Does the Access Fund have the guts to preserve desert routes

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 41 - 60 of total 114 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

crunch

Social climber

Dec 13, 2013 - 10:48pm PT

^this approach really cramps my style, brah.

To follow those rules to a T means no new-routing if the route does not go to the rim or to a summit escapable via simulrap or 2x4 type trickery.

This approach merely makes most new routing a crime. It does not prevent it.

Well, cramping climbers's style is exactly what Ron is advocating ;-)

The rules for Glen Canyon are overly harsh and incredibly inappropriate; so few folks actually climb there that climbing impacts are effectively zero, whatever climbers get up to. And enforcement in such a vast area is impossible. Besides, the impact of their stupid reservoir is vast and corrosive. They build that and have the cheek to try to restrict climbers? It's insulting.

What is more appropriate is to cramp climbers's style in heavily used areas like Zion, especially the most popular routes. That's Ron's point.

Again, my answer is that a group of interested, local climbers, working together are the solution.

Local answers to local problems! Who are the local Zion climbers these days?

And thanks for the link, albatross!

the albatross

Gym climber

Flagstaff

Dec 13, 2013 - 11:36pm PT

Steve it is insulting what they have done up at GCRA. My buddy was spotted climbing an old established route below the dam (in what remains of Glen Canyon). When he got to Lees Ferry the next day, the ranger searched the entire contents of their kayaks. Saw all the climbing gear, were looking for a drill, obviously found no such item and let them on their way. Thank goodness not all climbers smoke weed.

A few years ago I exchanged emails with the Access Fund in regards to the harsh anti-climbing regulations at GCRA. We finally concluded that with so few active climbers in the area it wasn't worth a fight.

I agree the area is vast, with countless adventures to be had. That said, much of the best looking stuff I've seen is right next to the water, right near lots of people (and cops). It's sad that responsible climbers aren't allowed to recreate in this national recreation area. It inspired a line in a poem, "Can freedom be taken away before it is even imagined?"

Ron, sorry for the thread drift. I know you are talking about your amazingly popular trade routes in Zion. I admire your eye toward the future and know you have been prompting this discussion for several decades.

Albert

Toker Villain

Big Wall climber

Toquerville, Utah

Topic Author's Reply - Dec 14, 2013 - 10:16am PT

Cramping style is not the objective. It is the by product.
With my model a climber can become a made man through superior performance and not be "cramped" monetarily (though still in part restricted in terms of access).

I have already accepted that some of my routes with shorter approaches will have to be worn out before the "rules" are implemented.
By then the writing will be on the wall, and climbers will be forced to admit that even "clean" climbing is in fact dirty.
Do you really think future climbers will refrain from throwing our generations under the bus when they are dying from blown out placements and attempting to repeat routes that have morphed into nothing like the original climb.

Glen Canyon?
What a joke!
The government destroyed one of the most beautiful places on earth with an obscenity that can be seen from space, but then gets bent out of shape if you leave a rap anchor.
BTW, one little fact that inconveniences them;
the south shore of the lake is the park border. Everything above water is Navaho Indian territory,..

Sorry to interrupt the politard debate with this little inconvenient truth about soft rock, but there is one more thing;
after rules are implemented to protect soft rock, how long will it take land managers whose dominions contain climbing resources composed of harder rock to take notice?,.....

the albatross

Gym climber

Flagstaff

Dec 14, 2013 - 10:40am PT

Those are some good points, Ron.

I love Ed Abbey as much as the next person. The damn is indeed a monstrosity. It was the land that no one knew. But I do like the fact that the lake now produces hydropower and is one of the best fisheries in the West right now. I've learned to live with the reality.

Was that 1988 when you published the concept of hammered anchors, fixed when necessary?

Mark Force

Trad climber

Cave Creek, AZ

Dec 14, 2013 - 10:51am PT

Why are people bagging on the Grand Canyon? There is no ten year wait. Getting a permit isn't that hard if you don't mind going in the winter, and the lottery + followup lottery system works pretty well - i've done two trips in the last 5 years. The campsites aren't trashed, the rapids don't stay the same(left sneak in Hance is gone!), and you could do dozens of trips never repeating the same hikes - the Grand has so much to offer.

Andy's on it. The Grand is a huge and rich experience and you can go every year if you are game to go out of season (the best time, anyway, as the big motor rigs can't go then). The river does change with water level and over time. Who has done all the possible side hikes? No one. But, the biggest thing Andy mentioned is the beaches aren't trashed, which is true.

Rafters have a stronger leave no trace ethic than climbers. In the desert, we could, as a group, choose to walk singular and single file paths to each cliff, skip the chalk, not haul, use camouflaged fixed protection, and always creatively scar so that even the first ascent could nut (most?) everything. Leave no trace is an ethic that, though an abstraction and imperfectly achievable, deserves our attention. We help preserve our access when we are clear that we aren't the only users of natural resources. When we keep that in mind and advocate for other users they are likely to advocate for us, as well. Climbers used to be leaders in promoting a leave no trace ethic and we could return to it. The exercise of this would probably be more rewarding than the trite consumerism culture of chasing the numbers.

Herd instinct does, too, tend to lead to overuse. Exploring and seeking adventure can be the bigger reward than working down the ticklist.

Toker Villain

Big Wall climber

Toquerville, Utah

Topic Author's Reply - Dec 14, 2013 - 11:21am PT

Actually, Albert, in 1975 when I put up Pervertical Sanctuary, we left all of the 11 pin placements fixed.

They were promptly removed by booty pirates, but the statement was still made.
A student of environmental conservation at CU at the time I wrote a paper amusingly entitled The Impact Of Climbers On Their Environment, and discussed pin scarring, and how it could create a nut placement or possibly a blown out scar. I am also proud to say that, thanks to my working with Greg Lowe, I even discussed the potential of camming devices.
Professor Erikson gave me an -A.

Mark,
are there still beaches?
This business of simulated flooding from the dam is the Bureau of Wrecklamation's conning of the public.
They are not adding sediment. After all, half the power the dam creates is lost before it reaches population centers. The real purpose of the dam is as a sediment trap to protect Hoover Dam.
Lake Foul should fill up with sediment in a few centuries (just look at the sediment accumulations at the north end of the lake or at the Clay Hills Crossing.)
The fake floods keep yielding diminishing returns because there is less and less sediment in the Grand Canyon to stir up and create beaches with.

But you are right that boaters have a stronger environmental ethic than climbers. It is in part because of that that my management plan model borrows from theirs (and hunting and SCUBA).

Mark Force

Trad climber

Cave Creek, AZ

Dec 14, 2013 - 11:36am PT

There are still beaches though they are greatly diminished because of the "damn." A shame really that Glen Canyon was lost and the ecosystem of the Colorado in the Grand Canyon so drastically changed.

Nice job on Pervertical Sanctuary and a sound statement for minimizing impact.

Toker Villain

Big Wall climber

Toquerville, Utah

Topic Author's Reply - Dec 14, 2013 - 11:55am PT

Thanks.

You know eventually the beaches will come back.
What I wonder about is what it will be like when Lake Foul becomes the world's largest tamarisk forest with the river meandering in wild loops before plunging over the dam.
Will global warming be enough to allow alligators to survive the winter? There was one that lived in a cow pond on the Arizona Strip nearby for more than 20 years before animal control took it out.

After some gator lover plants a few babies in some seldom visited side canyon the place could become pretty wild and dangerous again. After all, crocodilians are the most successful dinosaur.

Hippos would be cool too, but a little harder to hide at the put in,..

But I digress from the issue of trying to preserve the most climbs for the most climbers both now and in the future. That is my objective, not cramping people's style.

thebravecowboy

Social climber

Colorado Plateau

Dec 14, 2013 - 12:05pm PT

I see that meaningful protections for the places that are being loved to death are necessary. The aspect of hypocrisy rankles a bit, though: first ascentionists are somehow exonerated of responsibility for the physical damage that they do, are sprung from the ethical morass of their opening a new route to crowds that can follow and increase damage/wear. That said, I see that your stimulating the discussion here is intended to ameliorate the after-effects of new-route development.

Perhaps if the NPS or other land managers feel that a problem exists for a given area they could divert some modest sum from their funds to sponsor the election (by voters from the user group) of a council or quorum of local fixtures of the climbing community to act as stewards and to emplace a per-piton fee or some other regulatory framework. That was one sentence, wow!

Toker Villain

Big Wall climber

Toquerville, Utah

Topic Author's Reply - Dec 14, 2013 - 12:27pm PT

First ascentionists are not exonerated, Max. At least not in my model.
They are vetted and then they pay hefty fees for the privilege of altering the environment, and they are given the incentive to do a good job and create a sought after route because then, every time a party gets a permit for a route, they buy the updated topo and a credit goes toward the first ascentionists.

This gets them one step closer to being made men, whose accomplishments are recognized and allow them to climb without having to pay further fees into the system.

Climbing is, after all, a meritocrasy.

crunch

Social climber

Dec 14, 2013 - 12:43pm PT

That said, I see that your stimulating the discussion here is intended to ameliorate the after-effects of new-route development.

I'd suggest that the aim is to ameliorate the after-effects of those new routes which are extremely popular. Outside of Zion NP and Indian Creek, this is pretty much a non-issue (at least for the next few decades).

Perhaps if the NPS or other land managers feel that a problem exists for a given area they could divert some modest sum from their funds to sponsor the election (by voters from the user group) of a council or quorum of local fixtures of the climbing community to act as stewards and to emplace a per-piton fee or some other regulatory framework. That was one sentence, wow!

Yes. But I think it's putting the cart before the horse. The NPS, to date, have never been concerned with actual wear and tear on climbs in their jurisdictions. It's up to us, the climbing community, to present a case to them that there is an issue and that it requires some kind of action.

The NPS have a way of misunderstanding a and misinterpreting anything to do with climbing. So, we have to present an argument that is thorough and detailed and conservative (ie focused on the specific climbs/crags/areas that are in need off help), drafted with help from the Access Fund and their lawyers.

There has to be a group of interested, volunteer, local (sort of!) climbers who can represent the interests of the climbers of the areas in questions. Indian Creek already has the "Friends of Indian Creek," who are pretty much Moab based.

There is a strong case that an equivalent group, say, "The Friends of Zion" (The Zealots of Zion?) needs to be formed. Ron? Albert? I'm in Boulder, CO, a long way away and I've never climbed in Zion (it's very popularity puts me off), but I've hiked Angels Landing and appreciate that Zion is a special, amazing place and I'd be happy to help with email discussions.

Lastly, yeah, Ron's detailed plans are a great start for discussions. Thanks Ron.

Toker Villain

Big Wall climber

Toquerville, Utah

Topic Author's Reply - Dec 14, 2013 - 01:31pm PT

Steve,
you make it sound as though Zion and IC are the only places to worry about.

That is very short sighted. They are merely the guinea pigs. They (and there are other soft rock areas already impacted) were chosen as guinea pigs as much for their aesthetic values as their convenience. Easy to access = low hanging fruit.

Despite all their labors climbers are lazy.

But if we were to implement a plan to protect just these areas, you know damn well climbers would get off their butts and areas just a bit further out would become the new low hanging fruit and would soon enough be equally impacted.

Climbers today are like the hunters were over a century ago when states began to view game as state property that hunters had to purchase a license to harvest, and had to obey a set of detailed rules in doing so.

The hunters were saying, "WTF is this?!! I've been hunting for years. I know what I'm doing."
Oft times of course, they did NOT know what they were doing or they were often even aware of abusing resources but out of greed didn't care. In many cases species viability was threatened.

Today the states regulate hunting and most hunters not only obey the rules but understand their need and agree with them. As a result most game populations are thriving under wise management, and hunters as a group contribute more money for wildlife conservation than all the greenies and other former flower children.

But here is the kicker; humans killed over 60,000,000 bison attempting deliberately to exterminate them, but with only a few hundred left they were bred back to full species viability, BUT ONCE A CLIMB IS DESTROYED IT CAN'T BE BROUGHT BACK.

Toker Villain

Big Wall climber

Toquerville, Utah

Topic Author's Reply - Dec 14, 2013 - 01:57pm PT

The only absolute is a well enforced ban.

What I would like to see is substantial mitigation as well as consideration for future generations of climbers Ron. Go back and read the second John Doe model again.

Toker Villain

Big Wall climber

Toquerville, Utah

Topic Author's Reply - Dec 14, 2013 - 02:14pm PT

Don't we ask for MUCH from hunters in the way of co-operation, regulation and money?

crunch

Social climber

Dec 14, 2013 - 02:15pm PT

Steve,
you make it sound as though Zion and IC are the only places to worry about.

They are not the only places to worry about.

But, they are the only places where, in 2013, there is the remotest chance of getting buy-in from desert climbers on any kind of proposal that restricts (or "cramps") climbers in doing whatever they want. Or in doing what they want but paying for the privilege (and cramping numbers that way).

It can be done. In the early 1970s Chouinard managed to get buy-in for clean climbing, to all US climbers, almost overnight.

Heuco Tanks has a mandatory video presentation and various other hoops to jump through and have reduced impacts enormously. Not sure this has buy-in from climbers, but is mandatory, so it sort of does.

Toker Villain

Big Wall climber

Toquerville, Utah

Topic Author's Reply - Dec 14, 2013 - 02:22pm PT

Do you remember what it was like to pound pins for pro on free climbs?

Climbers didn't "buy in" as much as they wimped out. Nutting is just easier.

They won't buy into my model either.
Either a wise land manager forces them into it or, far more likely, there will be a combination of a string of tragedies caused by blown placements along with obvious visible impacts that causes an outright ban someplace.

Only once people lose something do they appreciate what they had. Only then will climbers be willing to compromise.

Toker Villain

Big Wall climber

Toquerville, Utah

Topic Author's Reply - Dec 14, 2013 - 02:39pm PT

Trivia;

What gun gave use the expression "the whole 9 yards"?

The Vickers machine gun was so reliable in WW1 that when the germans tried mass assaults from their trenches the brits would shoot entire belts without stopping. The belts were 27' feet long, and their fellow brits would cheer them on saying, "Give 'em the whole nine yards!"

crunch

Social climber

Dec 14, 2013 - 02:44pm PT

Not sure about the nine yards and WWI guns derivation...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/27/books/the-whole-nine-yards-seeking-a-phrases-origin.html

Thread drift, sorry.

I think the point I was trying to make is that you won't get buy-in on 100 percent of your proposal for the entire desert. No way. Never.

But you can most certainly get buy-in for some part of the proposal, in some specific parts of the desert where is it clear to any reasonable person that the impacts you are concerned about are happening. Climbers try to do the right thing, if some peer pressure is applied. Back when i climbed El Cap a few times in the early 1980s the idea of carrying one's feces up the climb would have been kinda preposterous. Now it's normal and expected.

Toker Villain

Big Wall climber

Toquerville, Utah

Topic Author's Reply - Dec 14, 2013 - 02:56pm PT

Just because a newspaper referred to the "whole six yards" in 1912 doesn't negate my etymology.

I like it much more than the concrete truck, which would have come later anyway.

And I think that climbers would rather carry their own shlt for days before before paying for what was previously free. They'd be as resistant as hunters a century ago.