|
|
Post by High Sierra Fan on May 4, 2019 7:45:15 GMT -8
Impact of a Half Dome Cable Permitting Process on Search and Rescue Activity, Hiker Mortality Rates, and Operational Costs Above Little Yosemite Valley“Conclusions SAR incidents, victims, fatalities, or costs above LYV did not decrease after cable handrail permitting. Parkwide SAR activity decreased during the same intervals. This strongly suggests that overcrowding is not the key factor influencing safety on Half Dome. This discordant trend warrants close observation over 5 to 10 y.” www.wemjournal.org/article/S1080-6032(18)30218-7/fulltext
|
|
|
|
Post by High Sierra Fan on May 4, 2019 7:52:32 GMT -8
The original article I saw the study referenced in. www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a27357488/yosemite-hike-safety/“There are multiple possibilities for why the permits failed to do their job–one theory is that winning one makes a hiker more focused on the hike rather than their own safety, since they know the chance of winning another permit is rare. The permits might also attract hikers who ignore the warnings about difficulty, focused more of the exclusivity of the hike. Regardless, the authors say, their study "strongly suggests that overcrowding is not the key factor influencing safety on Half Dome” The heightened “target lock” effect of the restricted lottery may be an interesting consideration. Perhaps some sort of “rain check” coordinated with the daily lottery quota would be possible? |
|
GaliWalker
Trail Wise!
Have camera, will use.
Posts: 3,715 
|
Post by GaliWalker on May 9, 2019 4:38:19 GMT -8
Interesting. I confess that I never paid attention as to why they instituted the permit system in the first place. I always figured that it was an (equally weighted) joint solution to reduce crowding so that the people who did go up could have a better experience, and that there would be less impact (even though it's all granite up there, I was told that there was a time when you could camp up top and there was a lot of human waste that would accumulate), and for improved safety. The safety part actually made sense, because I myself saw numerous people heading down the cables, on the outside, because the center was jammed.
I'm just glad I managed to make it up before the permit process started.
|
|
|
|
Post by High Sierra Fan on May 9, 2019 8:26:28 GMT -8
I believe you’re correct: retention of visitor’s experience, increasing negative landscape resource impacts and safety all must be playing a part in their visitor traffic volume management decisions. Those are all on the list for wilderness management in general.
Apparently the safety aspect needs some tweaking.
|
|
