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

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 1 - 32 of total 32 in this topic
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 d#@&%e 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
bvb

Social climber
flagstaff arizona
Jan 9, 2013 - 11:21am PT
Morning! I'm enjoying a delish bowl of PinnGravel granola with cranberries and almonds and milk for breakfast. And BACON!!
David Knopp

Trad climber
CA
Jan 9, 2013 - 12:39pm PT
i commented as well-alternatives b and d seem ok, and i feel that moving the west side parking down the road to the overflow area is not such a big burden, in exchange for more wilderness, or camping. i mean, come on, it's probably a 10 minute walk.
Clint Cummins

Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
Jan 9, 2013 - 03:38pm PT
The walk is fairly short.
The bigger issue is that the overflow lot will fill on several days of the year, and then you can't park. It already happens 6-8 days a year with the combined parking lots.
I'm just seeing a perfectly good parking lot, and no need to trade it for the other stuff. Leave it and add the other stuff if you want those things....
Bad Acronym

climber
Little Death Hollow
Jan 9, 2013 - 06:08pm PT
Alternative E: new mouse-coaster on Machete Ridge; waterslides at The Flumes; log ride at Lava Falls; hot dog concession in the tunnel.
Al_T.Tude

Trad climber
Monterey, CA
Jan 9, 2013 - 08:35pm PT
The historic significance of rock climbers as a user group should be acknowledged and respected in the planning process. New route development and placement of fixed protection (ie bolts) in new locations at Pinnacles is very slow and done only after careful consideration by local climbers. This tradition should persist to both allow historic use of this resource to continue and to respect the natural values of the unit for all user groups. Replacement of old, weak protection with discrete modern bolts in the same location should continue to be allowed for the safety of park visitors.
Mungeclimber

Trad climber
the crowd MUST BE MOCKED...Mocked I tell you.
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 10, 2013 - 01:29am PT
Got my FOP newsletter primer today...

http://www.pinnacles.org/news/index.php3#link191



Clint, well stated. Thx!
Mungeclimber

Trad climber
the crowd MUST BE MOCKED...Mocked I tell you.
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 10, 2013 - 01:51pm PT
bump
Mungeclimber

Trad climber
the crowd MUST BE MOCKED...Mocked I tell you.
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 11, 2013 - 11:47am PT
burp
Mungeclimber

Trad climber
the crowd MUST BE MOCKED...Mocked I tell you.
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 11, 2013 - 12:38pm PT
last day - keep this at the top
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Jan 11, 2013 - 12:49pm PT
I read in the Sac Bee that the Monument officially became a National Park, yesterday.

DMT
mtnyoung

Trad climber
Twain Harte, California
Jan 11, 2013 - 01:05pm PT
I posted my detailed thoughts on the Mudn'Crud site. Here is part of my post to add to this discussion:

  Climbing is generally mentioned in many areas of the plan, although most general mentions lump it together with hiking.

  Climbing is mentioned more specifically, as follows:

a) Page 56: The language on this page is encouraging: “Climbing use would continue in congruence with raptor advisory updates and voluntary closures. The monument would continue to work in close coordination with the climbing community, including the Friends of Pinnacles - an organization focused on climbing. A Climbing Management Plan would be developed. Existing bolted routes would be allowed where critical resources are not adversely affected.”

b) Page 61 contains more, including the comment “Climbing use would continue to be managed through the Climber Access Plan and Raptor Monitoring Protocol until a Climbing Management Plan is completed.” There’s nothing here that I didn’t like or at least expect.

c) On page 142, the plan states that 14 % of visitors use Pinnacles for climbing. This seems low to me but I noticed that the survey on which this number is based consisted of just over 500 completed survey forms. The survey was conducted in 2002.

d) On pages 143-144, there is a short description of rock climbing and of established routes.

  One key realization: I became aware as I studied it that this plan doesn’t have much detail at all regarding climbing. Instead an (intended) Climbing Management Plan will be much more specific if/when it is completed. This is the document climbers should be looking for.
Mungeclimber

Trad climber
the crowd MUST BE MOCKED...Mocked I tell you.
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 11, 2013 - 11:36pm PT
The document just says it will plan to continue climbing, it doesn't mean that climbing is recognized as a longstanding and traditional use of the "park". Getting that language in other national lands was decisive at a meta level so that climbing couldn't be whole sale removed for other reasons even though the use "would" continue. It signals intent, not official recognition. Intent is impermanent. This needs to be recognized in the overarching planning documents, not just the climbing mgt plan.

Point in fact, the survey grossly misrepresents the percent of climbers. With only one survey per user, on a given day/period, it doesn't reflect climber use days. i.e. the number of days actual climbers actually spend there, including repeat users. The same might be true of repeat hikers as well.

Anyways, just my thoughts. I saw what happened to Joshua Tree and climber participation will be more critical than ever with the new designation.



Messages 1 - 32 of total 32 in this topic
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