On 15/06/2012 wombly wrote:
>ODH - too clever by half. Been taking lessons from denialists recently?
No, I've just had to listen to one too many OH+S c--kwit talking through their arse..........oh, and I can also read and think.
Those "high risk campsites" are on the pixilated edge of the next highest risk zone (i.e. not dramatically higher risk at all). This superbly scientifical study only used 12 boulders (from the last 10000yrs) as their data for camp 4. Bear in mind that every single tree in that valley will die and fall over in the time you could expect 1 or 2 more boulders to appear in camp 4. What measures do you take to avoid the risk of being squashed by any of 1000's of trees? The "high risk campsites" sound scary cause your risk of getting squashed is doubled.......but as soon as you go to the crag, your risk of getting squished is multiplied by 50 to 500 (depending which crag).
Also, I strongly suspect that if they reduced their arbitrarily decided 90% safety factor to 88% or 85%, then those campsites would be ok.
If you take into account all the risks of injury while on a climbing trip in yosemite (falling, getting killed in a storm, rockfall on the cliff, bears, car acco, etc), I suspect that this campsite closure has probably made your trip 0.001% less risky...........and all that extra safety afforded for the mere cost of having the already fuched camping situation made 20% more fuched!
On 16/06/2012 singersmith wrote:
>Actually, the Camp 4 wall and the right side of the Folly (the Good Book)
>are very notorious rockfall zones. Just down valley from camp 4 some large
>boulders crossed the bike path several years ago.
>Doug, in 2003 everyone in camp was getting sick, from both ends, and blaming
>each others cleanliness habits. Turns out there was a sewage leak under
>the toilet block.
Nice to have a sensible reply from someone who knows what they are talking about, Singer. It was in 1992 that I got so sick.
I probably felt like One Dismal Hombre seems to feel like most of the time ...
On 16/06/2012 One Day Hero wrote:
>So campsite closures are good?
I didn't say that. (Nor did I say "Oh+s people are fuching morons!") I will say though that sometimes some closures - partial or otherwise - may be, on balance, reasonable. I will also say that it's far too easy to be black and white, full on anti-establishment, but in the long run that won't get you very far.
Yeah right. And maybe we should be thankful that they even "let" us climb at all! We should be thankful that we are even alowed to live! Thank you Yosemite Ranger's who REALLY care about climbers! Im going to send a thank you note for only closing down 24 that is TWENT FOUR camping spots and not the entire campground! What heroes they are.
>I guess "relatively" is a concept relative to your POV. If the geological
>report they've had done suggests there is any chance of rockfall impinging
>on a campsite then they will close it to minimize their liability. Maybe
>we should the thankful that only a relatively small number of sites have
>Also, I strongly suspect that if they reduced their arbitrarily decided 90% safety factor >to 88% or 85%, then those campsites would be ok.
>If you take into account all the risks of injury while on a climbing trip in yosemite
>(falling, >getting killed in a storm, rockfall on the cliff, bears, car acco, etc), I suspect >that this >campsite closure has probably made your trip 0.001% less risky...........and >all that extra >safety afforded for the mere cost of having the already fuched camping >situation made >20% more fuched!
The study only took into account risk to sleeping areas, not the other bits of the park that people inhabit while they're walking/driving around, which is fairly inconsistent. From there, all it really did was rank which sleeping bits were most risky, and they closed the ones that had the most risk. I figure it's a reasonably sensible if you're trying to the risk to whatever level you're comfortable with while closing down a minimum number of accomodation spots in the valley. Can you think of a better way to achieve those goals?
As for what risks climbers are willing to take? Clearly being crushed by rockfall while sleeping in the dirt at Camp 4 is pissing in the wind when compared to other bits of a trip to the valley. Being shot by a ranger for avoiding camp fees is probably more of an issue. Closing more sites at Camp 4 is also likely to push more folk into sleeping further up in the boulders where the rockfall risk is higher. But in all of those bits the park can point to you effectively being at fault. But by charging people to camp, they're condoning the activity and thus if someone does get squished then there's a non-zero chance of their relatives suing the park for negligence.
So, rail against it all you like but you're unlikely to do anything productive. Your best argument to preserve access to drop by campsites is to argue that they're in short supply and that by closing and re-habbing the 6 sites that they can afford to make another 6 somewhere else that aren't in a rockfall zone.
>I figure it's a reasonably sensible if you're trying to the risk
>to whatever level you're comfortable with while closing down a minimum
>number of accomodation spots in the valley. Can you think of a better way
>to achieve those goals?
Yes, remove the cables from half dome. If they'd done that last year, there'd be two less dead tourists and they could leave camp 4 alone for the next 500 years without much chance of a net increase in bodycount.
>So, rail against it all you like but you're unlikely to do anything productive.
>Your best argument to preserve access to drop by campsites is to argue
>that they're in short supply and that by closing and re-habbing the 6 sites
>that they can afford to make another 6 somewhere else that aren't in a
Unfortunately you're right. However, I don't consider my lobbying power with the yosemite parks people to be worth a squirt of piss. When the inevitable impotent petition goes round, I'll add my name to it. In the meantime I think it's worthwhile pointing out how ineffective this safety measure is, despite all the sciencyness it pretends to contain.
>Yeah right. And maybe we should be thankful that they even "let" us climb
>at all! We should be thankful that we are even alowed to live! Thank you
>Yosemite Ranger's who REALLY care about climbers! Im going to send a thank
>you note for only closing down 24 that is TWENT FOUR camping spots and
>not the entire campground! What heroes they are.
Read the report crankyjohn. Now ask yourself what you would do in their situation. And don't blame the Ranger's (sic). It's not them who are responsible for the closures.
A closer look at the map, and consulting the park's page on camping at Camp 4 (http://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/camp4.htm) actually reveals that there is a total of 35 sites, not the TWENT FOUR (sic) that you quote.
I can't say if the six removed are amongst that number and that therefore the total is now twenty nine, or whether they have already been subtracted. As Wendy pointed out, there are no numbers 17 to 22 so I suspect it's the latter scenario. That leaves space for 210 campers to occupy Camp 4 at any given time.
I use the term "campers" rather than climbers because it's not the exclusive domain for climbers although it seems that many climbers seem to think they have an exclusive right to this particular bit of Yosemite Valley real estate.
Rather than have an automatic rave against anything you don't like, John, try making a difference. I put you in the same basket as One Dismal Hombre in that you both just want a whinge and will jump at whatever opportunity that presents itself. (On that point, I haven't ever heard either of you say anything positive on this forum. I apologise if I am mistaken in that observation.)
IF you care enough, take up wombly's suggestion and DO something. Start a petition. Go on Supertopo and see if you can activate others to participate. Write to YOUR representatives in Washington (I assume you have retained your U.S. citizenship). Being unhappy at the reduction in the number of sites available is understandable. I think we all feel that way. I care, but probably not as much as you. So, if you get your petition up and running I'll sign it.
You call people on this forum cranky and dismal (sic) and you also use words like rave and whinge (sic) to describe them, while maintaining this outer calm in your post even going so far as to apologise if being incorrect about your opinion of them.
well I go by how people walk there talk, I have had many face to face interactions with John and find him courteous and friendly, Damian is also friendly and if anything his forthrightness is appreciated by me and I agree with many things he says, if not always the way he says them.
but the only face to face interactions I have had with you are where you spat the dummy and lost it up in the organ pipes because I had led a route and was occupying the rappel station above it as my anchor, and you wanted to get down, I immediately rejigged and let you through even though it meant you were rappelling over the top of my seconder, and you were still angry enough to give me a stern lecture on the matter,including the use of language I felt uncomfortable with as you had your wife DI present at the time.
Just thought Id let others know your true demeanour, as the intranet can sometimes give the wrong impression of a persons true nature.
hope your having a nice trip.
yeah Rod looking forward to buff this season, i.e. school holidays.
re doug, Im sure he'll apologise to me for his indiscretions now that he is all PC
or if i'm correct then he won't
I forgive him for the past, and only bringing it up to remind him that he can also be a cranky dismal hombre at times and chill.