Cloud Ladder Via Ferrata The Future!

PAT: "What is the specific, clear hangup here? ( to VF)

Opposition isn't to VF. It is site specific, and varies.

Opposition in Lander, WY, has to do with falcon nesting locations at the proposed site, attracting more people to a relatively small narrow canyon, and the process which seemed a little backroomish at times. The most vocal opponents don't like the environment impact. Most supporters are promoting industrial tourism, including more climbers. Turning Lander into a bigger tourist trap and Sinks Canyon into an overrun climbing / tourist destination is the goal (Lander's really trying). All about the money.

Obviously, some people dislike the over-commercialization of public lands especially as they get further away from their natural state, and as lease holders remove free or affordable access.

Commercialization of public lands for industrial tourism is a gateway drug to taxing authorities, and the business community. A select few pad their pockets while the rest deal with the negative sides effects.

Philip Magistro wrote:

Part of the issue here is the high cost of installing a via ferrata.  I'm not sure who bears the burden of installation and maintenance for free VF routes in Europe, but knowing the developers of the ones in EP, I can say that the cost is out of line with what a recreational first ascensionist is likely willing to pay to create an experience for others. 

Also, there is the issue of ethics.  VF requires significant modification to the rock: prohibited in wilderness and frowned upon even by bolting proponents in many areas open to drilling.  

So if someone invests many thousands Of dollars and builds a relationship with landowners, should they then offer free access?

In Europe public monies are often used because they bring in tourists. The same goes for bolt replacement at crags. They see it as tourist infrastructure the same as a hiking trail.

I am sure not I understand your about your comment on ethics (the designated wilderness aside). There is not much difference other than rungs being more visible than bolts.

The reason that European ski lifts are so cheap is because they are everywhere.  The reason that US ski lifts are so expensive is that it’s really hard to get another ski area approved and built so we effectively have a limited resource with a growing demand.  It’s basic economics.  I wish we could build more ski areas (especially in western Washington) and get the costs down so it’s affordable to normal people again.

As for VFs, I don’t fundamentally see them as being any different than any climbing wall that has been pruned, scrubbed, bolted, and guide booked.  The work is being done and advertised for someone’s benefit.  A VF is on the same continuum as all other climbing walls but it’s pretty far towards one end of the continuum.  I’m not here to draw an arbitrary line on the continuum nor am I here to tell someone that they stand on the wrong side of my non-existent arbitrary line.

Jason4Too wrote:

The reason that US ski lifts are so expensive is that it’s really hard to get another ski area approved and built so we effectively have a limited resource with a growing demand.  It’s basic economics.  

If the resource is so limited, why is Chamonix more crowded than Steamboat? Either you're right or Daniel is. So which is it?

I wish you luck with that. Daniel is willing to "nawmsayin" his own post. It's hard to convince someone who high-fives himself that he's wrong. 

JonasMR wrote:

If the resource is so limited, why is Chamonix more crowded than Steamboat? Either you're right or Daniel is. So which is it?

I wish you luck with that. Daniel is willing to "nawmsayin" his own post. It's hard to convince someone who high-fives himself that he's wrong. 

I just be looking for those sweet thumbs, bruh. Never miss a chance to try and dunk on Europe, a place I've never been. Ready and willing to take it seriously.

Teton Climber wrote:

PAT: "What is the specific, clear hangup here? ( to VF)

Opposition isn't to VF. It is site specific, and varies.

Opposition in Lander, WY, has to do with falcon nesting locations at the proposed site, attracting more people to a relatively small narrow canyon, and the process which seemed a little backroomish at times. The most vocal opponents don't like the environment impact. Most supporters are promoting industrial tourism, including more climbers. Turning Lander into a bigger tourist trap and Sinks Canyon into an overrun climbing / tourist destination is the goal (Lander's really trying). All about the money.

Obviously, some people dislike the over-commercialization of public lands especially as they get further away from their natural state, and as lease holders remove free or affordable access.

Commercialization of public lands for industrial tourism is a gateway drug to taxing authorities, and the business community. A select few pad their pockets while the rest deal with the negative sides effects.

Sport climbing is "industrial tourism". I love it!

JonasMR wrote:

If the resource is so limited, why is Chamonix more crowded than Steamboat? Either you're right or Daniel is. So which is it?

I wish you luck with that. Daniel is willing to "nawmsayin" his own post. It's hard to convince someone who high-fives himself that he's wrong. 

Because there are 31 other ski areas in Colorado if you don't like the crowd at Steamboat?  My personal perspective is based on the PNW where we effectively have 4 ski areas that serve the Seattle metro area: Crystal, Stevens Pass, Snoqualmie Pass, and Mt. Baker.  There's literally no pressure to reduce the lift ticket prices since all 4 areas regularly run out of available parking space before they are beyond lift capacity.

Also, the majority of skiers at places like Steamboat, Vail, etc. aren't paying full lift ticket prices because they're using season passes. If you're paying ~$800 for a season pass, you only need to get 8 days in a season to bring the price down to $100/day. If you're getting 20 days a season, it's down to a very reasonable $40/day. The mega-pass companies (Vail and Alterra) adopted this pricing strategy (cheap season pass, expensive day tickets) to incentivize people to buy season passes, which leads them to travel to destination resorts. That's where the companies are making their real money, in hospitality and food/drink sales.

Regarding ski lift tix, another difference is that in the US, the lifts are owned by the ski area and used exclusively (with some exceptions) for ski access whereas in Europe the lifts are usually privately owned and also used extensively for public transport. IOW, entirely different income and economic models are at work.

I had to laugh at the article's mention of Keith Lober (who is apparently co-owner of this thing).  We used to call him "Loberman" as in Doberman Pincher... he was a cop back in the 90s in Yosemite, though the article claims he was "head of YOSAR" at some point?  Maybe after Dill retired.

He was widely hated by the YOSAR folks.  Maybe he's mellowed out now that he's building croquet courses.

Tradiban wrote:

Sport climbing is "industrial tourism". I love it!

Don't worry, you'll grow out of it.

Teton Climber wrote:

Don't worry, you'll grow out of it.

Haha I doubt it.

Most climbers are basically on the tourist level nowadays, not you or me of course, but most.

Tradiban wrote:

Haha I doubt it.

Most climbers are basically on the tourist level nowadays, not you or me of course, but most.

Really? You work in a gym. Talk about tourist.

Parachute Adams wrote:

Really? You work in a gym. Talk about tourist.

Lol. I don't work in a gym.

tour·ist

noun

1.

a person who is traveling or visiting a place for pleasure

Obviously this is only the literal definition, a "tourist" is a certain type of traveller, often despised by locals. I think climbing has jumped the shark!

In the case of our community both locals and non-locals are participants in the "tourist" activity, I think this might explain some of the strife we've been seeing lately.

I think it would be fun to go and poach this "route"/climb/whatever one early morning and see what all the fuss is about. What do you think the worst legal penalty would be - trespassing?

Maybe the fine would be cheaper than the legit cost of doing it???

Maybe you'd help give climbers a bad reputation?

I was joking. I have no intention of climbing this via ferrata, as a paying customer or not. I’m not even on the same continent anyway. And… I would not encourage anyone else to do anything illegal. There are plenty of other fun options in this world… like actual rock climbing, for example. 

The climber in me looks at all of the rock surrounding these ladder rungs and thinks that it looks like some nice 5.11 climbing that will never be born now. 

Does anyone know where exactly in Estes Park this contraption is?

John RB wrote:

Does anyone know where exactly in Estes Park this contraption is?

Did you Google <Cloud Ladder Via Ferrata> ?

https://kentmountain.com/programs/advanced-via-ferrata/

That page refers to Deville Rocks, which Googleing leads to: https://www.mountainproject.com/area/105744349/deville-rocks