Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 29 of total 29 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
|
|
So how long would the new approach be?
|
|
bvb
Social climber
flagstaff arizona
|
|
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.
|
|
mucci
Trad climber
The pitch of Bagalaar above you
|
|
BOOM!
|
|
Clint Cummins
Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
|
|
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
|
|
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.
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
Done!
Please make sure to restrict access to climbers. Their loud shouts disturb my peaceful morning walks. They smell bad too.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
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
|
|
>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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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 - 01:51pm 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
|
|
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 - 29 of total 29 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Limited overnight wilderness(i.e. backpacking) in restricted areas
Let us know!