Is the park service really debating about putting a rail or chain to assist at the last rap in Pine??? You’re kidding me if that’s the case. I could only imagine one of us ‘non-park’ personnel getting hurt, which has happened and the park service puts in some sort of safety gear. I didn’t hear anything when the guy fell to his death in Heaps about putting in safety gear so you don’t fall off. What gives? Am I missing something here?? I agree with Hank Moon. If they do, and I hope they don’t it will lend to the whole idea to dumb americans that the National Parks are indeed ‘Parks’ where “safety is guaranteed on all park endevours, rides and attractions”. -Joe DeSalme
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “hank moon”
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 8:10 PM, Tom Jones
Creek does not need a ‘permanent’ sling, chain, hand-rail, child-
proof railing or other unnatural device to assist the unsaavy.
Approximate 3000 people do Pine Creek each year.
Nor does the rap at Mystery Falls. Nor do many other raps in Mystery > and elsewhere in the park (counting bolts as “unnatural device to > assist…”). One might argue they help produce a false sense of > security to those who may or may not know how to rig a proper traverse > line or inspect an anchor.
The arch: you mean the one just back from the edge? It’s too close to > the edge to safeguard the approach to the rap anchor. If you mean > another arch, please share that info with the group?
hank >
adkramoo
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, jef levin wrote: > — In Yahoo Canyons Group, ” adkramoo@…> wrote:
> Different Ryan (we have at least 3 Ryans out this way). I haven’t had the pleasure of meeting Ryan Hull yet. I sent her a complete newbie (to canyoneering, although a strong caver) instead.
Big Ryan also attended.
Haven’t heard yet, but I’m sure he got hooked with that combo..
They had quite the adventure I heard. Some stories to come soon, I hope.
> You ought to come out here yourself and check out some of our canyons – lots of good new stuff getting discovered! > – Jef
Oh how I would love to. Stevee and I did a High Sierra trip 2-3 years back in September. Then went to Zion. Should have stayed in the Sierra! If I can get my GM to stop going to Sturgis, biking every August, I would be there in a heartbeat. Some time soon, I hope and thanx for the offer. R
jef levin
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, ” adkramoo@aol.com…> wrote:
I agree. The less “stuff” out there the better. The less confusion the better. BTW Jef, thank you for pointing my friend and partner Ryan Hull toward Michelle and the Upper and Lower Jump combo they are doing this weekend as an overnight. If you get the chance to get out with Ryan, I strongly recommend it. The world is a safer and more fun place wherever Ryan is. Cheers Ram
Different Ryan (we have at least 3 Ryans out this way). I haven’t had the pleasure of meeting Ryan Hull yet. I sent her a complete newbie (to canyoneering, although a strong caver) instead. Haven’t heard yet, but I’m sure he got hooked with that combo.. You ought to come out here yourself and check out some of our canyons – lots of good new stuff getting discovered! – Jef – Jef
bruce silliman
As the facilitator for a few Pine Creek sojourns, I’ve attempted to make it safe to get on rappel by putting myself on a safety sling around the arch and then having others use me as their safety while connecting to the sling. I’ve also strung a safety line which we anchored somewhere back up that narrow break in the rock. Either of these methods works and seems like that is what the more experienced are supposed to do – assist those with less experience in the canyons.
And Ram, I hate that one rappel in Spry where you have to fall against that wall to get yourself on safety.
bruce from bryce
To: canyons@yahoogroups.comFrom: ratagonia@gmail.comDate: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 02:28:27 +0000Subject: [from Canyons Group] Re: Accident in Pine Creek
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “beadysee” wrote:>> Its a tough call. That last rappel is super exposed, but, so are > a bunch of those types of rappels in canyons in the park. I guess > part of the problem with its location is that there isn’t a big, > natural anchor just uphill from the staging area. You kinda just > wander on the slabs over to it. Then, lean out and clip and/or > rig into the rappel station. Although, with some saavy foresight, > and, the availability of an extra rope, you could probably easily > rig an anchor from something in the area to protect folks from > slipping off that stance. Wouldn’t need a bolt to do that.> You mean, other than the rather conspicuous natural arch once you are close to the anchor?Agreed, the wandering across the slabs, and corner downclimb to get to the perch are somewhat exposed – but they are also pretty darn easy. Reaching out to clip the anchor – very exposed – I expect most people rig a safety sling off the arch (but, my expectations have escaped fulfillment before…).Tom
_______________ Your PC, mobile phone, and online services work together like never before. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/108587394/direct/01/
Tom Jones
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “larsmpeterson” wrote:
If an additional anchor is placed back from the ledge to allow > easier/safer access to the rap station, what is to keep a group of > newbies from just rapping from the farther back anchor and skipping the > intended rappel point entirely?
Lars >
A desire to recover their rope?
T
A.J.
More training gets my vote. You can clip a safety line in pretty easily on the existing bolt anchor. There are also plenty of natural anchors available to those uncomfortable; and a meat anchor works extremely well in the notch that goes down to the anchor point…
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, WB wrote:
Hasn’t the last drop in Pine Creek already been “improved” with more > bolts a few years ago? > Guess it’s time to make it better again with even more bolts. > A few more years and there will be a call for more or different bolts > I predict.
-Bill
> On Aug 3, 2008, at 4:01 PM, hank moon wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 3:11 PM, beadysee wrote:
> I wouldn’t place one, nor would I probably chop one if it were
> added. Would I use it? Yeah, I’d probably clip it. Just not that
> bolt averse, I suppose.
This is pretty much how I feel about it – put my vote down for this
stance. >
Tom Jones
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “beadysee” wrote:
I’m not sure what the current configuration of the anchor is right > now. Two bolts connected by webbing or some such, to a single > rapide (or two)?
Lower bolt is a glue-in. The upper bolt is over the top, and a 1/2″ x 3-3/4″ Powersbolt. Connected by webbing which, of course, is constantly changing. Easy to get on rappel when the webbing is short and tight – harder when it is long.
Originally, had chain between the upper and lower, but the chain was beating up the rock very quickly, so replaced it with webbing – which gets re-rigged and added to on a regular basis.
The glue-in is usually pretty easy to clip something in to, if it is not stuffed full of 4 or 5 pieces of 1″ tubular.
Tom
Tom Jones
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “beadysee” wrote:
Its a tough call. That last rappel is super exposed, but, so are > a bunch of those types of rappels in canyons in the park. I guess > part of the problem with its location is that there isn’t a big, > natural anchor just uphill from the staging area. You kinda just > wander on the slabs over to it. Then, lean out and clip and/or > rig into the rappel station. Although, with some saavy foresight, > and, the availability of an extra rope, you could probably easily > rig an anchor from something in the area to protect folks from > slipping off that stance. Wouldn’t need a bolt to do that. > You mean, other than the rather conspicuous natural arch once you are close to the anchor?
Agreed, the wandering across the slabs, and corner downclimb to get to the perch are somewhat exposed – but they are also pretty darn easy. Reaching out to clip the anchor – very exposed – I expect most people rig a safety sling off the arch (but, my expectations have escaped fulfillment before…).
Tom
WB
Hasn’t the last drop in Pine Creek already been “improved” with more bolts a few years ago? Guess it’s time to make it better again with even more bolts. A few more years and there will be a call for more or different bolts I predict.
-Bill
On Aug 3, 2008, at 4:01 PM, hank moon wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 3:11 PM, beadysee beadysee@yahoo.com> wrote: >> I wouldn’t place one, nor would I probably chop one if it were >> added. Would I use it? Yeah, I’d probably clip it. Just not that >> bolt averse, I suppose.
This is pretty much how I feel about it – put my vote down for this > stance.
hank moon
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 3:11 PM, beadysee beadysee@yahoo.com> wrote: > I wouldn’t place one, nor would I probably chop one if it were > added. Would I use it? Yeah, I’d probably clip it. Just not that > bolt averse, I suppose.
This is pretty much how I feel about it – put my vote down for this stance.
adkramoo
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “beadysee” wrote: > I dunno. I might be kinda glad it wasn’t me who moved the original > bolt station over to that more exposed spot, though. Folks that do > that kind of public service (along with bolt chopping) ought to > consider the consequences of their actions a bit more in light of > this accident.
Tough call. Its not like this is set up like that 30 footer in Spry where you got to reach WAY out there. Its just a little lean and the advantages it provides are many. Those rope grooves were massive off the old way. And I don’t know how many folks go back enough years to when ropes were 50m standard. We knew no block techniques and we used to do the thing on two 50m dynamic ropes and the pull was murder from the arch area. Even after 60m ropes became the standard and it could be done with a single rope doubled up, the pull from the arch area was a destructive workout. The new location is clean as can be. Also, if I recall, getting over the edge from the arch area was a super pain. I used to sit down to slip over that edge and saw many a pinched hand getting on. Way better now. What do you do? I suppose wait until we find out just what happen (if we ever do). Maybe the cause of the accident is something else.
I do remember that this was the site of my first single rope descent, a long time back. And the only time I ever lost control. From about 30 feet up. Compressed the back a bit. Was uncomfortable for about 3 days of canyons after. led to learning to add more friction before hand…. going with 2 biners sometimes, use of a glove etc. Static ropes and an extra biner on the harness came later, due to the education I got from this forum. To which I say thank you. Thank you very much for those lessons and many others. Careful out there. R
beadysee
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Tom Jones” wrote: > Would it be a good idea to add an additional anchor to that > platform, to provide a convenient, conspicuous place for rappellers > to clip their safety to, whilst setting up their rappel???
I wouldn’t place one, nor would I probably chop one if it were added. Would I use it? Yeah, I’d probably clip it. Just not that bolt averse, I suppose.
Its a tough call. That last rappel is super exposed, but, so are a bunch of those types of rappels in canyons in the park. I guess part of the problem with its location is that there isn’t a big, natural anchor just uphill from the staging area. You kinda just wander on the slabs over to it. Then, lean out and clip and/or rig into the rappel station. Although, with some saavy foresight, and, the availability of an extra rope, you could probably easily rig an anchor from something in the area to protect folks from slipping off that stance. Wouldn’t need a bolt to do that.
Kinda agree with someone who posted above that if you add a station or bolt anchor to protect the move into the stance, then, you’ll have folks rig it for rappels, too, since it’d be less exposed and less scary to rig from in the first place. Might become a bit of a mess and confusing to first time Pine Creekers.
I dunno. I might be kinda glad it wasn’t me who moved the original bolt station over to that more exposed spot, though. Folks that do that kind of public service (along with bolt chopping) ought to consider the consequences of their actions a bit more in light of this accident.
Sad deal. Not much chance for a recovery if you slip right there. If that’s what happened, its unreal that someone survived that fall.
There’s a ton of that kinda of terrain in Zion. I can’t imagine having to sign or put some type of chain or fencing to keep folks from slipping over these precipices. An emphasis to be careful in steep terrain is a good reminder for all of us.
I’m not sure what the current configuration of the anchor is right now. Two bolts connected by webbing or some such, to a single rapide (or two)? I’ve become a fan of the Fixe and Faders chain anchors. One is an upper hanger with a chain down to a lower hanger with a ring. Easy to grab into the chain and clip. I know Fixe makes some custom rigs for folks, like, adding two rings or a double ring lower hanger with an upper hanger and chain down to the lower rings. This anchor might be a good candidate for something like that, as, it’d give folks something easy to clip before rigging a rappel, rather than not “seeing” an easy clip in and then just proceeding to the rappel riggging, sans anchoring in.
My dream anchor is an upper hanger with a chain down to a single ring, which is connected to a lower hanger with a double ring. So, two rings for redundancy to rappel from, a large ring off the hanger to clip into, and a chain from the upper hanger to connect and back up the lower hanger, as well as something to hang onto and even clip into if need be.
Cheers,
-Brian in SLC
gajslk
Consider how the NPS might go about ensuring this: To establish competence, attend a 9am – 5pm Monday class. On Tuesday you must pass a written exam and a skills test. In addition, each applicant must lead a group of rangers through a canyon to demonstrate their competence and leadership ability. Trips must take place M-F between 9am and 5pm and must be scheduled at least a week in advance. The final trip could not be scheduled prior to passing the written and skills tests. There would, of course, be a substantial fee to cover the cost of the program. The certificate of competence would be good for one year at which time the written test, skills test, and leadership test must be repeated. If demand exceeded capacity, a lottery system would determine who is admitted to each given class. Any group of people with suspicious-looking packs would be required to produce the requisite number of certificates whenever challenged by a ranger, even if they’re not actually in a canyon, entering one, or leaving one. Permits would not be issued for any canyon unless the certificate holders are present, with photo identification.
I’m not even sure that the system would be this good, given the history of the permit system.
I know that some people are comfortable with much higher levels of risk than I am. I’m not willing to limit their freedom in order to increase my own comfort level. Anyone can fall, at any drop. No set of government regulations can change this reality. A marginal increase in safety isn’t worth the pain.
It’s impossible to make any system fool-proof because fools are so infernally clever.
I may be coming across as argumentative, but I actually agree: each group *should* have two competent people – a recommendation, not a requirement. My own preference is to take at most one FNG(who has done a day of vertical training with me or someone I trust) and have everyone else keeping an eye on them, but I’m hopelessly conservative. I run my own trips this way because I want them to be fun and relaxing. If someone wants to do trips as a push the envelope experience, that’s their decision to make, not mine.
Gordon
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, bruce silliman wrote:
Therefore, I believe that a minimum of two people, well versed in >canyoneering techniques, should be in every group of six people. It >provides a second person to bounce ideas off and should the primary >’leader’ be incapacitated, the group could continue to finish the >canyon.
Need I pose the question but, “What do others think about this?
bruce from bryce >
adkramoo
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, jef levin wrote: > I would vote NO. If we were to install extra hardware every time someone gets hurt, I’d hate to picture how the canyons will eventually look. Better to work on educating people to the importance of clipping in before getting on rap, and in this case can be done without adding more hardware. > – Jef
> Posted by: “Tom Jones” ratagonia@… ratagonia > People – YEAH or NAY?? > Tom
I agree. The less “stuff” out there the better. The less confusion the better. BTW Jef, thank you for pointing my friend and partner Ryan Hull toward Michelle and the Upper and Lower Jump combo they are doing this weekend as an overnight. If you get the chance to get out with Ryan, I strongly recommend it. The world is a safer and more fun place wherever Ryan is. Cheers Ram
jef levin
I would vote NO. If we were to install extra hardware every time someone gets hurt, I’d hate to picture how the canyons will eventually look. Better to work on educating people to the importance of clipping in before getting on rap, and in this case can be done without adding more hardware. – Jef
Posted by: “Tom Jones” ratagonia@gmail.com ratagonia
People – YEAH or NAY??
Tom
larsmpeterson
If an additional anchor is placed back from the ledge to allow easier/safer access to the rap station, what is to keep a group of newbies from just rapping from the farther back anchor and skipping the intended rappel point entirely?
Lars
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Tom Jones” wrote:
to my knowledge, the Park is not debating such matters – but Ron and > I were having a gentle discussion, and perhaps others might weigh > in.
Would it be a good idea to add an additional anchor to that > platform, to provide a convenient, conspicuous place for rappellers > to clip their safety to, whilst setting up their rappel???
Tom
Tom Jones
There is a long history of parties of 12 with NO competent persons successfully negotiating Pine Creek’s watery maw.
T
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, bruce silliman wrote:
> I think it goes back to what the info commercial the park sent out with the announcement about the accident, “…at least one person should be familiar with canyoneering techniques…”. That person should be the one out there in harms way setting up a safety line for those less competent and those that are unsure of themselves (there is a difference). That way, as the “leader”, they are taking charge of their flock of people to ensure that at least they have the opportunity to get on rappel safely. Which brings us to a point I was holding off on mentioning i.e. span of control.
With a group limit of 12 what would prevent someone taking 11 newbies into the canyon. That is entirely too many. If there were 2 competent canyoneers then the SOC would be 6 and in some instances that could be too many. The level of competence also would play a factor on how many one person could monitor. The Emperor can easily handle 5 others but if one of those turns out to be a ‘Lone Ranger’ then other factors come into play. Therefore, I believe that a minimum of two people, well versed in canyoneering techniques, should be in every group of six people. It provides a second person to bounce ideas off and should the primary ‘leader’ be incapacitated, the group could continue to finish the canyon.
Need I pose the question but, “What do others think about this?
bruce from bryce
> To: canyons@…: ratagonia@…: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 01:40:24 +0000Subject: [from Canyons Group] Re: Accident in Pine Creek
> Several people die each year, hiking Angel’s Landing. Does not the availability of chains tempt them into making the trek? If there were no chains, and no carved steps, and it was once again a 3rd/4th class ridge climb, would not there be fewer deaths? Rhetorical…There might be fewer deaths, but their might not. We cannot return to pre-1926 conditions, so it is just a mind game. Certainly, I think we can agree, that there are many, MANY people that enjoy the hike to Angels Landing each year, and it is nice that they can do so, thanks to the 1926 trail builders.Lady Mountain? I could see it either way, but maybe one Angels Landing is enough.2000 – 3000 people go through Pine Creek every year. This is the first time I have heard of someone falling off the last rappel – though many have made the ride to the ground faster than they really intended, while on rope (and perhaps Kaitlin did too, hard to say from the reports to date). Maybe we have just been lucky. I claim that the natural safety-line anchor is plenty obvious even for people with limited saavy to figure out. Evidence – see above.As always, I fully support YOUR right to install, for example, a well- placed bolt anchor a few feet back from the rappel anchor for a safety line clip-in point. A glue-in might be a good choice for minimum visual impact, maximum chop-proofness and it also has a good chance of being less likely to be tied into the main anchor with a bunch of colorful slings. Are you lobbying here for votes in favor? People – YEAH or NAY??TomTom— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Ron Graham” wrote:>> Mostly agree with you, Tom, but:
Old chains on Lady Mountain: glad they’re gone!
Chains on Angels Landing: probably saved a life or two.
Likewise, permanent safety lines (or even bolts where any natural > anchors exist) on nearly every canyon in Zion: absolutely not!
A line from discreet bolts on that rap to discourage newbies from > riggin their own on natural formations or slipping over the edge > without a belay: just might be worth a second thought.
> _______________ > Reveal your inner athlete and share it with friends on Windows Live. > http://revealyourinnerathlete.windowslive.com?locale=en- us&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WLYIA_whichathlete_us
>
bruce silliman
I think it goes back to what the info commercial the park sent out with the announcement about the accident, “…at least one person should be familiar with canyoneering techniques…”. That person should be the one out there in harms way setting up a safety line for those less competent and those that are unsure of themselves (there is a difference). That way, as the “leader”, they are taking charge of their flock of people to ensure that at least they have the opportunity to get on rappel safely. Which brings us to a point I was holding off on mentioning i.e. span of control.
With a group limit of 12 what would prevent someone taking 11 newbies into the canyon. That is entirely too many. If there were 2 competent canyoneers then the SOC would be 6 and in some instances that could be too many. The level of competence also would play a factor on how many one person could monitor. The Emperor can easily handle 5 others but if one of those turns out to be a ‘Lone Ranger’ then other factors come into play. Therefore, I believe that a minimum of two people, well versed in canyoneering techniques, should be in every group of six people. It provides a second person to bounce ideas off and should the primary ‘leader’ be incapacitated, the group could continue to finish the canyon.
Need I pose the question but, “What do others think about this?
bruce from bryce
To: canyons@yahoogroups.comFrom: ratagonia@gmail.comDate: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 01:40:24 +0000Subject: [from Canyons Group] Re: Accident in Pine Creek
Several people die each year, hiking Angel’s Landing. Does not the availability of chains tempt them into making the trek? If there were no chains, and no carved steps, and it was once again a 3rd/4th class ridge climb, would not there be fewer deaths?Rhetorical…There might be fewer deaths, but their might not. We cannot return to pre-1926 conditions, so it is just a mind game. Certainly, I think we can agree, that there are many, MANY people that enjoy the hike to Angels Landing each year, and it is nice that they can do so, thanks to the 1926 trail builders.Lady Mountain? I could see it either way, but maybe one Angels Landing is enough.2000 – 3000 people go through Pine Creek every year. This is the first time I have heard of someone falling off the last rappel – though many have made the ride to the ground faster than they really intended, while on rope (and perhaps Kaitlin did too, hard to say from the reports to date). Maybe we have just been lucky. I claim that the natural safety-line anchor is plenty obvious even for people with limited saavy to figure out. Evidence – see above.As always, I fully support YOUR right to install, for example, a well-placed bolt anchor a few feet back from the rappel anchor for a safety line clip-in point. A glue-in might be a good choice for minimum visual impact, maximum chop-proofness and it also has a good chance of being less likely to be tied into the main anchor with a bunch of colorful slings. Are you lobbying here for votes in favor?People – YEAH or NAY??TomTom— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Ron Graham” wrote:>> Mostly agree with you, Tom, but:
Old chains on Lady Mountain: glad they’re gone!
Chains on Angels Landing: probably saved a life or two.
Likewise, permanent safety lines (or even bolts where any natural > anchors exist) on nearly every canyon in Zion: absolutely not!
A line from discreet bolts on that rap to discourage newbies from > riggin their own on natural formations or slipping over the edge > without a belay: just might be worth a second thought.>
_______________ Reveal your inner athlete and share it with friends on Windows Live. http://revealyourinnerathlete.windowslive.com?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WLYIA_whichathlete_us
Kurt
And how many “canyoneers” who go through Pine Cr. might even have a tether? My guess considering the canyon would be–not many. I think after any accident our tendancies turn to fixing things that were never broke. —– Original Message —– From: Tom Jones To: Yahoo Canyons Group Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2008 9:22 PM Subject: [from Canyons Group] Re: Accident in Pine Creek
to my knowledge, the Park is not debating such matters – but Ron and I were having a gentle discussion, and perhaps others might weigh in.
Would it be a good idea to add an additional anchor to that platform, to provide a convenient, conspicuous place for rappellers to clip their safety to, whilst setting up their rappel???
Tom
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “canyoncrazy” wrote: > > > Is the park service really debating about putting a rail or chain to > assist at the last rap in Pine??? You’re kidding me if that’s the > case. > I could only imagine one of us ‘non-park’ personnel getting hurt, > which has happened and the park service puts in some sort of safety > gear. > I didn’t hear anything when the guy fell to his death in Heaps about > putting in safety gear so you don’t fall off. > What gives? Am I missing something here?? > I agree with Hank Moon. > If they do, and I hope they don’t it will lend to the whole idea to > dumb americans that the National Parks are indeed ‘Parks’ > where “safety is guaranteed on all park endevours, rides and > attractions”. > -Joe DeSalme > > > > > > — In Yahoo Canyons Group, “hank moon” wrote:
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 8:10 PM, Tom Jones wrote:
I propose Pine
> Creek does not need a ‘permanent’ sling, chain, hand-rail, child-
> proof railing or other unnatural device to assist the unsaavy.
> Approximate 3000 people do Pine Creek each year.
Nor does the rap at Mystery Falls. Nor do many other raps in > Mystery
and elsewhere in the park (counting bolts as “unnatural device to
assist…”). One might argue they help produce a false sense of
security to those who may or may not know how to rig a proper > traverse
line or inspect an anchor.
The arch: you mean the one just back from the edge? It’s too close > to
the edge to safeguard the approach to the rap anchor. If you mean
another arch, please share that info with the group?
hank
>
————
Teach InfoWest Spam Trap if this mail is spam: Spam Not spam Forget previous vote
REMEMBER: Never give out your account information, password, or other personal information over e-mail.
Tom Jones
to my knowledge, the Park is not debating such matters – but Ron and I were having a gentle discussion, and perhaps others might weigh in.
Would it be a good idea to add an additional anchor to that platform, to provide a convenient, conspicuous place for rappellers to clip their safety to, whilst setting up their rappel???
Tom
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “canyoncrazy” wrote:
> Is the park service really debating about putting a rail or chain to > assist at the last rap in Pine??? You’re kidding me if that’s the > case. > I could only imagine one of us ‘non-park’ personnel getting hurt, > which has happened and the park service puts in some sort of safety > gear. > I didn’t hear anything when the guy fell to his death in Heaps about > putting in safety gear so you don’t fall off. > What gives? Am I missing something here?? > I agree with Hank Moon. > If they do, and I hope they don’t it will lend to the whole idea to > dumb americans that the National Parks are indeed ‘Parks’ > where “safety is guaranteed on all park endevours, rides and > attractions”. > -Joe DeSalme
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “hank moon” wrote:
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 8:10 PM, Tom Jones wrote:
I propose Pine
> Creek does not need a ‘permanent’ sling, chain, hand-rail, child-
> proof railing or other unnatural device to assist the unsaavy.
> Approximate 3000 people do Pine Creek each year.
Nor does the rap at Mystery Falls. Nor do many other raps in > Mystery
and elsewhere in the park (counting bolts as “unnatural device to
assist…”). One might argue they help produce a false sense of
security to those who may or may not know how to rig a proper > traverse
line or inspect an anchor.
The arch: you mean the one just back from the edge? It’s too close > to
the edge to safeguard the approach to the rap anchor. If you mean
another arch, please share that info with the group?
hank
>