Climbers on Mount McKinley to be limited

[olyclimber]

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - North America's tallest mountain is getting crowded — too crowded for safety.

 

For the first time, the number of climbers allowed on the 20,320-foot Mount McKinley in Alaska will be capped at 1,500 a year beginning in 2007 — not too many more than the record 1,340 alpinists who attempted to scale the mountain last year.

 

McKinley, known locally as Denali or "the High One," is required climbing for many of the world's most serious mountaineers, who attempt to reach the summit of the highest peak on each of the seven continents. About half the climbers who attempt McKinley come from other countries, according to the National Park Service.

 

It's too late to restrict this year's climbing crowd.

 

"Whatever shows up this year, we will have to deal with. We are not prepared to turn back anybody this year," park ranger Daryl Miller said Friday.

 

The goal is safety and protecting the mountain, said Kris Fister, spokeswoman for Denali National Park and Preserve. She said all but a handful of climbers are on the mountain during a brief two-month period in May and June, and about 95 percent choose the West Buttress route to reach the top.

 

"You've got a lot of people homing in on one area of the mountain for a short period of time," Fister said.

 

Since 1903, McKinley has been attempted by 30,049 climbers and just over half have reached the summit. Ninety-five climbers have died trying, including a record 11 in 1992. Two brothers from Ohio died last year.

 

"It is amazing how the mountain just has gotten busier," Miller said.

 

The mountain also is popular because it's easy to get to compared to some others in the world — just a two-hour car ride from Anchorage and a 45-minute flight from Talkeetna to base camp at 7,200 feet.

 

Climbers typically spend 14 to 18 days on the mountain, Miller said.

 

The large number of climbers spending so much time on Denali creates another big problem: human waste.

 

"There is just a certain amount you can deal with," Miller said.

 

Normally, you would never see the pit toilet, dug 14 feet deep into the Kahiltna Glacier at the base camp, because it is "devoured by the glacier," Miller said.

 

That wasn't the case last year. For the first time, the pit toilet was visible in an August flyover of the glacier, Miller said.

 

"It melted away all the way down to 14 feet where we dug and it was sitting on top of the ice," he said. "Now, we are concerned we may have to haul human waste off at 7,200 feet."

 

Climbers are required to carry and use small toilet containers above 17,200 feet, he said.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060226/ap_on_re_us/mckinley_climbers

[ryland_moore]

I think this is a good thing. ALthough, when I climbed it in mid-May, the hordes of climbers had yet to arrive, but we saw what was ahead on our descent with the camps at 14k and 11k tripling to quadrupling in size from when we were there. Although public lands, it is amazing how easy it is to exceed an area's carrying capacity and it seems like the NPS has done a good thing along with the CMCs to keep the mountain as prisitine as possible while also keeping climbers' healths a focus.

[Squid]

What's the cap supposed to accomplish? Improve safety/reduce rescues or protect the mountain?

 

The conditions are deteriorating already, without ever having hosted that many climbers. If environmental protection were the goal, the cap would have to be set low enough to actually reduce the numbers of climbers.

 

They should just rip out the fixed lines at the 14k headwall; instead of an artificial cap on the numbers of climbers, you'd weed them out based on competence.

[ashw_justin]

Flat 1500/year limit doesn't sound very creative. Shouldn't there be route-specific, periodic restrictions? For example, "only 30 people get to camp on the West Butt route this month" or somoething like that.

[Ade]

What's the cap supposed to accomplish? Improve safety/reduce rescues or protect the mountain?

 

Actually this has nothing to do with climbing. It's to ensure that the stupidity density on the West Butt route doesn't reach critical levels. Recent research (conducted in Washington, DC) has shown a real risk of the formation of a "stupidity black hole".

[tomtom]

Recent research (conducted in Washington, DC) has shown a real risk of the formation of a "stupidity black hole".

 

Also known as cc.com.

[wfinley]

I seriously doubt the Denali Rangers just pulled the number out of tin air. Most likely the numbers have to do with the fact that more and more climbers are attempting other routes besides the West Buttress, and knowing the above, that the West Buttress can handle it's current load plus a few more people.

 

I'll be one of the first to agree that the crowds on the West Buttress can be insane at times. But that said - I've climbed the route and most likely will not climb it again. If I had not climbed the route and was told that I couldn't due to numbers I'd be pretty peeved. I imagine, as the popularity of climbing grows and equipment gets better, that down the road we will begin to see some sort of permitting process similar to what we see on rivers now (like the Grand or Selway). While that might seem like a great idea keep in mind that currently close to 80% of all users on the Grand are guided; private boaters have to wait years to get a permit.

 

As far as environmental protection -- if human waste is handled properly (which the NPS is addressing) then the route can handle a large number of people. There's nothing living up there and as long as garbage and waste is removed there is no environmental impact. Aesthetically it might suck to hang at 14 camp with 200 people, but environmentally there isn't much damage you can do to a glacier.

 

Finally RE the fixed lines. If the fixed lines were removed the first guided group heading up the route would fix lines. Because of liability issues they wouldn't let anyone else use their fixed lines. Thus every guided party would have fixed lines and most likely a number of other parties -- thus turning the headwall into a mad house. Once again - if the fixed lines bother you climb something else (however - that's not saying that there aren't fixed lines all over the place on Denali). Fixed lines might not be hip but until climbing expedition style is made illegal and routes are limited to only cool people who can go alpine style with just goo and hot tang, they'll always be around in the big mountains.

[sitandbefit]

http://themountainworld.blogspot.com/ - Here's some explanation that I came across.

 

Mainstream media jumped on the "news" that Denali National Park has established a cap of 1,500 on climbing permits for Mt. McKinley in its new Backcountry Management Plan, finalized this month. Denali has not yet seen 1,500 attempts in a season; the record was 1,340 last year, about 20 percent above the average for the 1990s. But if 2,000 climbers suddenly did apply for permits, the new cap would be a blessing (though administering it likely would be a big headache for the NPS). The West Buttress route, which most mountaineers attempt, is already severely overcrowded during peak season, diminishing the experience for everyone. A cap sucks when it keeps you off the mountain the year you want to go, but it truly is a case of being the greatest good for the greatest number.

 

Incidentally, the media have reported that one justification for the cap is safety. This may indeed have been part of the NPS rationale, but statistics don't back it up. The American Alpine Club last year produced a fascinating report on perception vs. reality in the risks and costs of mountaineering, and one section showed that while the number of attempts on Denali grew from an annual average of 751 in the 1980s to 1,240 in the first five years of this decade, the ratio of fatalities per attempt has fallen 93 percent in the same period. Along with better gear and training, the NPS' educational efforts, and better-trained and equipped rescue services, the AAC report attributes the decline in fatalities to more people on the popular routes. More clmbers in the area generally equals quicker rescue.

 

Thanks to dogged work by the AAC, Denali's final management plan is largely positive for climbers. Among other things, it caps guided climbers at 25 percent of the total on Denali, toughens human-waste standards so North America's highest peak will stay relatively clean (a big problem as warmer springs melt back glaciers, exposing god knows what), and establishes a climbing-only zone in the Little Switzerland area of the park to limit glacier landings for cruise-ship tourists.

 

Read the Denali Backcountry Mangement Plan here.

[ashw_justin]

Seriously, just cap the West Buttress, or any other route that gets out of hand.

[wfinley]

Thanks sitandbefit for the news.

 

Seriously, just cap the West Buttress, or any other route that gets out of hand.

This wouldn't work because for many an ascent (or partial ascent) of the WB acts as a training / acclimatization route for other routes. Likewise b/c of the nature of the mountain many people will often fly in hoping to do one route but end up on the WB because of conditions or other issues. If you cap users on the WB then you increase the risk involved with, say, a party that is not properly acclimatized (or physically prepared) attempting the Rib or Cassin.

[W]

However, the following scenario has been discussed:

 

Suppose a party goes to attempt a remote route on Denali, such as the South Buttress, East Buttress, etc, and perhaps they have no plans to carry over, hence they would never set foot on the Kahiltna/West Buttress. On such routes, these parties likely won't see a single other party, climbing as they are in totally remote areas. Is it fair to tell them they can't climb because the other side of the mountain is crowded?

 

I am fairly sure the NPS has at least considered this issue, but not sure if it plays in here...

[ashw_justin]

 

This wouldn't work because for many an ascent (or partial ascent) of the WB acts as a training / acclimatization route for other routes.

 

 

 

Fine, knock down the number of folks allowed to attept West Buttress as a summit route then. I've never been up there, so it's possible I have no idea what I'm talking about. But it sounds like there are just too many dog-route sloggers on the mountain.

[Stefan]

I wonder what input Mr. Guathier had into this decision. After all Mr. Rainier has caps on people. And so I would think that the Denali management team would want to seek opinions of people who have more experience at caps on a heavily travelled mountain.

 

I wonder if the caps are only between two months? I can't see any caps for people who want to climb Denali from September to March.

[wfinley]

But it sounds like there are just too many dog-route sloggers on the mountain.

Too many people rag on the WB. It's a beautiful route in a beautiful setting and hundreds of people every year have a wonderful experience on the route. If you're too cool to do it that's great, but don't rag on a quality route.

 

Besides - where else can you wake up on a glacier at 14,000' to speedo sun bathing Germans lounging next door?

 

When you do the WB it is assumed that you'll be with hundreds of people (people who don't know this - and I've met many of them at KAH - are usually clueless). If it's not unsafe and if it's not environmentally harmful then why argue for fewer numbers? If the crowds bother you there are thousands of other mountains in Alaska where you won't see a soul.

 

PS - Just out of curiosity - how many people climb Ranier in the summer months?

[ryland_moore]

Agreed. Ashw_justin, like you said, you've never been there, so you really have no basis for opinion. I climbed the WB in 2003 in mid-May and have to say it was more beautiful then any climbs in the N. Cascades, Tetons, Mexico, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, or Argentina that I've done. There is just nothing like it in the world. And if you think you can walk up Denali like you can the Emmons, then by all means, go for it. I've been alot higher than 20,320' before and that was the hardest "dog route" I've ever summitted.

 

When we were up there Barry Blanchard and crew used the WB to summit for their acclimation for the Cassin, so limiting WB summit permits wouldn't work either. Also, the NPS is doing a lot to keep the mountain clean, but there are still people who disobey and will leave crap and trash on the mountain. It is not a perfect world. The more people, the more trash and crap. Tell someone who is pinned down at 14k or 17k for a week with 60 mph winds and temps -30 to go shit in a pit and see how many out of a few hundred at 14k will do so. When you are worried for your own safety, which can often happen on Denali, WB included, then the last thing on your mind is that you make sure you get your CMC business all taken care of or that you make sure you dig up your cache of trash before you sprint to lower elevations to escape with your life. We had a lot of people when we were there and it wasn't even peak season. Adding another 300 people is a lot. If you do not plan at least 6 months in advance, it makes sense that you shouldn't be going in the first place or just wait until next year. The mountain isn't going anywhere. Our society is so self-centered and about instant gratification. This is one instance where the greatest good is not about you, but about one of the most beautiful places in the world remaining just that.

 

As for people attempting other routes like South Side, I am sure the NPS will have unwritten exceptions. Also, a question posed earlier, the total number is not for a two month window, but for the entire year. The tally starts running on January 1, I assume. There will never be all 1,500 people on the mountain at the same time. I would suspect if that would be the case, they would have to reduce the limit even further. Just having 400-500 people on the mountain at the same time is a lot.

[ashw_justin]

Yeah actually you're right. I change my stance. I'd be happy if all of the peakbaggers would lose interest in climbing Washington volcanoes, and all go spend 3 or 4 weeks trying to climb Denali instead.