Capitol's Death Route

[EZsummits]

Do the rangers have to work on shifts in order to carry out a 10 to 15-minute conversation with hikers? That may not be practical since people start hiking at any time in a 24-hour timeframe.

I'm not saying this is the right solution, but it would help more people than a sign if we are worried about saving lives. People would need to get permits in advance, like the day before.

[rpdawes]

I agree.

[MountainMetaphor]

Good post. I think it helps explain some of the fatalities on Capitol this summer. As Nick (Somewhat of a Prick) pointed out, anyone who does their homework knows that isn't a route. It used to be that people wouldn't even consider attempting Capitol until they had 30 or 40 14ers under their belt. I'm trying to understand what is different this summer, that hikers with limited 14er experience are being drawn to Capitol Peak?

Here's an account (paraphrased) someone gave me of his first ascent up Capitol (it might answer your question):

"I didn't know anything about 14ers and had just moved to Colorado when I and a few buddies went camping to Capitol Lake. I saw all these people continuing up to a ridge just before the lake and I thought, 'Heh! Wonder where they're going?' So I put on my sneakers, took a water bottle, no pack, and followed a group of people up and kept following them until I climbed to the summit of Capitol."

He clearly expected me to be impressed. I was not. I asked him, "Did you ever look back on that day and think, 'Damn, I can't believe I did that?'"

He answered, "Nah, I've climbed much harder peaks since then."

I think some people just have very low risk aversion, and so it doesn't faze them to encounter a lot of exposure, loose rock, etc., and therefore they don't ask themselves whether they have the proper experience and technical skill to safely climb difficult peaks. Maybe these people have to get the wits scared out of them, through some near-fatal experience in the mountains, to finally start approaching their climbing more pragmatically. I don't know that people like this could be persuaded by a mere warning sign not to climb a particular peak.

[illusion7il]

Permits which must be picked up in person, along with a 10-15 minute conversation with the forest ranger

Well if we are going to implement this, perhaps we should have a checkpoint, and a drivers assessment before getting on Interstate 25 or 70...

My vote is put basic information about the route at the trailhead., and possibly a sign at the death gully.

[EZsummits]

Well if we are going to implement this, perhaps we should have a checkpoint, and a drivers assessment before getting on Interstate 25 or 70...
.

I'm not a huge fan of permits either. People do have to take drivers ed and get a drivers license before getting on the highways , not that it makes the roads any safer.

[Above_Treeline]

Just put up a sign that it's being rehabbed, I think those are already up on several peaks. Maybe add "cliffs below." Looks like a trail, I was kinda like "oh, crap," when I saw the photo.

[rpdawes]

Well if we are going to implement this, perhaps we should have a checkpoint, and a drivers assessment before getting on Interstate 25 or 70...
.

I'm not a huge fan of permits either. People do have to take drivers ed and get a drivers license before getting on the highways , not that it makes the roads any safer.

But wearing seat belts saves many lives.

[Iguru]

I think a small sign is prob a good idea. There will always be people climbing Capitol who don't even know this website exists. I don't like the idea of a sign, but I really don't want anyone else to die doing the same damn thing other people died doing.

This

Because, really, do people deserve to die for getting in over their heads?

[workmanflock]

I think some people just have very low risk aversion, and so it doesn't faze them to encounter a lot of exposure, loose rock, etc., and therefore they don't ask themselves whether they have the proper experience and technical skill to safely climb difficult peaks. Maybe these people have to get the wits scared out of them, through some near-fatal experience in the mountains, to finally start approaching their climbing more pragmatically. I don't know that people like this could be persuaded by a mere warning sign not to climb a particular peak.

+1

[DArcyS]

Permits which must be picked up in person, along with a 10-15 minute conversation with the forest ranger

Well if we are going to implement this, perhaps we should have a checkpoint, and a drivers assessment before getting on Interstate 25 or 70...

My vote is put basic information about the route at the trailhead., and possibly a sign at the death gully.

In coming to this conclusion, did you give any thought to the time the members of Mountain Rescue Aspen spend on rescue calls? In your scenario, paid professionals respond to accidents on I-25 and I-70. As for mountain rescues, it's my understanding that volunteers spend their time rescuing others. See

http://mountainrescueaspen.org/ and

http://custersar.org/

As for whether there should be a sign, that decision should ultimately be left to those who spend their time and put their own personal safety at risk to rescue others. If MRA feels a sign should be put there for the benefit of their volunteers, then the sign should go in without any protest. And the same applies for Crestone Needle and Custer Couny SAR.

[jamal]

As one person above alluded to, all that is necessary is for some good samaritan on this thread to take a sign up themselves and plant it 50 to 100 feet down the "path". I doubt that sign is going to be taken down by anyone, including the USFS. Problem solved.

"YOU ARE OFF ROUTE"
"THIS WAY TERMINATES IN A 600 FT (idk?) ClIFF BAND"



...something like that.

[AlexeyD]

Well, if we're going to argue for a sign with the actual goal of saving lives, then of course it needs to go at the specific location in question, not the trailhead. For one, as someone has mentioned, many people won't bother to even read a sign at a TH, and even if they do, will they really remember the exact location based on some picture or map they same 12 or 24 hours ago? "DO NOT GO THIS WAY!" on site is a pretty sure bet, though.

As for educating people, at the end of the day, climbing mountains will always be dangerous, and there will always be accidents. I think all (hopefully) of us here understand this and accept it. I think the outcry over accidents involving newbies isn't so much that they are more likely to have accidents (which isn't really true), but more because there's a sense that they didn't even know what they were getting themselves into, hence didn't have the proper chance to prepare themselves. The debate, then, is about how to best communicate to people the risks involved, so that they can make their own decision.