Pinnacles - removal - West Side parking area!!! (mgt plan!!)

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 1 - 20 of total 32 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Mungeclimber

Trad climber
the crowd MUST BE MOCKED...Mocked I tell you.
Topic Author's Original Post - Jan 7, 2013 - 12:07am PT

Did you know that the comment period for the General Management Plan for Pinnacles closes on January 11th?

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?documentID=50419

The plans call for pulling the lower parking lot out.

Want camping?

Want to ask that climbing be officially recognized as a traditional use of the Monument?

Now is the time.

Mungeclimber

Trad climber
the crowd MUST BE MOCKED...Mocked I tell you.
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2013 - 12:34am PT
Submitted my comments already, btw.
Mungeclimber

Trad climber
the crowd MUST BE MOCKED...Mocked I tell you.
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 7, 2013 - 06:04pm PT
bump
Vitaliy M.

Mountain climber
San Francisco
Jan 7, 2013 - 06:50pm PT
So how long would the new approach be?
mrtropy

Trad climber
Nor Cal
Jan 7, 2013 - 07:04pm PT
Done
bvb

Social climber
flagstaff arizona
Jan 7, 2013 - 07:12pm PT
My comment will be that the rocks, for the betterment of Mungie's mental heath status, be reduced to rubble. Oh, wait, they already are.

Never mind.
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Reno, Nuh VAAAA duh
Jan 7, 2013 - 07:41pm PT
Hahhahaha... That they are, bvb.
mucci

Trad climber
The pitch of Bagalaar above you
Jan 7, 2013 - 07:42pm PT
BOOM!

Clint Cummins

Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
Jan 7, 2013 - 09:01pm PT
Thanks, Rob - I just submitted my comments using the button at the link you gave.

I favored Alternative A (aka "no changes"), because it's the only one that retains the main West Side parking lot (56 spaces). I don't see the rare floods there as a problem....
klk

Trad climber
cali
Jan 7, 2013 - 10:27pm PT
My comment will be that the rocks, for the betterment of Mungie's mental heath status, be reduced to rubble

i've already suggested we just quarry the place. but it wouldn't matter, munge'd just climb on it anyway. more FAs! woot!

btw, munge, i f you haven't already, be sure to pm jody. i'm guessing he's already commented. but he and his dad have a great archive of period photos of the place back when jim was a ranger there.

Epic E

Big Wall climber
CA
Jan 7, 2013 - 10:48pm PT
I submitted my comments that a bunch of f*#k tard douche bags from santa cruz climb there and it would be ok if they shut the whole place down.
Mungeclimber

Trad climber
the crowd MUST BE MOCKED...Mocked I tell you.
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 8, 2013 - 11:03am PT
bump

all in jim

climber
Jan 8, 2013 - 12:03pm PT
Submitted my comments. From now on only rap-bolted new routes will be allowed. (JK-JK-JK!).

Thanks for posting this, Munge. I hope our voices will be heard!
couchmaster

climber
pdx
Jan 8, 2013 - 12:07pm PT
Commented, thanks Munge.

Added to 2nd comment box some hyperbole that I would finesse differently if I had a 2nd chance for what it's worth:
"Pinnacles have been a birthplace of climbing in the US West coast with some amazing historical ascents by John Salethe. Please ensure that rockclimbing remains an approved use.

Thank you"
Vitaliy M.

Mountain climber
San Francisco
Jan 8, 2013 - 12:28pm PT
Done!

Please make sure to restrict access to climbers. Their loud shouts disturb my peaceful morning walks. They smell bad too.
nutjob

Gym climber
Berkeley, CA
Jan 8, 2013 - 12:36pm PT
- Actions common to all alternatives: "Existing bolted routes would be allowed where critical resources are not adversely affected." If you read between the lines, that means new bolting may be banned in some alternatives.

Things you get with Alternative D that are *not* in Alternative A:
 Limited overnight wilderness(i.e. backpacking) in restricted areas
 Walk-in campground on west side (up to 10 sites)
 Relocating the parking lot from near the westside climbing to a place farther out (i.e. longer approach hikes to west side climbing)
 various new facilities on the east side (new picnic area, more trails, etc.)

All in all, I don't think D is such a bad thing for west side users. In exchange for longer approach hikes you get:
 overnight camping on westside, walk-in to minimize the radio-blasting drunken car camp/party scourge
 more solitude at the crags (because of longer approaches)
 backpacking opportunities that do not presently exist


I could support either A or D. Definitely no on C to keep horse poop and stink off the roads. B seems to steer toward primitive wilderness that would potentially be the most limiting for future climbing activity.


Edit: I did comment about their Alternative D that the parking lot should remain, and I sought reinforcement of the commitment to using fixed anchors to safely enjoy the park resources.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Jan 8, 2013 - 01:54pm PT
Thanks, Munge. In a way, it reminds me of the choices presented in the Merced River plan. Make a lot of outrageous suggestions, and an unappealing status quo doesn't look so bad.

John

Edit: I'm glad I didn't get out of the link, because it initially did not send my comment. I'd written "none" in the space for "Organization," and it would not accept the form unless I indicated whether I was an official representative of "None," or merely a member!
Clint Cummins

Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
Jan 8, 2013 - 03:01pm PT
>Things you get with Alternative D that are *not* in Alternative A:
> Limited overnight wilderness(i.e. backpacking) in restricted areas

It wouldn't be a plus for me, but could be fun for some folks.

> Walk-in campground on west side (up to 10 sites)

*maybe*? They don't have a definite location or plan for it, although they seem definite that it will happen.
Here's the exact language from page 80 ( I can see how they might not be able to do all the site planning in advance of choosing alternatives):

A small walk-in campground (up to 10 sites) would
be added on the west side to replace a former campground
destroyed by flooding in Chaparral. Future site
planning would identify specific locations and footprints
and would be subject to additional environmental
analysis. The campground would likely contain site
markers, fire rings, picnic tables, and vault toilets.

> Relocating the parking lot from near the westside climbing to a place farther out (i.e. longer approach hikes to west side climbing)

I believe they will just use the existing "overflow" parking lot. I didn't see any details on expanding it, either. It has 75 spots. I haven't parked there before, but I believe the extra hike is about 400 yards with a slight decline.

> various new facilities on the east side (new picnic area, more trails, etc.)

Yeah; I didn't see anything too exciting there in my view.

It could be like John said - there may be some incentive to "stack" the alternatives so that their choice looks best.
One of the strange things in this regard is that Alternative C, which supposedly maximizes development, also eliminates the main West side parking lot!
Mungeclimber

Trad climber
the crowd MUST BE MOCKED...Mocked I tell you.
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 9, 2013 - 02:11am PT
Beeyump
Mungeclimber

Trad climber
the crowd MUST BE MOCKED...Mocked I tell you.
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 9, 2013 - 11:15am PT
Good morning
Messages 1 - 20 of total 32 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews