Eaton Canyon Trails

Post by **Hikin_Jim** » Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:00 pm

If anyone is interested, I sketched in the closure boundary on a topo map.

HJ

fortified · Post by **fortified** » Tue Jun 17, 2014 5:09 pm

Zoom in on the map. When you look closely, it looks like the canyon itself is open. The closed area appears to be the mountainous areas that drop into the canyon, and the razorback is closed. How say you, or anyone else?

fortified · Post by **fortified** » Tue Jun 17, 2014 5:10 pm

OH, Hikin Jim, I didn't realize you made the boundary lines. Is their an original map with lines, or .....

Post by **Hikin_Jim** » Tue Jun 17, 2014 5:42 pm

See earlier in this post. And the lower falls is open (according to their map), but the canyon upstream of the lower falls is closed.

HJ

Post by **HikeUp** » Tue Jun 17, 2014 9:47 pm

Everything is closed except the stream bed up to the bottom of the lower falls. To enforce this we need a sign every 20 or 30 feet...on both sides of the stream. With velvet ropes strung between the signs. And a net over the top...to catch rocks and keep the good jumpers from jumping over the ropes.

Post by **Hikin_Jim** » Tue Jun 17, 2014 10:03 pm

Short of having a sheriff's deputy patrolling the area on a regular basis, I think they're engaging in wishful thinking. The kind of rowdies that party and carouse up there aren't going to be deterred by a sign.

Still, it might save a few like that one gal who died up there recently who was apparently a good student.

The unfortunate "collateral damage" is to take away access from canyoneers, a group with whom there have been little or no reported problems.

HJ

AW~ · Post by **AW~** » Tue Jun 17, 2014 11:35 pm

Hikin_Jim wrote: ↑
Still, it might save a few like that one gal who died up there recently who was apparently a good student.

HJ

She made that decision on her own...not only messing with the crux move once, but twice. Shame on anyone blaming the forest service and thus making them out to be complicit, thus resolving nothing and adding false pain.

And the extension of that logic is to close everything. Wherever there could be injury. Baldy through Piru..,.not to mention eaton creek below the falls. There have been many more rescues below than above. It would be a field day for lawyers....and a change in the mission of the forest service.

AW~ · Post by **AW~** » Wed Jun 18, 2014 12:21 am

HikeUp wrote: ↑Everything is closed except the stream bed up to the bottom of the lower falls. To enforce this we need a sign every 20 or 30 feet...on both sides of the stream. With velvet ropes strung between the signs. And a net over the top...to catch rocks and keep the good jumpers from jumping over the ropes.

Its funny you mention that because in the stoneyvalle picnic area lawsuit, the judge ruled that the bogus lawsuit plantiff was only partially responsible cause the signs were only in english and maybe he only understood spanish...and also ruled the forest service was racist for the same reasons.

Post by **HikeUp** » Thu Jun 26, 2014 6:21 pm

http://laist.com/2014/06/26/one_of_the_ ... hiking.php

Hikers and climbers have long been going to Eaton Canyon in Altadena, but a dangerous portion of the trail will soon be closed off to the public.

The U.S. Forest Service announced on Wednesday that they will be blocking off a small area known as "Upper Falls," according to CBS Los Angeles. It's a challenging part of the trail even for the most expert-level climbers, yet many try to go through it and are unable to finish it with disastrous results.

Five people have died on the trail (that's nestled in the San Gabriel Mountains) since 2011, and there have been 60 helicopter rescues in 2012. Just last year, a 17-year-old girl fell to her death going to the second set of waterfalls at Eaton Canyon.

“It’s not a designated trail," Nathan Judy of the Angeles National Forest told CBS. "It’s very steep … very dangerous, and we’ve lost a lot of lives up there and because of that we are doing the closure."

Folks (including thrill seekers) are drawn to Upper Falls because of its picturesque views that they see on videos on YouTube, like this one:

[hikeup: see original site for link to video]

“Social media has fueled a lot of the accidents," U.S. Forest Service spokesperson Sherry Rollman told Pasadena Weekly. "Kids see the pictures and videos of people in the pond and they want to go up there. They think it’s not a tough hike, but it is a serious incline to the second falls."

The U.S. Forest Service along with police, fire departments and city officials decided together to close off the upper Eaton Canyon portion. (The lower portion will still be open.) There's been an ongoing discussion on what to do about this dangerous path for years.

However, they are facing some opposition from the Coalition of American Canyoneers (CAC). "We want access to the canyon," William Lawrence, who's on the board of the CAC, told Pasadena Weekly. "If they close it, we will start a fundraiser to hire an attorney to fight the National Forest. We have been using the canyon for 25 years."

Although a date has not been set yet for the closure, once it is closed, folks who try to get in the closed-off area could be fined up to $5,000 and sentenced to six months in jail.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@laist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

Jean Trinh in News on Jun 26, 2014 12:26 pm

Post by **Hikin_Jim** » Thu Jun 26, 2014 9:24 pm

Trail? Use of that inaccurate language only encourages people to go.

HJ

Teejate · Post by **Teejate** » Fri Jun 27, 2014 1:59 pm

http://ktla.com/2014/06/26/popular-dang ... be-closed/

No question in my mind this is the right decision.

Dozens of rescues each year and we've all read about the recoveries.

When inexperience meets overconfidence there can be some serious consequences. And as there's no way to 'warn' people strongly enough; there isn't really an option.

Well, maybe the "Darwin" people don't mind the "thinning of the herd." But I'd prefer to think that some parent won't be receiving the last call they'd ever want to receive.

Post by **Hikin_Jim** » Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:13 pm

Yeah, but a 100% closure? C'mon. What about legitimate users like canyoneers? Sounds like surgery with a chainsaw to me. They could be more selective.

HJ

Tom Kenney · Post by **Tom Kenney** » Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:33 pm

Hikin_Jim wrote: ↑Yeah, but a 100% closure? C'mon. What about legitimate users like canyoneers? Sounds like surgery with a chainsaw to me. They could be more selective.

HJ

Strongly agree! Couldn't they just leave a 200m wide strip that follows the canyon bottom? Then, anyone attempting to access from the sides would be locked out, but the canyoneers could still do their thing.

cougarmagic · Post by **cougarmagic** » Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:57 pm

Teejate wrote: ↑http://ktla.com/2014/06/26/popular-dang ... be-closed/

No question in my mind this is the right decision.

I'm with Teejate, and I'm a canyoneer.

We've seen this happen - from Antelope canyon in Az, to Death Valley where it used to be free and open but increased activity led to a permit system, to Williamson Rock, Cucamonga, etc.

As much as I adore Eaton canyon and know canyoneering is not the problem, there is no denying the problem that exists. Last time I descended Eaton, a dear friend of mine was inconsolably angry at the graffiti and trash he saw. I felt ashamed that I had become accustomed to it enough to have to think a bit before I sympathized.

Oh right...this used to be beautiful and now it's completely trashed.

In the mid 90's I hiked all over the Superstition mountains in AZ. If you drive out to my favorite trailheads today you'll find massive housing developments.

I've already had my heart broken in cases like this. Sorry for the folks who are feeling it for the first time.

Post by **tekewin** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 10:13 am

Popular and easily accessible places tend to get trashed eventually.

I wish they would have left the canyon route itself open for the canyoneers.

Post by **HikeUp** » Sat Jun 28, 2014 12:40 pm

This, in my opinion, is just a cover-your-ass legal move on the Forest Service's part. The closure is unenforceable basically - I mean it's not as if they have enough funds to pay anyone to do the patrolling. If just by chance a ranger (or whoever enforces closures) catches someone in the closure area, they probably won't ticket/fine/arrest "real" canyoneers but would ticket the foolish who are trying to access the upper falls via the dangerous/deadly route.

blah, blah, blah

lilbitmo · Post by **lilbitmo** » Tue Jul 01, 2014 10:53 am

Ben, David and I ran the canyon in the dark last night, my first time.

It was fun and it will be sad to see it closed, nice canyon other than the third grade scribblings at the bottom half - lots of poison oak to scare me away as well

So if today is the closure day I can say I did it legal one time

VermillionPearlGirl · Post by **VermillionPearlGirl** » Wed Jul 02, 2014 6:36 pm

I went down to the first falls this morning and heard a lot of consistent metal banging echoing in the canyon. I thought hey, maybe they're putting in those signs/fence/whatever, but I didn't see anything around where (I think?) the upper falls "trail" starts (I don't go to Eaton often, so I've never been super clear about where this trail starts, but there's one place that looks more obvious than the others).

It's hard to tell because sound does weird things in a canyon, but it sounded like it was coming from above. Wonder what it was about...

Sewellymon · Post by **Sewellymon** » Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:52 am

ANF's management is rightly considered the Forest Circus.

No doubt the user trail that goes up "Razorback Ridge" should be closed. I used to rock climb and free solo all manner of technical rock way off the ground, but you'd NEVER get me up that trail.

But the closure to canyoneers is absurd. Just absurd. Pisses me off

Augie · Post by **Augie** » Thu Jul 03, 2014 11:54 am

The LA Times reported this morning that in order to prevent the "carnage in the San Gabriel Mountains gorge" the closure of the canyon above the first waterfall will go into effect August 1.

Post by **HikeUp** » Fri Jul 04, 2014 7:39 am

Altadena Point post with comments...

http://www.altadenapoint.com/2014/06/24 ... rfall-trai

Quoting the comment...

12:21 PM 6/26/2014 Signs and threats of fines never stopped fools. The signs will be vandalized or removed by the lawless. In 1976 or 1977 a sheriff stood at the base of what used to be the lowest of the three wood stair cases leading up to the tunnel through Acrophobia Ridge to the right side of the first falls opposite Razor Back Ridge which is on the left side of the first falls. He threatened the arrest of anyone who would try to pass him. That did not work. The Pasadena Department of Water and Power paid to have the stairs, the I beam post and wire cable hand rail between the first and second stairs and the abandoned steel pipeline removed and stuffed the cut pieces of pipeline into the tunnel and sealed both ends of the tunnel with river rock and concrete. The PDWP did this for liability reasons. Soon after this demolition was accomplished, a young man chiseled out enough rocks and concrete on both ends of the tunnel to just allow for a thin and agile person to slip into and out of the tunnel. The only problem was banging your shins on the pieces of pipe inside the tunnel. After the Pinecrest Fire of 1979, Eaton Canyon was vulnerable to mud slides and massive flooding. In the winter of 1979/1980, the mud and debris rose enough on the backside to flow into the opening at the top of the rock and concrete plug of the tunnel entrance that the mud sealed the tunnel forever. After this happened people were going up and over the low spot or notch of Acrophobia Ridge directly above the old tunnel. To go up and over required climbing up a rockslide area to get to the notch. Unless the sheriffs have at least two armed officers from sunup to sundown every day posted at the last bend in the canyon, one on each side of the stream at the base of these two user trails, the problems will persist. I do not believe that the sheriff department or the forestry department have the resources (money) to accomplish this. If the forestry department tries to use dynamite on either trail there could be a lawsuit for damaging the watershed. Let us not forget what happened in Rubio Canyon in 1998 with that dynamite debacle. I hope the entire canyon does not get fenced off just 50 to 100 feet upstream from the bridge at the first water gauging station like the PDWP did before 1975 with 15 to 18 feet high chain link fencing with barbed wire on top. A portion of this is still visible way up the hillside on the right hand side of the canyon when facing upstream. The only other thing besides 12 to 18 hour per day armed guards would be the real expensive helicopter sweep or sheriff rescue trainees in the canyon every day. This is a losing battle. Kevin Jun 26, 2014 @ 12:41PM PDT

outwhere · Post by **outwhere** » Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:24 pm

One of my favorite comments came from some young dude that was being interviewed by a tv news reporter. The reporter asked his opinion of the closure - he thought it was stupid to close off the canyon and then told the reporter 'why don't they just ban vending machines,,, vending machines kill people too'

Not sure if he meant the contents of a vending machine can end up killing people or if a vending machine can tip over and crush someone ?????????

Another silly comment/analogy I read somewhere - 'are we going to close down freeways because people die there too'....

So are there any plans, aside from the sign, to keep people from going up the razorback? And did I read this somewhere or was it my imagination - was there really an extended fence that blocked access to the razorback?

Post by **Hikin_Jim** » Thu Jul 10, 2014 5:21 pm

I think we should ban stupidity.

HJ

Post by **HikeUp** » Thu Jul 10, 2014 9:44 pm

Stupidity is not a basic human right.

outwhere · Post by **outwhere** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 10:02 am

outwhere wrote: ↑One of my favorite comments came from some young dude that was being interviewed by a tv news reporter. The reporter asked his opinion of the closure - he thought it was stupid to close off the canyon and then told the reporter 'why don't they just ban vending machines,,, vending machines kill people too'

Not sure if he meant the contents of a vending machine can end up killing people or if a vending machine can tip over and crush someone

It just hit me - this guy was on to something.

Maybe we can place a giant vending machine on top of the Razorback section and fill it with AM PM gas station food only. If the nacho cheese infused hot dogs or the AM PM 'chicken sandwiches don't zap them on the spot the grease leaking from the vending machine will have them sliding back down to their starting point.

Plus the forest service will make money by charging AM PM for product placement and advertising!

Ya see AM PM nacho cheese has other purposes besides patching leaks in a rubber raft...

Post by **Hikin_Jim** » Fri Jul 11, 2014 11:06 am

HikeUp wrote: ↑Stupidity is not a basic human right.

We can amend the constitution to include it.

HJ

Post by **Taco** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 2:39 pm

Why not just ban falling or getting hurt? Do it the modern American way and tell em if they fall, it's $50,000,000,000,000 bones and 85 years in jail! Get em stuck in the system! Yeah!

I still think this closure is incredibly stupid. Everything about it is stupid. The idea of protecting people from themselves is stupid. I'm not saying I'm going to violate the closure as it's unlikely I would, but I really cannot respect these closures. Oh, so if I hike there you're going to try to fine me $5,000 and put me in jail for six months? So, six months of friggin' prison time is what you get for hiking on public property? How is that an appropriate response? That's incredibly stupid. What is it nowadays with our country's raging hardon with insane punishments for shit that doesn't really matter anyway? Does this generate revenue for the state or something? I mean, someone's getting rich off this BS.

Forest Circus, if you attempt to speak to me on a trail or anywhere, I'm sorry but I'll have to turn you away. You need to make an appointment 6 months ahead of time, and it must be approved by me. You must get the president's signature as well as that of Cap'n Crunch. Please mail it in with a $35 processing fee, as well as $9 for shipping and handling, and a $25 Reading and Response fee. If approved, you will need to pay a $40,000 approval fee, and you will be given the terms in which you may speak to me. I may not be there though as I'm low on funds so I might be closed for the weekend. I once burned my arm on a stove, so I've also been closed for the season. It's real hot and dry, I might burn.

Failure to spell everything right on the form will result in being nuked on the moon for eighty trillion years.

But seriously though, maybe I'll fax you a photo of my huevos.

Signed,
Guy who spends tons of time in them thar hills and thinks you're all a bunch of tools.

Post by **Taco** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 2:40 pm

Oh and the form you need to send in has been replaced by a new form (actually like 8 pages of forms), so the one you sent in a year ago needs to be redone. Sorry!

outwhere · Post by **outwhere** » Sat Jul 12, 2014 8:33 pm

Forgive my ignorance but do the 'real/serious/knowledgeable' canyoneers access the 2nd waterfall via the 'razorback' or do they have another route?

Taco I hope you know I have a ton of respect for you because you really take care of yourself, and others, when you head for the hills, whether you are going up or down

but do/don't you think that 'razorback' and the following section to reach the falls are rather unsafe for most inexperienced 'hikers'?

From what I've seen (videos and pictures) some of those sections look rather perilous, relatively speaking...

Sure - anyone can fall anywhere - but if we sort out the numbers - there is clearly something extra nasty going on when certain folks start up the razorback and beyond.

I really like the idea of qualified canyoneers being allowed to enjoy their hobby. And as much as I hate to see people's freedom of movement restricted, at this point, I believe if they go up there and fall, then they should have to pay for their rescue. If they die, well I guess you can't really fine them can you?

So many ways to look at this - that I even find myself disagreeing with myself...

Post by **Taco** » Sun Jul 13, 2014 9:59 pm

I completely agree. I've done that trail a number of times before and if someone I cared about (or heck, anyone) was crossing the sketchy parts, I'd want to assist them any way I could. I don't think people understand what they can get into. All I think one should really do is place a sign that talks about this. It's then up to people to be mature and know when to turn back, or say no completely. I don't feel the government should work in this divide. I feel that would be foolish and wasteful of resources, as well as doubting its success based on similar ventures.

I guess that's the nice way of saying what I think.

I made a series of mistakes from inexperience that resulted in my being helicoptered out of Fish Fork during our first trip down it. I didn't have to pay for rescue. I freesoloed up some random 5.7-5.8 slab and crack on Glacier Point Apron on the first day I moved there and ended up asking for help, and being lowered from two shiny new bolts by Forest Rangers. Didn't pay for that.

Do I think one should have to pay for rescue in a specific zone? I never thought about that until recently. I don't know. I mean, if it was ruled out they used that trail, you could give them the bill I guess. I'm no lawyer so I don't know how many hoops there are to jump through for this or that, so I can't really understand the topic very well. From a technical outdoorsy whatever guy with rope perspective, it doesn't seem stupid. Might to others, though.

I dunno. I'm still against it. Yeah people were getting hurt, but they're going to continue doing so.

In my own selfish world, I'm just happy with not being harassed doing what I'm competent at. I'd give less of a crap about it if it was clear I couldn't get in trouble for descending Eaton Cyn as a canyoneer would. I enjoy this canyon, I take lots of friends down it who are often new to any form of roped movement as well as fellow climbers etc. Lotta memories there. I've recently taken to doing speed runs in the canyon to see how fast I can do it car to car, as a way to push myself and train as well as occasionally feeling like Mr Coolguy. I've made a bunch of new friends in that canyon, and forged existing friendships through adventure. I don't want that to go away because other folks are bad at judging terrain and balance and all that.

I'm gonna keep thinking about this and probably coming to the same conclusion though.