Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Travis Haussener
Trad climber
Salt Lake City
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2013 - 03:27pm PT
|
I wish I would have seen this thread when it first came out. But I have a couple comments or opinions which may or may not have already been said.
Number 1: The simplest way to get people out of these places requires very little government involvement. Just get rid of the road. People are inherently lazy...very lazy in fact. I remember cursing the supercrack parking area one time and then driving to a crag that is much more difficult to access and we saw no one. Maybe that's all we need here.
Number 2: As far as this being a very pressing issue. You guys haven't convinced me. IHC is still pretty incredible hands and that's after what, give or take 30 years. I do agree that it has seen wear and tear but the effects aren't that drastic IMHO.
Number 3: I think (and this has already been stated in one way or another) but this is complete cyclical logic. If we're preserving these routes then we must not be climbing on them. If that's the case then they're not climbing routes. So what exactly are we preserving. They can't be routes without climbers. And no matter what (based on your propositions) they're going to get climbed whether that be once a year or 1000x a day.
Number 4: How much weathering do they see from mother nature. Seriously does anyone know the effects of water running down SC, or Generic Crack it can't be good. How much destruction is caused by a single thunderstorm.
EDIT: I focused my comments with respect to IC since I've climbed there more often.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 20, 2013 - 04:17pm PT
|
As far as #3 goes, I would like to see a balance. Lets keep some of our best existing routes as a reserve with rationed use so that future climbers will be able to enjoy them, AND give incentive to climbers to come up with effective solutions.
Hardener compounds, perhaps?
|
|
adrian korosec
climber
Tucson
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2013 - 05:04pm PT
|
Don't change a thing. Routes have changed and will continue to change. Nothing lasts forever. Get out and climb them while you can!
|
|
Joshua Johnson
Boulder climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2013 - 05:17pm PT
|
Ron,
Why are you always trying to stir up sh#t?
Is is because you're short?
|
|
t-bone
climber
Bishop
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2013 - 05:30pm PT
|
The "best existing routes" will be the ones that can hold up to repeated ascents. Those that cannot will fall into obscurity (or have fixed gear).
|
|
Dingus McGee
Social climber
Laramie
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2013 - 05:33pm PT
|
tolker villain,
You are finally getting on track with this statement which is what I said a long time ago in this thread:
Hardener compounds, perhaps?
You have got to do maintenance if you cause wear; we re-weld the mow boards of road graders and the rangers at Mount Rushmore fill cracks on George's Nose with epoxy/sand. How about changing your thread title to this:
Does the Access Fund have the guts to do the Maintenance required to preserve desert routes for sustained climbing?
Paint a dispersant form of silica gel on the sandstone??
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2013 - 06:31pm PT
|
But as for fed/state;
don't the states enforce hunting laws on federal lands?
it depends-- in the areas I'm most familiar with, NPS did most of the enforcement in NPS areas. IN California, and as best I know, most other states, USFS and BLM co-ordinate with state agencies, and state wardens are (or used to be) designated LEO by USDI and the US Fish and Game Commission, to facilitate enforcement on fed property.
Utah is a special cluster because of the State's suit against the Feds.
But there's no climber's equivalent to DFG or DFW or DOW and whatever it's called in Utah. And each of the relevant states has a state park system that could be charitably described as anemic. Climber stamps wouldn't begin to pay for the creation of a new fleet of technically competent public union state employees with LEO certification.
And if a desert conservation effort is going to be consistent, it's going to need to cover AZ and prolly CO and NM, too? I agree that education and self-policing aren't going to be a comprehensive answer. Closures and/or permitting systems are the likely ones. And the feds will be the ones ultimately responsible there.
I find it easy to imagine the Whitney scenario playing out in particular places. Lottery permitting would be like what they do with certain kinds of hunting tags.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 22, 2014 - 05:20pm PT
|
A month and no more posts, too bad this issue didn't make Fox news, cause then you'd be talking about it. Maybe with sensational headlines like ROCK CLIMBERS IMPACTING ON THE ENVIRONMENT!.....
As for that last point about the different states, I find that the vast difference in the climbing regs for Canyonlands vs Zion, which manage similar soft rock resources only undermines the credibility and authority of the park service through it's capricious inconsistency.
As for the libertarian crack, Bruce Kay, a lot of people seem to confuse us with anarchists, whereas we actuall DO care about the rights of others, and not just those of today.
|
|
squishy
Mountain climber
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2014 - 05:59pm PT
|
After the access fund supported and retained a "steward" who likes to cut down trees for routes in the Tahoe area, I stopped all support for the AF...so your question is irrelevant..
|
|
Oplopanax
Mountain climber
The Deep Woods
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2014 - 06:24pm PT
|
In Britain where they have lots of climbers on soft rock, like at Harrisons Rocks, the guidebook author goes out with glue and sand mix to fill in the eroded channels where top-ropes have cut into the stone and so on.
They also banned leading. Top rope or solo only. No metal protection to damage the rock that way, just like Elbesandstein.
Of course you need a pretty long rope to TR Castleton.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2014 - 06:59pm PT
|
My experience in these matters is limited primarily to the east coast. That said.
The permanent cat fight so evident on nearly all ST subjects is perhaps typical of a long term festering dispute.
In the east in 1970 a needed change was effected in just two years without being hindered by emotion. I wonder if Ed's explanation for this unusual success is not correct. People had already decided, whatever our individual desires, that we all needed an answer.
In the east access restriction was never trotted out as the bad guy. Trotting out a bad guy just invites dispute and gives us some one to point at. In the east the question was very simple.
Are you personally willing to see our rock made ugly and the vegetation destroyed? The reply we got was immediate. "NO!"
Just two years later it was all over.
The temptation is to sort through possible corrections before people are willing to say, "I am not willing to have our areas destroyed." When you start out asking the wrong question you get an ST thread. Death.
In 1970 in the east meetings in climbing areas were held and the central question was posed first.
It worked, and worked in every area.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2014 - 08:34pm PT
|
The Wingate outcrop covers hundreds of miles. There are probably 50,000 Indian Creeks, but you need 4WD to get to them. Sometimes you can rap from the rim, but Geebuz there is a shitload of rock around Moab. Indian Creek is just such a strong focal point for climbing. The Wingate outcrop is huge.
That, and there are just more and more climbers every year. Victims of our own success.
At least Ron had the insight to constructively scar some of the Zion routes so that they would go clean. It sounded kind of strange at the time, but decades later it makes perfect sense.
|
|
crunch
Social climber
CO
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2014 - 09:05pm PT
|
Good to see this again.
I'm not so sure about having one set of regulations for all of Utah, or all the Colorado Plateau. Canyonlands and Zion and very different places with different issues. Climber impacts in Canyonlands are tiny, barely exist. Whereas in Zion the cracks are getting visibly worn from all the traffic.
Local climber groups who are familiar with the local issues, coordinating with land-managers, are the ideal solution. Land managers without guidance/input form climbers will tend to produce regulations that can be overwhelmingly severe (like Glen Canyon) or too hands off (like Zion). And generally inappropriate.
This is much easier when a big climbing area is located near to a city (like Boulder, CO) not so easy if an area is in the middle of nowhere.
Where do all those Zion climbers come from?
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2014 - 09:15pm PT
|
This is much easier when a big climbing area is located near to a city (like Boulder, CO) not so easy if an area is in the middle of nowhere.
Where do all those Zion climbers come from?
yeah, virtually all of the major successful access/practice revolutions that i know come from particular places "close" to an organizable or organized urban base: paris, dresden, nyc/gunks. i know less about secc, but they seem to have mobilized a key set of regional urban pops.
other obvious examples come from top-down, often on the heels of local interest groups, i.e., the el cap bosch ban.
where do all those zion climbers come from? i'd guess slc and boulder are prime contributors, with a west coast / international blend heavily represented. but i'm not a local, and don't work on zion/canyonlands issues myself.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2014 - 09:40pm PT
|
i know less about secc,
In the very early 70's the South Eastern Climbers' Coalition invited me down to speak at their big meeting. I did not add much but it was very clear the group was full of energy and quite determined. I came away very impressed by their people.
|
|
the albatross
Gym climber
Flagstaff
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2014 - 11:23pm PT
|
The Colorado Plateau encompasses some 130,000 square miles with all sorts of rock, mostly sandstone, from some of the best to some of the worst in the world. It doesn't seem appropriate to encompass all these areas into the same sort of climbing management plan.
It's admirable that the East Coast climbers were working on these sort of issues over four decades ago in their local areas. We should take some lessons from their experiences with land managers.
Keep the dreams alive.
|
|
bhilden
Trad climber
Mountain View, CA/Boulder, CO
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2014 - 12:57am PT
|
Build more indoor climbing gyms! Get people off of real rock!
|
|
the albatross
Gym climber
Flagstaff
|
|
|
Jan 24, 2014 - 07:55pm PT
|
To quote the TV:
"As for that last point about the different states, I find that the vast difference in the climbing regs for Canyonlands vs Zion, which manage similar soft rock resources only undermines the credibility and authority of the park service through it's capricious inconsistency."
Ron, as you know I am concerned about the future of climbing, particularly on the CO Plateau. In response to this thread I have been studying some of the rules for some of the major parks on the plateau. Zion, though having perhaps the longest list of rules, laws, prohibitions and regulations, seemed to have no mention of climbing. Grand Canyon, no mention (probably because most of the climbs require hiking, which many climbers today do not seem to do). Glen Canyon has been discussed (this includes Lake Powell). Canyonlands has a similar stance to Glen Canyon, saying leave nothing behind (in effect prohibiting new route development).
In other words the NPS is all over the place in their management of climbing in these areas.
One can read about the regulations on their own by choosing the park website and clicking on the "Management" link. Usually filed under "Superintendents Compendium" or some such title.
|
|
the albatross
Gym climber
Flagstaff
|
|
|
Feb 20, 2014 - 11:09pm PT
|
I took this pic last week, unfortunately did not get the pic of the bulldozer with the hammer chisel, on the barge, setting new anchors.
This is in the same National Recreation Area in which it is illegal for climbers to place bolts, leave webbing, pins or any other trace of their ascent.
By the way these cables are part of a fairly intricate web which hold "the world's largest floating restaurant" amongst at least a hundred enormous houseboats.
|
|
crunch
Social climber
CO
|
|
|
Feb 21, 2014 - 11:23am PT
|
Nice post albatross.
In other words the NPS is all over the place in their management of climbing in these areas.
Yes, it hurts to think about advocating for stricter regs in one desert park, Zion, while in nearby parks like Glen Canyon the climbing regs are so absurdly draconian. What kind of message would we be sending?
But, I think I see some consistency in the NPS's policies.
For the NPS, one consideration is the nature of the areas where the climbing takes place. Each National Park/Recreation Area has both a front country zone--heavily traveled, where all the main tourist sights are, lots of people, impacts, roads, cars; and a backcountry zone, usually roadless, wild, little visited.
Front-country areas are managed as a "recreational" resource for people to play in--impacts are expected and allowed.
Backcountry areas are managed so as to protect the their wild characteristics
--people can visit but human impacts in the vegetations and wildlife are strictly controlled.
In the desert, parks where the climbing is primarily in the wildernessy areas, like Canyonlands and Glen Canyon, the regulations are stricter.
In Zion most of the climbing is in the heavily trammelled main valley, with almost roadside access. Climbing regs barely exist.
In Arches NP does not appear to fit this pattern, the climbing is mostly roadside, climbing regs are strict. But, for the last 30 years, the regs were really mellow--amazingly so, actually, considering how soft the rock is and how easily it is damaged. It was the proudly publicized ascent of Delicate Arch in 2001 that provoked a fast and very harsh response.
So, in Glen Canyon there are heavy-handed (and possibly illegal) bolts used to tie up boats, while in the vast backcountry, the five people who actually find climbs to do have crazy-strict rules to work around. It fits this pattern.
And so we can come back to Toker's original argument with a better understanding of the dynamics involved.
In Zion the rock itself is being degraded by our heavy use, in fact visibly so these days, yet the rangers seem not to care. The reason they don't care is because the front-country zones containing all the climbing in question is managed for its recreation possibilities. It's so heavily impacted that scars on the cliffs are of no consequence to the rangers.
Toker's argument is that we, the climbing community, should come up with reasonably restrictions that would slow this resource damage. He's right, because the very factors that make Zion such a popular climbing destination--easy, front-country access, with camping, restaurants, bars, parking, guidebooks--are the same factors that make the rangers so hands off.
But we've never done this before. The Access Fund/Alpine Club have never advocated for stricter climbing regulations. It would be controversial enough that it might rip the Access Fund apart. Impetus would have to come from local, Zion/Utah climbers, banding together and negotiating with the Zion rangers. And then they could expect support from AF or AAC, for this instance.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!