Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 15 of total 15 in this topic |
Josh Higgins
Trad climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Jun 15, 2016 - 09:43am PT
|
The State of California has proposed a closure of all off-trail travel in all CA State Cultural Preserves and Reserves, and Natural Preserves and Reserves. This closure will affect 100 parks across the country, including about 40,000 acres in Anza Borrego Desert State Park. This includes the climbing areas Culp Valley and Piedras Grandes, both of which are allowed and reported to have no impact according to the nearly 200 page 2012 Anza Borrego Management Plan. Many areas will be closed to recreation that are currently open and used without impact to resources. Any closure should be considered on a case by case basis of our public land, not as a cookie cutter blanket closure by bureaucrats in Sacramento since they don't want to take the time to manage our lands properly. If you'd like more information, including the Allied Climbers of San Diego's protest letter, please follow the link below. There is a public hearing on the issue in San Diego on June 22nd 6pm.
http://www.alliedclimbers.org/notice-public-hearing/
Josh Higgins
President, Allied Climbers of San Diego
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2016 - 10:18am PT
|
Any closure should be considered on a case by case basis of our public land, not as a cookie cutter blanket closure by bureaucrats in Sacramento since they don't want to take the time to manage our lands properly.
word.
So on their notice they call it "Restrictions", but in the fine print it says "prohibit all use". Isn't there a difference between a restriction and a closure? Access to most High Sierra trails is restricted to a certain number of permits.
TITLE 14. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
Off-Trail Use closures for Preserves and Reserves
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
There. Fixed it. The BS is so thick even they try to hide it.
|
|
Josh Higgins
Trad climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 15, 2016 - 11:09am PT
|
There is no substantial update as to whether or not they will proceed with the closure. I wanted people to be aware of the public hearing, and have access to the ACSD letter which we hope represents climber sentiment. I read the other thread, thanks for the link, and as far as we know 3 climbing areas would be possibly be impacted:
Culp Valley
Piedras Grandes
Point Dume
On a more important note, as some expressed in the other tread, this impacts much more than climbing and is a grossly inappropriate way to manage our public lands. ACSD is a organization that works toward recreational access, not just climbing access, and this is a massive closure that should be fought.
Josh
|
|
skcreidc
Social climber
SD, CA
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2016 - 11:14am PT
|
That meeting is not too badly placed. It's just a couple blocks away from Ruffin Rd and Clairemont Mesa Blvd.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2016 - 12:21pm PT
|
From Kris' link (last page);
Alternative 1-This alternative proposes to implement the CCR amendments as proposed in this document.
Analysis: This alternative gives clear direction allowing DPR to regulate public access and off-trail use in reserves and preserves. Currently such use is regulated by Superintendent Orders which by their nature are temporary. This alternative gives the public, DPR and other public agencies clear and on-going direction on allowable public access.
Alternative 2-No action with CCR staying the same as they currently are.
Analysis: This alternative would continue the current temporary process of regulating use by a series of Superintendent Orders. This requires regular reissuing of such orders and lending to the possibility of expiring orders which could provide for confusing legal authority to manage inappropriate use. For this reason it is not being recommended.
Alternative 3: This alternative would allow for the public to travel through the preserves and reserves as they desire.
Analysis: This alternative would cause harm to sensitive natural and cultural resources in violation of law and policy. For this reason, this alternative is not being considered.
NO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON BUSINESS: These regulations will not have a significant economic impact on business since the regulations only impact decisions on the types use allowed on in the reserves and preserves in the California State Park System. As such they will not affect business in any way.
EFFORTS TO AVOID UNNECESSARY DUPLICATION OR CONFLICTS WITH FEDERAL REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS ADDRESSING THE SAME ISSUES.
The proposed regulations are designed to not conflict with federal law by protecting sensitive cultural and natural resources in concert with federal law and regulations.
REGULATIONS MANDATED BY FEDERAL LAW: These regulations will put in place permanent protective regulations allowing the Department to comply with the Federal Endangered Species Act by protecting the sensitive species and cultural resources in accordance with federal listings for protection of such resources.
The Analysis after each Alternative is interesting.
California is so rife with bureaucratic crap and double-speak. This is similar to our water storage issue in the State. We had entrusted our resource management to the State and they screw it up, and then blame us and make us pay for their mis-management, usually because it's "an important resource".
Meh, I'm so jaundiced by bureaucratic crap and incompetent "leaders".
|
|
Bruce Morris
Social climber
Belmont, California
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2016 - 01:14pm PT
|
Reading this, Blue, reminded me that the Valley of Stone temporary closure was by order to the CR Superintendent at the time (i.e. March 1997). Does that mean that this order is being reissued annually? Or is basically nothing being done? I would think the later.
Obviously, alternative 2 is the preferred one as far as climbing is concerned. But who in the world is actually patrolling the Castle Rock Natural Preserve? Answer: No one. Therefore, the only persons down at the Green Monster are either occasional climbers but more often than not professional drug dealers and marijuana growers.
I thought in the last thread that someone said that this order wasn't going to effect Castle Rock State Park? Sure sounds like it would to me though. Sure also sounds like it will give the State and local authorities a tool for targeting one user group: climbers and boulderers.
The mare's nest just keeps getting thicker! There just have to be some outside groups putting pressure on the State to implement these restrictions. Who are they? Or does this reflect an internal division within the State bureaucracy itself? Who really knows!
|
|
johntp
Trad climber
socal
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2016 - 01:59pm PT
|
California is so rife with bureaucratic crap and double-speak. This is similar to our water storage issue in the State. We had entrusted our resource management to the State and they screw it up, and then blame us and make us pay for their mis-management, usually because it's "an important resource".
Meh, I'm so jaundiced by bureaucratic crap and incompetent "leaders".
I was involved with a large solar energy project outside of Blythe, CA. The project cost a huge amount of cash (subsidized by taxpayers) to hire all kinds of bureaucratic idiots to protect the environment. Their 1200 page EIR included recommendations to "harass" the kit foxes to leave the area and to install a fence around the entire facility to keep desert turtles and other wildlife out. Great ideas. Your tax $$ at work. I could go on.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2016 - 04:25pm PT
|
Yeah, Bruce, I need to dig deeper to see if this really affects CRSP.
Back when Standish and J Rule were patrolling we'd ask them when VoS was going to re-open. Things always turned dismissive and stand-offish. As if to mean, never, they just don't want to say that.
Interesting to see who is behind this, the real reason why. Money-saving doesn't quite make sense.
|
|
Josh Higgins
Trad climber
San Diego
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 15, 2016 - 09:50pm PT
|
Does Castle Rock State Park have a reserve or preserve? If not, this does not apply.
Josh
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2016 - 01:15pm PT
|
Josh,
Yes CRSP has a large Nature Reserve. Basically everything downhill from the loop trail plus the Lion Caves area. Something like 60% of the park. They'd actually like to open up areas of it but can't afford to hire the rangers to mange and patrol it. There are 2 rangers shared between CRSP and Portola Redwoods.
Ecologically, the upper regions of the park are suffering greatly due to the massive increase in usage by boulderers, climbers and hikers. Many appear to have no notion of appropriate forest/wildland behavior.
They've already got some serious illegal mountain bike and motorcycle usage in both parks with people coming up from the King's Creek drainage and down from Skyline. Not to mention marijuana grows. So don't get pissy at State Parks, it's the State Legislature that's not providing the money for proper management.
Due to the drought there's much increased volume of dead wood in the entire area and if some idiot starts a fire down in one of the canyons it's going to be a Very Big Problem for the entire south Skyline region.
They're also getting a lot of pressure from Sempervirens Fund to "Civilize" the upper CRSP area. SF is doing this on the land on Skyline they've privately purchased. Independently of any park planning process. Look forward to the traffic and parking problems getting worse, not better.
So the park management is being pushed and pulled from all directions.
By the way, Jason Rule and Matt both left CRSP/Portola Redwoods due to the policing pressure. The new CRSP ranger is a decent chap (as were Jason and Matt). We'll see how long it takes 'till the LEO role of the job burns him out.
Just my take on it. YMMV
|
|
pyrosis
Boulder climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2016 - 08:21am PT
|
I suggest civil disobedience if this 'restriction' comes to pass.
|
|
D'Wolf
climber
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2016 - 09:27am PT
|
+1 on the civil disobedience.
Years back I attempted repeatedly to comply with all the rules and get my proper permit for areas in the Eastside but my partner and I could never seem to get one.
The LAST time I even attempted led to my absolute refusal to comply in the future:
Headed to Temple Crag we attempted a permit; couldn't get one. Drove to Lone Pine figuring we'd get a walk-in permit the next morning. Next day we were parked in front of the office when the rangers arrived. We waited about 30 minutes to let them get their day started before entering the office to pick up a permit; during that time, NO ONE ENTERED THE OFFICE. We were told, "Sorry boys, they're all gone. Should've got here earlier." We looked at each other in disgust and both could tell we were thinking the same thing: say something, or not? Well, we did. The rangers got pissed, refused to give us a permit and basically told us, "tough luck".
We left the office, drove to the trailhead and hiked in. We spent 4 days up there and NEVER SAW A SINGLE PERSON ON THE TRAIL OR CLIMBING; no vehicles at the trailhead, either. Appearances were that they had shut the area down by informing everyone that the permits were all gone and simply not issuing any.
Since that time, I just go where I want; I don't care; screw 'em. I figure, if I get a citation I'll call it a "climbing permit" and part of the cost of climbing. In 15+ years of climbing in the Eastside I have never been issued a citation - probably because I'VE NEVER ENCOUNTERED A RANGER ON ANY TRAIL. Maybe I've been lucky, but 15 years? Do these rangers even patrol the trails anymore?
So, go ahead shut it down - I'll go where I want, thank you very much.
Thom
To clarify: this was back when some permits went by mail, some walk-in day before, and some walk-in day of departure.
|
|
i'm gumby dammit
Sport climber
da ow
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2016 - 11:08am PT
|
I thought this order meant you just had to stay on trails within the preserves. Seems like in most of these areas they recognize climbing as a legitimate use of the resource. Why not work to make the climbing trails official trails?
Maybe try civil cooperation before civil disobedience?
|
|
| Messages 1 - 15 of total 15 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!