Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Spider Savage
Mountain climber
The shaggy fringe of Los Angeles
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 6, 2014 - 05:25pm PT
|
It seems they want to charge us for a special permit. While this sounds sensible in the here and now, it sets a dangerous precedent.
|
|
Bad Climber
climber
|
|
Yeah, Spider, this $/permit thing is ridiculous, not to mention ordering permits ahead of time and such. What a bunch of crap. Of course, my dog wouldn't be allowed. F-'em.
I HATE my government.
Land of the free? Yeah, right.
Check it out:
Visitors to this area
would be required to obtain a Visitor Use Permit through the National Recreation
Reservation Service (NRRS).
 A seasonal closure of the Visitor Use Permit Area would be implemented from
November 16 to July 31, to minimize impacts to MYLF and/or peregrine falcons.
During the open season (August 1 to November 15), Visitor Use Permits would be
reserved in advance through NRRS online or by calling the NRRS toll-free number.
Permits would not be issued by local Forest Service offices.
At least one Forest Service site manager with citation authorization would be onsite each
day that the Visitor Use Permit Area is open. Funding for this site management would be
provided by a combination of grants, partner contributions, user fees, and federal budget
allocations.
The Forest Service would use the NRRS system to provide permit users with educational
information about the area, including regulations, human waste disposal requirements,
and resource protection concerns and requirements.
A limited number of permits would be issued each day, based on site capacity (including
parking capacity at the Kratka Ridge parking lot on CA-2). The permit system would be
governed by an “either/or” quota mechanism that would initially issue permits each day
for no more than 90 persons to access the rock and no more than 30 vehicles (based on
available number of parking stalls) to park at the designated trail head.
The number of visitor use permits issued would be adjusted up or down as determined by
an adaptive management process that would consider the following three
metrics/indicators:
MYLF population reports
Permit compliance
Available funding for onsite Forest Service management
Dogs and other domestic animals would be prohibited (PCT exempt), unless they are service
animals covered under DOJ 28 C.F.R. Part 35.136 – also applies to federal agencies under
Section 504.
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
Public lands need to be managed. I travel the world and what impresses me about the US is the cleanliness of public lands and the ABUNDANCE of wildlife. This would not be the case without public lands administered by governmental agencies.
Policies sometimes seem bizarre to many of us in the climbing comunity but, believe me, it's better than the alternative of weak environmental laws or weak enforcement of existing laws.
edit: I would hope that rules concerning pets are never an access issue....they're nice to have around but they don't climb.
|
|
overwatch
climber
|
|
Manage it by boycotting it...I am all for protecting wildlife but they can pound their fee. I thought that place was a joke anyway. Overrated zoo...sorry if anyone gets offended
|
|
neebee
Social climber
calif/texas
|
|
hey there, say, spider... say, i was wondering how this was going... thanks for sharing...
thanks for added thought, info, too, to donini...
and other thoughts on all this, too...
i remember back when we all got to write, etc, concerning all this...
i am not a climber, of course, but was still concerned...
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Seems like a reasonable approach to me. They are going to be spending in the neighborhood of $100,000 JUST to provide access for climbing. This will not be charged to climbers in any way.
They feel the need to control the number of people accessing the site, which means a permit system. They are using a national already-existing site that handles permits on federal lands, which charges a fee to recover the cost of the permit system. By doing so they are probably assuring a much larger amount of access. The forest gets none of the money.
They are putting a ranger out there that is an actual employee (volunteers cannot write citations), which will probably run $20k a year---which will not cost climbers anything.
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
Thanks for the update Spider. Having said that, comments like this really bother me:
I HATE my government.
Land of the free? Yeah, right. Bad Climber seems like an OK dude, and I do dislike fee programs, but come on. E.B. Sledge, a Marine who later wrote a book about his tour on Peleliu and Okinawa, said he found his return to civilian life difficult, like many returning soldiers, because he could not "comprehend people who griped because America wasn't perfect, or their coffee wasn't hot enough, or they had to stand in line and wait for a train or bus".
Let's get some perspective. If you don't like, provide your thoughts to the Forest Service. Donini is right. Some regulation is good, particularly when you at other areas in other places where regulation is lax or nonexistent.
|
|
overwatch
climber
|
|
Seems like they will be getting our money back in fees and citations because the two times I was there, on weekdays no less, it was crammed with climbers. Could not imagine the scene on a weekend
Anyway, party on I won't be in the way
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
Access fees on public lands = double taxation
Tell a friend!
|
|
justthemaid
climber
Jim Henson's Basement
|
|
I'm with Donini and Ken on this one.
I think this is a very reasonable approach. Limited access is a huge step from NO access. The fee-thing is a downer but I get why they are doing it. Some modicum of control over the inevitable hoards that would descend is in order. I don't think the entire park system is going to fall apart from this particular precedent. If it's not aiming a gun at me, it's not "dangerous".
Like Fat Dad said, you can direct your comments to the Forest Service. Evidently they DO read their mail.
(Minus the fee), this is exactly the outline I've proposed to the park service in several letters to them.
It will be interesting to see what future studies will reveal about the frog. I've read the recent reports. Fire+drought over the last few years has wiped them out in that particular area IMO.
|
|
Bad Climber
climber
|
|
I hear you Fat Dad. I just get so frustrated with the waste and hyper-regulation. Some climbing access is better than none, for sure, but the place,if the plan goes as drafted, will be closed for much of the best season, AND we'll have to pay to walk down there. Cost for access? Climbers would be screaming happy to provide all the labor. I guess it's safe to say that it is unlikely I'll be climbing there again. I'm glad I got to experience it in it's unregulated state for a few trips. Great climbing.
I should be more measured in my tone, I guess: I HATE aspects of my government. Hell, I'm a gov't employee, so the tax payer is on the hook for my livelihood. My gov't gives me a good life. But I see so many stupid things going down, and it drives me crazy. I don't want to drift this thread, but in Cali. we've got this "wheelchair Nazi" who goes around shutting down mom and pop business because some obscure aspect of ADA regulations isn't being met, regulations, btw, that are, just about impossible to meet--truly. Ramp angle off by a fraction of a degree? You're busted. Railing a fraction of an inch to high/low? You're busted. Want to park on a dirt pullout in the National Forest? Pay up.
Gaaaa....
I need a beer. And it's barely 6AM. Haarumph.
BAd
|
|
guyman
Social climber
Moorpark, CA.
|
|
Sucks Balls....
|
|
Spider Savage
Mountain climber
The shaggy fringe of Los Angeles
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 7, 2014 - 08:55am PT
|
I thought that place was a joke anyway. Overrated zoo.
Thanks for saying this. It's definitely a B- crag in my opinion. Although LA is surrounded by these. This one is good in hot weather.
The way this reads, the Forest Service seems to be preparing for and onslaught compared to the beach crowd. They could spend a fortune developing an infrastructure for hundreds of climbers each week but then only a handful would show up.
Here in LA our crags seem to go through popularity surges. At one point Devils Punchbowl was a "Scene" now nothing. That scene moved to Williamson in the mid 1990's and was packed. If it opens again, especially under these conditions, I don't see it ever getting more than 50 or 60 a day. Usually less.
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
"I don't think the entire park system is going to fall apart from this particular precedent."
The USFS has been trying to make their Fee Demonstration Project permanent in one manner or another for nearly 20 years, and have been slapped back legally repeatedly. Their most recent efforts, however, are showing strong likelihood of becoming permanent.
To make their case, they used trumped up 'evidence' showing that the public approved of such fee-based access, by showing the numbers of people who purchased an Adventure Pass. This Pass had no legislative teeth behind it, but the USFS presented & 'marketed' it in such a way that it appeared to the public that it was mandatory. Each one of these purchases were used as 'evidence' of public support for fee-based access.
The USFS will absolutely hold this up as an example of where the public accepts the idea of a fee-based access in their continued efforts to nationalize the policy. And if this happens, they will certainly concession the permit system to an outside corporation.
Our public lands are our legacy as citizens of this fine country. There is plenty of tax revenue with which to manage them adequately...all we have to do is stop allowing the leadership to squander them away in useless, expensive wars & such.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
By my reckoning the FS had to sell 70 million 'Adventure Passes' to pay
for their new Taj Mahal in Arcadia. Yeah, that's what the little froggies
really need for their protection, ain't it?
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
Yep. This Taj Mahal, as Reilly so aptly calls it,is a long way from the Nat Forest it is supposed to serve. The head ranger's office and visitor center many miles away in urban Arcadia built at a cost of millions? And they want a fee/permit system and a person writing citations at a crag? Tip of the iceberg...
|
|
apogee
climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
|
|
I don't have a problem with an agency like the USFS operating in a facility like that. Our public lands deserve to be prioritized and managed effectively, and that takes a functional workplace and a place where the public can get good information.
What galls me is the idea that such a facility had anything to do with the revenues generated by the Fee Demo Project. Or that the revenue might have come from subsidized access to our lands for various extractive purposes. Or that the poorly managed subsidizing process would be compensated for by fee programs.
That really pisses me off.
|
|
Spider Savage
Mountain climber
The shaggy fringe of Los Angeles
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 7, 2014 - 10:34am PT
|
Our public lands are our legacy as citizens of this fine country. There is plenty of tax revenue with which to manage them adequately...all we have to do is stop allowing the leadership to squander them away in useless, expensive wars & such.
Very well stated. As is your quote above.
Our land managers deserve the best. The best personnel, training, equipment, facilities and funding. The cost of ONE fricking weapon of destruction would cover this for years.
I addition to responding to the survey, please cc Adam Schiff the local Rep or whom ever your Rep of Congress is. It's those goofballs who don't get it.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
This thing is a couple of miles from my house, on extremely valuable land situated between the 210 freeway and the Santa Anita racetrack. WTF? Does the head ranger like betting on the horses during his lunch break? Seriously, I watched this building go up, and I looked up the budget, which did not mention the cost of the land. This means one of two things; either the USFS already owned the property (worth millions) in which case they should have sold it, or they bought it and did not list it as part of the budget for the project. Either way we, the tax and fee paying public, got robbed.
FWIW if they had built a reasonably nice facility in the Nat Forest where visitors to the forest would actually see and use it, and we already owned the land I would not be so peeved, but instead they built a facility far more extravagant than Joshua Tree National Park's fine visitor center and offices, and it is nowhere near the Nat Forest on very valuable property.
What is "not to get" about this?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!