cables at one pull? that'd be nice. just dreaming now.

[longri]

Just because something "already exists", doesn't make removing it "exclusionary". Precedence have already been set regarding the removal or discontinued use of many such facilities throughout the Sierra....

Would removing the cables decrease the numbers? Yep. Are the numbers already being decreased through "artificial" means by the NPS? Yep.

If a type of existing access is eliminated then by definition there is an exlusion. Let's not get bogged down in semantics.

The question is, is excluding hikers from Half Dome justified?

Do the cables need to be removed to comply with the Wilderness Act? Arguable.

But that's what you're arguing, although I haven't actually seen what your rationale is. In what way would the continued existence of the Half Dome cables harm the wilderness? Why is it different than the hundreds of miles of trails or all of the constructed bridges across rivers?

National Parks and Wilderness Areas, cannot be, nor should they be, everything for everybody.

Nobody is making this argument. We're simply talking about where the line should be drawn in this one case.

[John Dittli]

The question is, is excluding hikers from Half Dome justified?

Actual, no; the question was "is removing the cables from Half Dome justified". It has now been established (several times) that removing the cables excludes no one, it merely changes the form of access. As someone once said; "if you can get up Half Dome on the cables, you are physically capable of climbing it without" or something like that. Or, when you close two lanes of the freeway, it doesn't exclude anyone. As far as I know "Cable walkers" are not a represented or recognized user group.And yes, there is justification both in the Wilderness Act and the Organic Act to remove the cables. But it is, and would be, arguable.

But to also address the question you keep referring to; "is excluding hikers from Half Dome justified?". No, that is why no one has ever suggest "excluding hikers" or anyone else from Half Dome or any other peaks for that matter. Though there are circumstances where this could be suggested.

Is there justification to reduce the numbers of hikers, the answer is yes. There is also justification in both the Wilderness Act and the Organic Act (also arguable). These are the tools used to currently reduced numbers on Half Dome and and in many other areas throughout the Wilderness System.

[longri]

And yes, there is justification both in the Wilderness Act and the Organic Act to remove the cables.

What is the justification?

[maverick]

Fun conversation but getting way off the OP's intended subject matter. Please start
a separate thread in which you can addressing questions or concerns you may have
on related or unrelated issues that have nothing to do with the original content of this
particular thread. Thanks

[John Dittli]

Wrong "clipping", my apologies for the

John

[longri]

Just when we were getting to the good part!