Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
piquaclimber
Trad climber
Durango
|
|
Ron,
First let me say that I have a lot of respect for you and have enjoyed climbing many of your routes over the years. Hell, my last tower was the Charlie Horse Needle. Thanks.
That being said, your statement reads a little hypocritically to me.
It doesn't seem fair to compare what the ATF and most of the climbing community is fighting for in Arches (clean and free climbing access with the ability to establish anchors for new routes) to your attempt to constructively scar on entrada.
Also, even if it were true that the rock in Arches would wear 10 times faster than that in Zion, there are at least 10 times as many climbers on the Zion trade/aid routes which means they will wear as fast as any Arches aid route. Should we stop climbing Prodigal Sun and Touchstone as well?
My point is that clean and free climbing are not creating excessive wear in Arches and should be treated differently than a nail up. These routes will be here long after we are all dead and buried.
Brad
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
Brad,
t'aint so.
Free climbing DOES wear the rock. This is something we really should attempt to address, at least forming some guidelines to mitigate the effects.
But you know how it goes...
Instead of a smooth progression policy is often a knee jerk response to galvanizing events.
What's going to happen when there is a fatal accident resulting at least in part from worn out or broken holds in front of a tourist with a video camera who then gets it on the news?
|
|
piquaclimber
Trad climber
Durango
|
|
I would hope that nothing will happen in terms of regulation if/when someone is unfortunate enough to die from a broken hold and the whole thing is captured on film. That is not to say that I don't worry about an overreaction though.
Has this never happened before in a NP.... maybe in the Valley?
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
My point is that we are unlikely to effectively deal with this issue and are therefore likely to have highly restrictive regulation handed to us.
Unfortunately in order for a canary in a coal mine to serve useful warning it must die.
|
|
kenman
Trad climber
Centennial, CO
|
|
Just dropped a note to the park and it only took about 10 minutes. Hopefully this can come to a good conclusion with minimal restrictions. If we don't act, Soon the only land one can climb on will be the land one owns....
|
|
benkiessel
Trad climber
Gunnison, Co
|
|
First of all I would like to say thank you to everyone that has sent in a letter to the N.P.
Second I have to say that Brad has been right on with all of his posts.
Tomcat- If you are going to suggest sacrificing a climbing area from 1,500 miles away you should have at least climbed in the area before. You have never climbed in Arches and you are comparing climbing’s impact in Arches to climbing’s impact in Indian Creek. Arches doesn't see near as much action as the Creek does, and the climbers that I see in Arches are nothing like the crowds of newbies I see in the Creek. People that climb in Arches usually have been around a little more and seem to have developed a respect for the land and the climbs.
You asked for a sport that is enjoyed around the country and destroys the land. How about 4 wheeling? Have you seen the black rocks in the west from tires spinning and the giant mud holes in the east? John Moosie is right on with the fact that every user group leaves an impact. But from my experience most climbers seem to leave less crap behind, and pick up others junk more often then not. There is always going to be a group of people that don't pick up their crap and don't care about the land, and this will always causes problems for the rest of us. But saying that we are all like that is just not true.
Todd Gordon- You’re the man.
Piton Ron- I'm not angry, I'm just disappointed. I have done many of your routes and totally disagree with what you have to say. Yes Entrada sandstone is soft but there are FAR fewer climbers climbing on it. Yes clean and free climbing on Entrada does cause some wear but nothing like nailing and re-nailing a route does(which is why you do your constructive scaring thing). Brad is right about it causing so little wear that the climbs will be there long after we are dead. And why are we talking about some hypothetical situation of someone breaking a hold off and dieing? Is this person going to die because they had not placed gear? Or were they free soloing? Which route is this going to be on?
Climbing in Arches brings happiness to my life, and it will be a sad day when climbers are no longer allowed to climb in the park.
-Ben
|
|
Sam Lightner, Jr
Social climber
WY
|
|
There are a lot of good ideas here. I have spoken with Park officials recently and I can't stress enough just how much they want to hear your ideas. If you havne't yet written a letter to them, please do so.
For what its worth, any time you touch a resource you are doing some sort of damage to it. We could restrict diving on all reefs cus human contact changes the reef... we could eliminate any entry of humans into wilderness areas... we could stop all forms of climbing on entrada sandstone... but is that really the world we want to live in. As I see it, climbing has an effect on what you are climbing... even on granite. However, the effect is failry negligble on the environment as a whole. The groundwater doesn't get poisened, species don't get wiped out, and really, as many people like looking at us as don't.
Lets not work to get ourselves kicked off the cliffs... many others are already working on that for us.
Sam
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
Ben,
I think that using the argument that there is lighter traffic is short sighted. In the end it takes fewer ascents to muck up a climb.
Understand that I too am conflicted over this. I'm not for locking everything up, I just think we have to put aside personal ambition and consider the long term cost/benefit equation before assuming that access is ALWAYS good.
Already in my mind I'm re-analizing my decision to back off, and rationalizing another shot at that climb.
But that tells me something too.
You say you've repeated a lot of my routes. So have I.
I wonder if you can see the changes that have occurred to some.
|
|
Hannah
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2007 - 11:22pm PT
|
It is true, there is always impact. 1 motorcycle = 100 mtn bikes, 1 mtn bike = 100 hikers. What is the impact of a first ascent on granite? Sandstone? Very soft sandstone? The second ascent or the 2,000th ascent?
Maybe we climbers should think about what impact is OK. I think it depends on the type of rock, how easy the route is, nature of the pro, how short the approach, where the descent goes. But also where the climb is located in terms of our impact affecting other non-climbers.
Land managers could really use our help on this stuff. They are ASKING climbers for it, we should ante up. This discussion is good & helps a lot, makes us think.
|
|
pud
climber
Sportbikeville
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2007 - 12:37am PT
|
"1 motorcycle = 100 mtn bikes, 1 mtn bike = 100 hikers"
WTF?
Ever seen what a horse does to trails, or hikers cutting switchbacks?
I think your formula is bullsh#t.
That said, I'm writing a letter because I think this IS the way to handle this type of situation. We need to unite on these closures.
San Diego climbers are united over the looming closures in the Cleveland forest and now we need to unite over what will be the future of climbing in Arches, Canyonlands et al.
I believe Williamson Rock would be opened to climbing today had it been handled this way.
|
|
Anastasia
Trad climber
California
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2007 - 04:29am PT
|
(I just read the beginning of the thread and this came to mind.)
I just think that when writing a letter;
It is best to be courteous with those you are dealing with while remaining both firm and calm about your own agenda. I always thought that the fastest way of not having a solution is being demanding and emotional about the issue.
I personally hope no one focuses on the blame game for it looks childish. I also think it helps remind our target audience on "why they shouldn't allow us in" which defeats the purpose of this letter writing campaign. Instead we should be encouraging them to trust us by informing them that we have been responsible and courteous. We can be in the park without drama and if given the chance, we will continue this trend.
I will write a letter within the next two days.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2007 - 10:28am PT
|
If the group of climbers in the ANP locale who are presently working with the NPS to support the park would put a note in this thread it would be very helpful. Manpower and budget wise the NPS is critically stressed and I am sure badly needs our help. Pitching in is a win for both the park and its fans.
|
|
joane
climber
|
|
|
Apr 11, 2007 - 11:33am PT
|
For your convenience--The website for the House of Representatives , the Committees section shows some of the issues being considered by Congress to respond to the President's proposed budget rationale etc.concerning many issues about our natural resources.
For this ST thread topic, comments for the Arches Climbing Plan, I just excerpted issues about the NPS from a different viewpoint to consider.
I tried to pick out info that might be helpful for anyone to think about what they want to comment on, because the climbing plan would be apart of this bigger picture..and in both the case of our Congress and our President, their respective policy considerations.
The excerpts below are not complete and are seleted from the 110th Congresional Committee on Natural Resources views and ideas as shown on the website. I agree with others on this ST thread that it is for sure very important that people let both the NPS agency in the Executive branch of the President and the States' Representatives of the people in Congress know about their concerns and wishes. They do want to hear from everyone, the more the better.
---------------------------------------------------
Excerpts from the website-- 110th Congresional Committee info:
start quote--"Jurisdiction of the Committee on Natural Resources
Rule X of the Rules of the U.S. House of Representatives, 110th Congress....
• Fisheries and wildlife, including research, restoration, refuges, and conservation.
• Forest reserves and national parks created from the public domain. ....." end quote
(etc etc for other subjects not on point to these NPS issues).
"Members of the Committee on Natural Resources
U.S. House of Representatives
110th Congress
1329 Longworth House Office Building
(202) 225-6065 Fax: (202) 225-1931
MR. NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman
MR. DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member
also here are the
"Members of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
1333 Longworth House Office Building
(202) 226-7736 Fax: (202) 226-2301
Mr. Raúl M. Grijalva, Arizona, Chairman
Mr. Rob Bishop, Utah, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Dan Boren, Oklahoma
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland
Peter M. DeFazio, Oregon
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York
Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Lois Capps, California
Jay Inslee, Washington
Mark Udall, Colorado
Stephanie Herseth, South Dakota
Heath Shuler, North Carolina
Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia (ex officio) John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Chris Cannon, Utah
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Rick Renzi, Arizona
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina
Louie Gohmert, Texas
Tom Cole, Oklahoma
Dean Heller, Nevada
Bill Sali, Idaho
Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Don Young, Alaska (ex officio)"
----------------------------------------------
excerpt for NPS section of 110th Congressinal Committee Plan:
begin quote of excerpt-
"NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS
Forest Service:
Budget Oversight: The Committee will review the President’s budget request for the programs and activities of the Forest Service.
Forest Planning and NEPA: The recent announcement by the Administration to exempt national forest plans from NEPA is only the latest in a series of administrative moves to scale back or exclude the public from Forest Service planning. The Committee will examine these changes and their impact on our natural resources and the public’s right to know about and participate in the management of our national forests.
Hazardous Fuel Costs: Both the GAO and the USDA Inspector General have issued reports documenting problems with the Forest Service’s handling of the hundreds of millions of dollars they have received for hazardous fuels reduction. The Committee will examine the issues identified in these reports, including agency failures to control costs, prioritize projects, and deliver value in its hazardous fuels program.
Healthy Forest Act Implementation: In 2003, the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management were given significant new authority to expedite the removal of dead and dying timber from national forests and public lands. The Committee will examine the agencies’ use of this new authority.
Roadless Rule: In 2004 the Bush Administration overturned the Clinton Administration Roadless Rule and instituted its own directive. This new rule was subsequently put on hold by a U.S. District Court. The Administration is now trying to get around this court ruling by using a petition procedure under the Administrative Procedures Act. The Committee will review the Bush Administrations’s actions on this matter.
Campground Closures: The Forest Service has ordered a nationwide assessment of all national forest campgrounds. In some areas, they are proposing to shut down or scale back one-third or more of all campgrounds. The Committee will examine the potential impact this assessment could have on public recreation in our national forests.
Timber Program: No activity of the Forest Service is more controversial than the timber program. Below-cost sales, salvage sales, and thinning have generated significant public concern. The Committee will examine the timber sale program to assess the program’s impact on forest resources and to assure that it is managed in the public’s interest.
Bureau of Land Management:
Budget Oversight: The Committee will review the President’s budget request for programs and activities of the Bureau of Land Management.
Oil and Gas Development Impacts on Public Lands: This Administration has fast-tracked the extraction of oil and gas from public lands, with thousands of new drilling permits issued annually. This development has, in certain places, negatively impacted the natural, scenic, historical, cultural, and recreational resources that exist on public lands. The Committee will undertake an extensive review of this matter.
Wild Horse and Burro Program: With the repeal of the prohibition on the sale and commercial slaughter of wild horses and burros, public attention has been focused on the many problems with the BLM’s administration of the program. The Committee will examine the program with an eye toward moving legislation to prohibit the slaughter of these symbols of the American West.
Grazing Program: For the past several years, the Administration has been attempting to roll back reforms to the grazing program that were instituted in 1995. In 2006 the Administration issued a rule that repealed or undercut a number of the 1995 reforms. Implementation of this rule was subsequently enjoined by a U.S. District Court. The Committee will examine the changes being proposed and their impact on the long-term health of our public lands.
National Landscape Conservation System: In the late 1990's, the National Landscape Conservation System was established within the Bureau of Land Management to pull together under one umbrella the national monuments, national conservation areas, wilderness, and other conservation units administered by the BLM. Many of these conservation units were established only in the past decade and their management plans are new or in the process of being finalized. The Committee will examine the agency’s management of the system and the numerous significant resources the system contains.
RS 2477: For several years, the Administration has been methodically moving to relinquish control of certain federal lands using a legislative statute known as RS 2477, which was repealed nearly 30 years ago. The potential relinquishment of these federal lands could significantly complicate the management of important public resources and adversely affect not only public lands but private lands as well. The Committee will examine the Administration’s actions.
National Park Service:
Budget: The Committee will examine the President’s budget request for the programs and activities of the National Park Service.
Yellowstone Bison: After six years and millions of dollars, implementation of the 2000 Yellowstone Bison Management Plan has not proceeded beyond the first phase of the plan. Thousands of bison have been slaughtered under the plan and the Committee will explore ways to protect and properly mange these living symbols of America.
Centennial Challenge: In August 2006, the President called on Americans to enhance our national parks and directed the NPS to come up with a plan to achieve this. The so-called “Centennial Challenge” is lacking in details and little appears to have been done thus far. The Committee will examine the program to determine how the Administration is meeting its responsibility as stewards of some of the most important elements of our national heritage.
Outsourcing of Federal Jobs: Despite the outpouring of negative reaction by Congress and the public to the Administration’s plan to outsource jobs at federal land management agencies, the Administration is still proceeding methodically, but quietly, on outsourcing. The Committee will examine the Administration’s efforts in this regard and their impact on public employees and the resources they protect day in and day out.
Recreation Fees: On January 1 st, federal agencies rolled out a new “ America the Beautiful Pass.” That pass replaces others that were less costly to visitors to our National Parks and public lands attractions. The result is that individuals who want to continue to enjoy these American treasures are having to play 23% to 60% more than in the past to do so. The National Park Service is the largest collector of recreation fees but the Committee will look at the fee programs of all agencies to see where, why, and how such fees are being collected and used.
-----------------------------------------------------
Excerpts from recent Hearing of the Committee issues and testimony from varous people--
begin quote--
"Opening Statement By Chairman Raul Grijalva
Opening Remarks of U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Oversight Hearing on FY 2008 NPS Budget Request
March 1, 2007
Good morning. I would like to welcome everyone to today’s oversight hearing on the National Park Service’s fiscal year 2008 budget request.
The 390 units of the National Park System represent a rich and varied tapestry of America. Writer and environmentalist Wallace Stegner said “National Parks are the best idea we ever had. Absolutely American, absolutely democratic, they reflect us at our best rather than our worst.”
But in recent years, the National Park Service has suffered from budget neglect. Funding has not even kept pace with increases in fixed costs such as heating bills and cost of living adjustments. Reports from the Government Accountability Office have shown that the much-discussed maintenance backlog is not diminishing.
In fact, this year’s budget request is for less money than was requested for the National Park Service five years ago. This level of investment is hardly the way to ensure that on its 100th birthday in 2016, our National Park System will reflect us at our best rather than our worst.
After several years of plainly inadequate budget requests, the Administration now proposes to prepare for the centennial with a new Centennial Initiative. As part of that Initiative, there has been a lot of talk about this year’s budget request providing the “largest increase ever” for park operations. While any increase is a positive step, it must be noted that much of this increase appears to come at the expense of other important park programs. We look forward to the Director’s thoughts on these trade-offs.
In addition, the administration’s plan to ready the parks for their centennial relies in large part on asking for donations from the American people. The plan would require the agency to solicit $100 million in private funds as a prerequisite for Congress to “match” that amount.
What such a proposal might mean on the ground must be explored. For example, the Park Service will need to raise nearly $60 million, and bank on a mandatory match from Congress, just to restore the park construction budget to last year’s levels. This new reliance on fundraising is troubling – I believe that agencies and employees of the federal government should provide services to the American public, not hit them up for donations to fund park facilities.
Let me be clear, I support more funds for the National Park Service to carry out its responsibilities as stewards of our national heritage. We all welcome increases for park operations, but these increases should not come at the expense of other park programs or rely on budget gimmicks. I look forward to hearing from Director Bomar regarding how this budget request addresses our national responsibility to be good stewards of our national treasures.
With that, I now recognize Mr. Bishop for any opening statement he may have."
end quote
Edit note for balance of viewpoints: As Chris said in the first post, there is also the NPS website itself which specifically adresses the issue.
|
|
Hannah
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2007 - 11:51am PT
|
I guess my analogy of climbing to motorcycles, bicycles & hikers in my earlier posting was too brief to be clear. I apologize if this offended anyone. The point I was trying to make is two-fold. One, there are things we can learn as climbers from other sports. Two, at some point any amount of human impact becomes too much, whether that’s a few mechanical transports (ie, motors or bikes) or a lot of human feet (ie, hikers). Or a few enhanced aid placements or a lot of human hands in a sandstone crack.
I was not trying to quantify bicycling impact, but rather to point out that there is impact. In fact, I think it would be very difficult to quantify because the impact is so specific to the terrain. But the analogy still holds true for climbing. Only 30 years ago a person could ride their dirt bike just about anywhere in the wide open West they wanted to. Then non-bikers started to see the impact and moved swiftly to restrict off-road biking. Along came the big growth of mountain biking in the late 80’s, and the scene was replayed (swift closure of many areas to bicycles). Today, with the high population growth of the West in the last 2 decades, some areas even restrict hiking (permit systems, etc.).
On a large scale climbing has not yet had to face severe restrictions like a number of other recreational activities have. I think our time is coming, though, and how we respond as individuals and climbing organizations will make a big difference in the end result. We should heed the lessons of those other activities.
In the early 90’s there was an 8x10” photo of a bolt and hanger circulating around Washington. A lot of policy managers had never heard of or seen a climbing fixed anchor and they were appalled to see this large metal device fixed to rock (literally 8x10” in the blown-up photo). Climbing has come a long ways since then with much better understanding of what climbers do and don’t do. A number of parks now support paid climbing-ranger positions and have organized user-groups to help with climbing-related decisions.
Some parks already have climbing management plans that are going through their second or third revisions. If you look at the trend in these plans, it has generally been to relax climbing restrictions where they were more strict than necessary. A lot of those plans came about because non-climbers were worried about the growth of climbing and its impacts. They wanted to restrict and control the impact. What has happened over time is that land managers have learned more about climbing (through working with climbers and their climber-staffs). So what you see is continuing restrictions on the most severely impacted areas but more relaxed standards where managers have learned that climbing impact is low. There is also increased recognition that some resources are truly outstanding and precious to climbers.
A key point is that the implementation of a climbing plan is highly specific to the situation on a particular cliff and nearby ground. A plan can have general policies like “minimize visual impact and loss of natural features”, but how that is managed will depend on the particular route. If there is one thing we can ask for in preparing an Arches Climbing Management Plan, it would be to allow this kind of micro-management to happen with the thoughtful inputs of the knowledgeable local climbing groups. So, for example, local climbers could advise Arches managers that a particular area is well off the beaten path for tourists and not overly attractive to masses of beginner climbers, and so should be left open for both free and aid new-routing.
This is probably heresy to some people, but I believe the climbing management plans can be a very good thing for us. I don’t like the government telling me what I can and can’t do, but I look around and see scads more people in the West every year. I hate to think what the beautiful places would look like today if there weren’t protections in place. I want an assurance that I’ll get to climb in the future without facing some ridiculous closure born of ignorance by perpetrating land managers. Ultimately good climbing management plans could protect our future access.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!