City of Rocks Superintendent Stops New Routing

Castle Rocks 

Another good reason to be a member of the Access Fund

accessfund.org/

The more things change the more they stay the same.

It was interesting to see two names in the article.
Wallace Keck, the park manager.
Shane Rathbun, the new climbing ranger (Brad Shilling's replacement)

Serious threats to City of Rocks and Castle Rocks climbing going on NOW.
Walace Keck - Park superintendent, wants to virtually end all new route development at both areas. Advocacy groups in ID are working on a plan to push back.

What can you do?

When you see park personnel at the City or Castle, mention that new routes are important to you - and the local economy.

Thanks for your support!

dave bingham wrote:When you see park personnel at the City or Castle, mention that new routes are important to you - and the local economy. Thanks for your support!

I am surprised the stance that the park has taken. Forgive my ignorance but I'd venture to guess that climbers contribute to a significant portion of annual visitors.

Remember, don't set new routes but if you want to dig out a man-made pond stocked with fish...that's ok. Seems a little backwards.

dave bingham wrote:mention that new routes are important to ... the local economy.

It might be useful (more effective) to explain how that is true.

Red Rock Climbing Police wrote:Castle Rocks stopped the new routing permits to "revamp" to allow them to deny everyone and require individual route permission next season.

Jump to conclusions much? New permits will start in March of next year. The article says nothing about denying everyone. Keck has a responsibility to maintain the other resources that the park has, such as watershed, plants, animals and items of cultural importance. To me, it sounds like they're wanting to bring both the City and Castle under a similar (or identical) permitting system.

Charlie S wrote: I am surprised the stance that the park has taken. Forgive my ignorance but I'd venture to guess that climbers contribute to a significant portion of annual visitors.

The park isn't a private business operating in the market. If the vast majority of the clientele want something that doesn't align with the mission of the park service they may not be inclined to provide it.

The administration there is probably more in tune with climbers than at any other NPS unit because it is so overwhelmingly popular. Almost all the trails, trailheads and camping areas are built with climbers in mind.

Garret Nuzzo-Jones wrote: The park isn't a private business operating in the market. If the vast majority of the clientele want something that doesn't align with the mission of the park service they may not be inclined to provide it.

Perhaps, but a lot of local businesses which ARE operating in the market rely on that clientele as well.

Based on conversations I've had, getting anchors put in on routes in City of Rocks is such an astronomically difficult process that the original developers don't even bother (think mountainproject.com/v/stres…, the multiple fiascos trying to get off of King on The Throne, mountainproject.com/v/vise-…).

It'd be a shame if Castle followed suit. One of the allures of Castle Rocks is its "easier" and "more friendly" nature so people who aren't as hardcore can enjoy it.

This post violated Rule #1. It has been removed by Mountain Project.

Red Rock Climbing Police wrote:The permit requires the climbing ranger, cultural resources ranger, and natural resources ranger to all visit your project and approve it.

This sounds very similar to the NEPA process. Not exactly a perfect system by any means but one that (sometimes) keeps things from being overlooked.

I'm not sure how the trustifarian thing ties in. Are you bribing the NPS employees to look at your route and approve it?

What would be a better permit system in your opinion? Should they simply take less time to approve routes? Should they not manage routes at all?

Charlie S wrote: Perhaps, but a lot of local businesses which ARE operating in the market rely on that clientele as well.

You think City of Rocks visitation will drop significantly if new routes stop going in? I'd hazard a guess and say if even 0 routes went in in the next 5 years their visitation would barely be altered. It seems like most people come for the classics put up decades ago.

Garret,

Good comments but I think there is more going on behind the scenes that you may be aware of.

I've been on the planning teams for both CIRO (City) and CRSP (Castle)and am working with regional advocacy groups to try and give the climbing community a voice in the process.

The current permit system at CIRO has allowed an absurdly low total of 10 new routes in the past 23 years. The majority of permit applications are denied, without any transparency or climber input.

The criteria for permitting routes goes far beyond what is needed for resource protection. We can and should do better.

When I started climbing at CIRO, the town of Almo had virtually no economy other than ranching. No park infrastructure, no restaurants, no hotel, no B&B's, no commercial hot springs, no State Park.

Without new routes, the City would not be The City, and we would not be having this discussion.

dave bingham wrote:Garret, Good comments but I think there is more going on behind the scenes that you may be aware of.

Good comments, Dave.

Yeah, the City's new route process is a kind of mini NEPA. I've had a few routes approved, and, one that's kinda semi approved sorta...

Its not a very streamlined process for the drive by new router, which, might be ok with regard to resource management. And, you can put up as many routes as you want as long as you don't install hardware.

The Castle has been a nice process. The active number of folks putting in routes has been fairly minimal.

Wonder what Wallace is thinking? Has both places reached saturation? Have the new routes that have gone in in the last year or two been squeezed, impacted resources...? Maybe he's hoping to appeal to a wider audience (and not just climbers)?

You look at the local economy, the B&B's, the two restaurants, hotel...and the cars in the parking lots on any given weekend (or during the week for that matter) and its mostly climbers. And, we go to the hot springs, pick up food and gas at Tracey's...

I'll be interested to see what happens...thanks for the updates!

Last week I noticed a personal invitation to climb with the new climbing ranger at the City. It was hand written, included a phone number, and posted on the message board at the Bath Rock parking lot. I suggest everyone start climbing with the new ranger. There is no better way to establish a long term working relationship with management than on belay! Sounds like he wants personal climber input to me.

dave bingham wrote:The current permit system at CIRO has allowed an absurdly low total of 10 new routes in the past 23 years. The majority of permit applications are denied, without any transparency or climber input. The criteria for permitting routes goes far beyond what is needed for resource protection. We can and should do better.

I'm on board with you there. That is a ridiculously low number of routes! Thanks for the insight Dave.

Brian in SLC wrote:Wonder what Wallace is thinking? Has both places reached saturation? Have the new routes that have gone in in the last year or two been squeezed, impacted resources...? Maybe he's hoping to appeal to a wider audience (and not just climbers)?

Both the City and Castle Rocks haven't reached anywhere near saturation in the farther crags in my opinion. Elephant Rock isn't likely to see any classic new FAs soon but there's still a lot of stone out there.

I'm not one to claim the permit process is the best. I just think that making wild accusations about the park superintendent on a climbing website isn't too likely to endear our community to them.

dave bingham wrote:Garret, Good comments but I think there is more going on behind the scenes that you may be aware of.

This is true.

Garret Nuzzo-Jones wrote: I just think that making wild accusations about the park superintendent on a climbing website isn't too likely to endear our community to them.

Dave is right. There is a lot more going on here behind the scenes. We're trying to address a legitimate threat. If you care about the future of climbing at City of Rocks National Reserve and Castle Rocks State Park, show your support by listening up!

Rob T wrote:Hey Dave, thanks for the info. Let us know if there is anyone we can contact to help. Any chance an org like SLCA could or would help w this?

Thanks Rob. We have a representative from SLCA involved.

Correction: I was in error when I said there have only been 10 routes permitted since the creation of the Reserve. It's probably closer to 15. There is potential for many great routes!

Castle rocks went through a complete cultural and natural resources evaluation before it opened. That is why when you got a new routing permit, you were told where was off limits and where was fair game. The permit also dictated things like distance required between routes, no bolting natural features, what hardware was needed, etc... If you violated these you could be asked to remove your bolts and loose your permit, seemed like the best system to me.

If anyone has actually met and dealt with the management you would likely understand the frustration and fear at changing the system. They are not climber friendly (think closing the twin sisters, because it "impaired the historical viewshed", aka people couldn't imagine it like the pioneers saw it if people were climbing on it).

If you were getting turned down without clear reason over and over, with no communication, local or climber input you might feel differently about the process.

It might be kind of nice to lay off the bolting pandemic unless we all believe climbing is coming to an end in the near future. Why don't we save some of the resources for future generations. All this FFA fever is quite lethal to our environment. How many of you can honestly raise your hand and say "I've climbed every route at CoR!"??? If so, it's about time to culture yourself and start traveling more.

Red Rock Climbing Police wrote:They are not climber friendly (think closing the twin sisters, because it "impaired the historical viewshed", aka people couldn't imagine it like the pioneers saw it if people were climbing on it). If you were getting turned down without clear reason over and over, with no communication, local or climber input you might feel differently about the process.

There are subtle differences between the City and the Castle. "Historical viewshed" is a City issue. The permit processes for adding fixed anchors are different. How the lands were acquired and managed are different.

I never felt like the "management" was not climber friendly. But, they have some challenges on their plate. I'd like to think we (climbers) can help.

Interesting article on the "business" side of IDPR:

magicvalley.com/news/local/…

Gives you a little flavor for how things are.

We climbers have a stake in any changes to the Castle Rock State Park. Climbers helped pay for and broker the land exchange. A damned amazing process:

congress.gov/congressional-…

The land was purchased with funds from, in part, the Access Fund (and Conservation Fund). So, essentially, climbers bought private land and brokered the transfer of that land to Idaho as a state park. We're in it.

So...considering the history, and, the challenges of having to operate under the IDPR umbrella, it can make for a funky stew. We all need to sit down at the dinner table and take a bite...

As of October 23, 2015 I have voluntarily resigned my position as Climbing Ranger at City of Rocks National Reserve and Castle Rocks State Park out of my own free will.