Limiting signups

[Frodo]

#46867 |

Due to the past 2 years of having people sign-up for peaks only to “no-show”, just wondering why we are limiting people on the sign-up this year? IMO, the more people who sign-up the better, even if there are multiple groups on the same peak.

[MtnMagic]

#49672

I completely agree and wonder why myself.

I remember at the Flags meeting the first person who signed up is responsible for the flag and pole. That is so groups don’t have to bring the flagpole to the summit.

However, if the sign-up person is a no-show and yes that happened previously, I feel a couple of groups that signed up for a summit would increase the likelyhood of a flag being flown.

Any other opinions?!

[dundare]

#49673

I would love to see the more the merrier – especially as we missed the signups 🙂

Seriously, I have a group of 8 from the Stonehill College Outdoors Club that is really excited about this and would love to be able to take them up one of the more accessible 4000 footers. It will be a nice continuation of their introduction to the outdoors…

[Chris]

#49674

IMHO – having multiple groups take a single peak is excessive. The group signed up here is committed enough that if someone bags last minute, it’s often due to illness or some other uncontrollable event (which most likely will only happen in one or two instances at most). The idea to have “on-call” folks seemed to be on target, and if they are not needed, then they can join one of the smaller groups.

Or as we consider adding the “lesser” peaks, we can draw some away from them and have them take a 4,000 footer as needed.

Again, my opinion, but having more than one group hit a single peak can quickly lead to overcrowding and the very real likelihood of LNT principals being sacrificed…

[Author]

Posts