ABC Story about Federation Peak

[TentPeg]

Yeah-nah.
Plenty of "suitable" construction in the TWWHA already.
Installed chains won't stop the need to make good decisions but it will change the point at which those decisions are made.

[weetbix456]

Will have to agree to disagree, and leave it at that from me..

[doogs]

I've climbed hundreds of peaks/routes in Scotland and dozens in the European Alps/Pyrenees. None had Via Ferratta. It is a huge exaggeration to think that they are everywhere, most places you either scramble up or Trad Climb.

[north-north-west]

Yeah-nah.
Plenty of "suitable" construction in the TWWHA already.
Installed chains won't stop the need to make good decisions but it will change the point at which those decisions are made.

You mean track hardening and tent platforms, plus the ridiculously fancy huts for the cashed up bogans and Instagram bucketlisters doing the Overland? Massive difference in both style and intent. The vast bulk of trackwork is about reducing environmental impact; it's not there to encourage the clueless to go where they shouldn't, which would be the result of permanent climbing infrastructure on Fedders.

Why can't people just accept that there are places they aren't physically or mentally capable of visiting? You don't have to go just because it's there, and if you do go you need to do so on the place's terms rather than insisting that it be modifiied to suit your limitations.

[TentPeg]

Thanks NNW.
Always good to get a rant.
I have been to Feder three times when the decision was not to summit because of the conditions. We could have done so with chains in place.
This is a walkers climb and it should be safe for walkers. Those who want to climb have many options. The rest of us don't.

[north-north-west]

This is a walkers climb and it should be safe for walkers. Those who want to climb have many options. The rest of us don't.

No, it's a scramblers' walk and non-scramblers/non-climbers have far more options in Tassie than the ones who want something a little more hard core. There are a dozen at most Abels that can't just be walked up with maybe a tiny bit of hand assistance, and not many other summits on the peakbagers' list in that class either. Scrub is more of a hindrance than exposure or the technicality of the climbs for the vast majority of our mountains.

Thanks NNW.
Always good to get a rant.

Always good to have a valid, politely expressed opinion dismissed as a rant by those who don't wish to hear it.

[Last]

There's no "right" to summit. I've been there twice, only got up on the second attempt. Conditions weren't ideal on the first attempt. It's not very safe on the best of days. Any small dip in conditions magnifies that. As has been said elsewhere, the climb is not actually technically that hard but the cost of mistakes is extreme. It's both good and bad that it has that reputation. The level of exposure is a challenge that a lot of people don't understand until they get there. Even to have got in to Bechervaise plateau is quite a challenge. (I haven't been for 25 years but I can't imagine Moss ridge has got easier, I've only been that way). Having got that far, I imagine some people drive themself on, reluctant to back off when so close. This may increase risk taking. I know I was pissed off for not making it that first time. However, any attempt to sanitise the climb will only lead to an increase in numbers that the rest of the environment out there can't withstand.

The person who died went out there in the middle of winter, something few people attempt. He also went alone, magnifying the risks. His passing shouldn't be used as an excuse to sanitise Federation, but should be used as a lesson as to how much respect a place like that deserves. I quite like a solo winter walk in the mountains but I would never consider going there then. The direct ascent is on the south side, isn't exposed to much sun at the best of times in winter and so likely to be slippery, though not necessarily obviously until too late.

[owen]

I've climbed hundreds of peaks/routes in Scotland and dozens in the European Alps/Pyrenees. None had Via Ferratta. It is a huge exaggeration to think that they are everywhere, most places you either scramble up or Trad Climb.

Who said they are everywhere?

Why can't people just accept that there are places they aren't physically or mentally capable of visiting?

Are you suggesting that all of those who have died on Fed Peak were incapable, rather than suffering unfortunate accidents?

[north-north-west]

Why can't people just accept that there are places they aren't physically or mentally capable of visiting?

Are you suggesting that all of those who have died on Fed Peak were incapable, rather than suffering unfortunate accidents?

All? No.
Some? Yes.

[doogs]

I've climbed hundreds of peaks/routes in Scotland and dozens in the European Alps/Pyrenees. None had Via Ferratta. It is a huge exaggeration to think that they are everywhere, most places you either scramble up or Trad Climb.

Who said they are everywhere?

I think that the Europeans have gone a long way towards badluckproofing the bush. Any route over there as dangerous as the Federation Peak direct ascent will probably have a via ferrata on it. This essentially takes bad luck out of the equation, as anybody is welcome to use them, for free (or not use them if they want).

It was you who said it.

I grew up over there climbing mountains, I lived it, and I loved it. You insinuations are very wide of the mark and simply untrue.

If you take the Cuillins Ridge on the Isle of Skye as the equivalent of the Arthurs in the UK. It is technically a little more difficult but easier to access than the Eastern Arthurs and is generally an overnight trip. There are a similar number of deaths on the ridge, but it does have more visitors. There are not any fixed aids along the ridge, with several technical climbing sections needed to complete the traverse. It has it's own "Federation Peak' call the Inaccessible Pinnacle. This has no via ferratta or chains. It is up to the visitors to bring and decide on the protection they need to complete the traverse, some bring none, but most bring a rope and small rack of gear and the skills to use them.

If Fedders was in the UK (or Europe) people would use a rope and protection. Australians tend not to have the basic trad climbing skills to safely employ this technique for climbing the mountain. So they scramble up instead. It is also a long way to bring heavy climbing gear!

[DaveTas]

Owen, your way of thinking about the topic is abysmal. You want to dumb down the experience to a level you deem “safe” and deprive future generations the adventurous experience that so many of us hold dear to our hearts.

Just stick to the boardwalks buddy and leave the mountains for the rest of us.

[Tortoise]

I have been to Feder three times when the decision was not to summit because of the conditions. We could have done so with chains in place.
This is a walkers climb and it should be safe for walkers. Those who want to climb have many options. The rest of us don't.

Hey there TentPeg. I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you. Even if I'd been unsuccessful on my second attempt (or however many times I tried), I would hate to see such a unique, magnificent place become accessible to the hordes - and I have no doubt at all that the hordes would come. I know lot of walkers who could handle Moss Ridge, but who don't ever plan on doing Fedder - as they recognise their own limitations with heights. I personally would love to summit Four Peaks, Diamond Peak (!!!), and a whole bunch of others. But I would never want or expect any infrastructure be put in to make that possible for me. As nnw said, there are places not all of us are capable of getting to, and that's just a fact. Everest was never on my bucket list, as gobsmackingly amazing as it would be. I have never had the capacity for that. I called Fedder 'My Everest', and spent 7 years intentionally preparing and equipping myself, physically and mentally, to give it my best shot - and still planned to stop if it was unsafe for me on the day. As we did the first time. I did get to test my commitment to that decision the second time, as I reached a place where I only had 2 reliable points of contact, and one questionable one. I'm very grateful indeed to the mountain-leaper in our group who knew Fedder well, and was able to provide the 3rd solid point of contact I needed to continue safely.

I understand and share the desire to keep Tasmania wild, but are a few chains and rungs really going to destroy that, for the sake of not having a reasonably high chance of not coming home?

Yes, it would change the usage of the sensitive place massively. The current limit (if I'm up to date) of 6 people per day starting at Farmhouse Creek, already means that options for when people want to go are seriously limited. People have to decide whether to go anyway if the weather forecast is not good, or miss out (again). If they go (after all, with chains it's now 'safe' to do the climb), other risks, like hypothermia, are greater. And as others have said, the final direct ascent is not the only place where people can come unstuck. There are a number of spots on the Southern Traverse that can be dangerous in the wrong conditions. If I understand correctly, at least 2 of the deaths in the past few years were on that traverse, not the direct ascent.

I don't know if anyone actually has the stats, but with the many people who now summit each year, there is a very, very small chance of not coming home. It's not possible, nor fair, to ascribe any capability or lack thereof to any individuals who tragically lost their lives. The general picture I gained from speaking with experienced people, as part of my own long preparation, was that the majority of accidents that occurred (deaths or near misses) were confident walkers (and a confident climber who was not harnessed at the time). It sounded as though one person should not have been there, but clearly I can't know that for sure. I have read/watched stories of quite a few people in the first category - so confident in their capacity that they are happy to chat and joke in places where I committed 100% concentration to the task at hand. They got away with it, but it must increase the risk they are taking substantially. In contrast, even the confident people in our summit group were intently concentrating on what they were doing.

The conclusion I came to was that the people least likely to fall are those with a healthy fear of falling.

[owen]

It was you who said it.

I didn't say they are everywhere. What is untrue about what I said? If death-to-visitor ratio is a measure of danger, the example of Cuillin Ridge that you mentioned doesn't refute my claim.

My understanding is that the direct ascent isn't really suitable for traditional climbing, and is touted as a scrambling route, which is why people scramble it to reach the top.

Owen, your way of thinking about the topic is abysmal. You want to dumb down the experience to a level you deem “safe” and deprive future generations the adventurous experience that so many of us hold dear to our hearts.

A few chains/rungs on a multi-day hike aren't going to deprive anyone of an adventurous experience.

It's not possible, nor fair, to ascribe any capability or lack thereof to any individuals who tragically lost their lives.

Agreed.

I don't know if anyone actually has the stats, but with the many people who now summit each year, there is a very, very small chance of not coming home.

I would estimate that a few hundred people summit every year. With a death every few years, that's about a 1 in 1000 chance of dying. Very rough numbers, but if they're in the ballpark, I think that's more than a very, very small chance.


Out of curiosity, what does everyone think about the waymarkers around Geeves Gully (that have quite possibly saved lives)?

[north-north-west]

I didn't say they are everywhere. What is untrue about what I said? If death-to-visitor ratio is a measure of danger, the example of Cuillin Ridge that you mentioned doesn't refute my claim.

You said "any route as dangerous as the Federation Peak direct ascent will probably have a via ferrata on it". If doogs' example of Cuillin doesn't refute your claim, the "probably" is doing a hell of a lot of lifting.

As to numbers, a few hundred or so people summitting Fedders in a year would most likely mean at least five times that number going in for the attempt. Add infrastructure that makes an attempt on the summit considerably more likly to be successful, and the visitor numbers will skyrocket. The area simply can't cope with that - it's extremely sensitive and already suffering with Phytophthera infestations.

As I've already said, there's more to the Eastern Arthurs than Federation Peak; peoopple don't hahve to bag it to make the walk worthwhile. And as Last has said, no-one has an inherent right to climb any mountain.

[weetbix456]

You can use traditional climbing equipment on a “steep scramble” as well as any “proper technical rock-climb”. All that is required is adequate “protection” (rock bollards, trees, nuts, cams), the right gear and knowledge on how to use it. The choice is up to the individuals how many of these pieces they choose to place, and/or how they use the rope as a safety aid. There are no set rules. People obviously choose to also ascend “solo”/scrambling or whatever we want to call it. For reference, the direct accent is generally graded technically as a grade 5 climbing route if using the Australian Ewbank system.

[Tazz81]

Ok I’ll wade in again…The government is broke and doesn’t give a *&%$#! about any National Park apart from those that create revenue. If people started dropping off fedders like flies they still wouldn’t do anything about it apart from a warning sign.

[DaveTas]

Owen, there are countless peaks available for people without scrambling or climbing skills. We don’t need to be installing hardware on what is essentially an easy scramble.
If you’re ridiculous proposition actually happened There would probably be more accidents and rescues as it would attract a new group of walkers that perhaps shouldn’t be there.

As a passionate trad climber, I can’t tell you how much it upsets me when numpties try to advocate for fixed hardware on easy ascents.

[tastrax]

....they still wouldn’t do anything about it apart from a warning sign.

Signs are there already so job done!

[farefam]

Interesting discussion.

Speaking from someone who had a family member involved with a fatality on the descent of Fedder I can tell you no one from my family, or the family of the deceased ever would want to see this majestic mountain tied down with steel and chains.
This type of narrow minded thinking is the same as wanting to see a shark hunted down and killed because it ate a diver who entered its terrain.
We know the risks involved when we venture into the domain of greater powers.

Let the wild be wild.

Well put ILUVSWTAS.

The situation with falls and deaths at Federation Peak is a bit similar to the issue of fall related deaths in some of the gorges at Karijini National Park. The main difference is that Karijini is visited by far greater numbers. Which is why sadly those at risk parts of the gorges are chained off and clearly signposted as requiring a ranger permit to enter (or alternatively being part of a paid, professionally guided and properly equipped tour group). The vast majority of visitors do appear to sensibly comply with the DO NOT ENTER restrictions. I did those parts of the gorges back in the mid 1990's, well before the restrictions came into effect. Whilst I find the current restrictions at Karijini very annoying, I respect why they were introduced, due to an increasing trend of rescues and particularly following the flash flooding death of a rescuer during the rescue of a walker who had slipped and fallen there at Regans Pool.

Personally I would hate to see a similar permit system introduced for the final climb to the summit of Federation Peak via the Direct Ascent or Geeves Gully. One of the most attractive things about bushwalking or packrafting or rock climbing in Tasmania is the general lack of restrictions. From memory, there are appropriate warning signs at the base of the Direct Ascent, but perhaps in the official literature and websites it needs to be officially described as a rock climb with potentially fatal consquences (rather than as a bushwalk or scramble), with the record of the multiple deaths that have occurred there made obvious.

I would not like to see a chain put in place, let alone the sort of over the top metal steps, ladders and platforms that have been put into some parts of the gorges at Karijini. A chain would simply give people a false sense of safety and encourage people to give it a go when they probably shouldn't. By way of example, if the former climb at Uluru had not had safety chains along the steepest parts of it, I would never have climbed it back in the early 1990's, due to the obvious risk of a slip and fatal fall. And now that I am in middle age and have one bad shoulder, even though I have adequate rock climbing skills I probably won't ever solo climb Federation Peak again, due to the greater risk now of losing my grip and falling to my death. I don't feel like carrying safety rope etc all that way in and out.

For myself, no view is worth dying for. There are many equally good views from nearby along the adjacent ridge that don't entail putting your life at risk. But I fully respect the right of all other adventurers to make their own decisions about risk and reward.

Your risk, your assessment of your abilities, your responsibility for your safety. That applies anywhere in the wilderness.

[ILUVSWTAS]

https://pulsetasmania.com.au/news/death ... etre-slip/