Planned Seasonal Closure of Clear Creek Canyon (formerly "Clear Creek Bolting Ban?")

We need to get Alex Jones on this stat.

reboot wrote:I do NOT think anybody who knew about the creation/details of the FHRC and kept silent should receive community support for being part of the said committee.

This is a link to the Climbing Management Guide that has been available on JeffCo's website for quite awhile - I found it a couple months ago within about 30 seconds of searching when I was curious if there was a climbing management plan for CCC. I believe this is pretty old since it refers to 300 routes in the canyon and data from 2005, but even here they reference potential for establishing a FHRC.

jeffco.us/open-space/activi…

People on this thread are very quick to cast stones at others for supposedly hiding knowledge from the community, but it seems like people haven't been that proactive about finding any information out for themselves. As far as I can tell, there have been efforts to let others know about recent developments as they have arisen and to try to get community involvement - Monty has been a leader in this.

As to whether Monty has aspirations to be on the committee himself, I don't know, but I do know that he has a diplomatic and reasonable approach and doesn't hide behind the anonymity of the internet like some others here - especially the OP, whatever his/her reasons may be.

I personally think Monty would be an excellent person to be on a FHRC for JeffCo given his experience with route development, stewardship, diplomacy with land managers and being involved with this work in the past. He certainly has the credentials, as I'm sure others in this discussion also do. Hopefully a lot of really excellent, committed people will apply to put their time and energy into what looks like a pretty thankless job.

Three Cheers for Monty!!!!
He's got my vote!!!!

(just remember to bring beer. . . hee hee hee).

I want to know more about the Peaks to Plains Trail and what effect future expansion will have on climbing and the environment. The plans currently dead end arbitrarily to the east of Mayhem Gulch. If they really plan to eventually take the trail all the way into Golden, how will this be accomplished without threatening established routes? One area of potential concern is the bottleneck in the area around New River Wall and Tunnel 2.

After reviewing the link to the Jeffco climbing management plan, it appears our climbing organizations had some input. I just hope that our organizations aren't advocating for an FHRC in Clear Creek. If individuals in these organizations are advocating for this,then heads should roll!

I'm opposed to an FHRC. It seems like an over-reaction to a couple of minor issues that could be addressed without creating another bureaucracy. The FHRCs in Eldo and the Flatirons were created to resolve significant conflicts between user groups. There is no such conflict in CCC.

That said, I'd like to think this process is a negotiation, and perhaps we can concede some things while asking for other things in consideration. I really don't like the idea of simply accepting a massive increase in regulation. For example, if this is correct...

Monty wrote:...new routes at established crags would be easily approved where as new crags would involve some trail analysis/layout/construction. ...

...then why not ask to have the FHRC limited in scope to address development at NEW crags, while the status quo is maintained for new routes at existing crags? If that's too open-ended, maybe we can list specific existing crags where the FHRC will not apply (like Wall of the 90s, etc).

If hardware quality is a concern, I would be in favor of adopting a minimum standard for hardware (at all crags, new & old) in lieu of an FHRC. Evaluating each individual route's proposed harwdare one at a time seems tedious at best, especially since nearly everyone I know who bolts in CCC is already using hardware that meets the existing UIAA Rock Anchors standard.

What do you guys think? Can we all agree on a reasonable counter-position to present on Thursday night?

Mark Rolofson wrote:After reviewing the link to the Jeffco climbing management plan, it appears our climbing organizations had some input. I just hope that our organizations aren't advocating for an FHRC in Clear Creek. If individuals in these organizations are advocating for this,then heads should roll!

Well, being on one of the LCO's what I can tell you is that some local climbers reached out to us (I have the Emails) along with the JEFFCO folks.
The discussion was already happening.
So in that respect I can certainly tell you that there was already a discussion.

There are probably members of any given organization that would advocate for a FHRC, but none that I am aware of who would try to get a land manager to do it as anything other than a ban or government-regulated process, whereas the community is NOT included in the process.

If you want to know more about how LCO's work, Mark, you should probably get involved in one. We try to open crags and preserve them, we don't close them.

Why should climbers have free reign on public land? It's not just our space. Environmental destruction and improper development are already a concern in some areas, and it's only going to get worse with the popularity of the sport rising.

I wouldn't support a per-route application system at this point in time, but it may become necessary in the future. I agree with Monomaniac. Hardware standards and trail development plans for new areas.

In the past, I was heavily involved with ACE, the Access Fund & Friends of Boulder Canyon. I live a busy life & like to climb when I have free time. I have donated lots of time to this sport in many ways: putting up new routes, replacing bolts & publishing guidebooks. The last endeavor used to pay well, but not so much anymore. I think the world has a lot of very pressing issues: Climate change, income inequality & wars raging around the planet. I follow politics closely & 2016 is an election year.
Thinking that we need a FHRC in Clear Creek to address environmental impacts of bolting is a joke. In fact, it serves as a distraction to more importmant problems. Climbing is usually a positive activity & great exercise. Micro managing new routes & having to fill out a permit every time I want to put in a new route or replace a bolt is a hassle. Those who chose to ignore the regulations will be breaking the law. We have just created a new group of criminals that were once law abiding citizens.
Jeffco open space department are hypocrites to be building a peaks to plains trail in rarely visited parts of the canyon. Won't this cause impacts? If it goes all the way down the canyon past the River Wall it will significantly change the natural beauty of the canyon.
We should be more worried about the impacts of driving to climb here. It's too bad there is not a bus or shuttle that we could take to the crags.

Mark,
Thanks for your service. I was unaware of your time on the LCO's. That said, I remain surprised then that you would suggest that the LCO's might be trying to limit or close crag access... That's not the case, as your experience should tell you. If they ever advocated for regulation, it was as an alternative to closure or a stricter limitation that was either coming or already in place. Eldo and the Flatirons are a perfect example of this.

David Barbour wrote:Why should climbers have free reign on public land? It's not just our space. Environmental destruction and improper development are already a concern in some areas, and it's only going to get worse with the popularity of the sport rising. I wouldn't support a per-route application system at this point in time, but it may become necessary in the future. I agree with Monomaniac. Hardware standards and trail development plans for new areas.

I agree, I think climbers often forget that we are one of the only, if not the only user group who can permanently alter a public resource. We are lucky that land managers allow us to bolt in the first place, because mtn bikers can't build wicked jumps, kayakers can't instal hardware that might assist them at an exit point (kind of a stretch for an example), and disk golfers can't instal permanent baskets in a par. Not everyone sees a line of bolts up a cliff as inspiring or "fun." We are a very priveleged user group, and while I agree that a hardware review process is annoying (trust me I've been through a lot of them), if that is what it takes to keep our privelege, then so be it. It is important to keep the conversation positive and show that we are a community that cares deeply about the resources we exploit for our recreational pleasure.

Monomaniac wrote: why not ask to have the FHRC limited in scope to address development at NEW crags, while the status quo is maintained for new routes at existing crags? If that's too open-ended, maybe we can list specific existing crags where the FHRC will not apply (like Wall of the 90s, etc). If hardware quality is a concern, I would be in favor of adopting a minimum standard for hardware (at all crags, new & old) in lieu of an FHRC. Evaluating each individual route's proposed harwdare one at a time seems tedious at best, especially since nearly everyone I know who bolts in CCC is already using hardware that meets the existing UIAA Rock Anchors standard. What do you guys think? Can we all agree on a reasonable counter-position to present on Thursday night?

You bring up some great points here Mono, and I think they are great solutions. The crux of it all is getting the word out and educating folks about the different regulations between crags.

Monomaniac wrote:... especially since nearly everyone I know who bolts in CCC is already using hardware that meets the existing UIAA Rock Anchors standard.

I don't have a dog in this race as I'm not from the area, but I just wanted to chime in and say that while I agree with a minimum hardware standard I don't think it should be tied to the UIAA hardware standard since in a few months nearly everything that is currently being used for bolting in the US with the exception of the wave bolt will be deemed not suitable for outdoor use by the UIAA.

UIAA is going to be saying that 304 stainless isn't suitable for outdoor use, which is ridiculous somewhere like CCC.

Hey, I think we need to go to this meeting not entrenched in positions resulting from other land managing organizations like Boulder County OS, Boulder Mt Parks, & Colorado State Parks. Those interactions with us climbers were partly due to climber-climber interactions that didn't really best represent us. Jefferson County OS manages a lot of land, well beyond CCC and N. Table Mt. A quick peek at a National Geographic map for Golden/Boulder $9.95 by Trails Illustrated shows you they have most of CCC, N. Table, S. Table, White Ranch, Matthews/Winters, Lair O'The Bear, Beaver Brook, Elk Meadow, Mt. Falcon, Mt. Lindo, Meyers Ranch, and ... (from what I've been told) Cathedral Spires under their jurisdiction.

We climbers are just one, albeit in my mind very significant, user group. There are indeed significant issues resultant from our climbing, as I saw over this year as we climbers volunteered to do at least 5 climbing trails days at Tiers of Zion (as we saw the erosion resulting from new crag & route development) and at Cathedral Spires. My interactions with JeffCo OS has been positive (there are climbers at JeffCo OS, too), but I now see they have lots on their plates including wildlife management, federally protected species, invasive plant species (e.g. myrtle spurge), mountain bikers, slackliners, hikers, fishermen, ice climbers, ice farmers, skiers, trail repair, and trail development. Although my fear of a bolting ban were peaked earlier, I don't think that's where we or they want to go. Yes, there are certainly closed areas like the Ralston Buttes, which stick in my side like others. Certainly ill-advised interactions could push things that way, I certainly hope that we can do better than that.

The reality though is that land management is their primary responsibility. Let's go into this with open minds. My take is that this is going to be an evolving situation where we can have a significant and positive role.

Leo Paik wrote:Hey, I think we need to go to this meeting not entrenched in positions resulting from other land managing organizations like Boulder County OS, Boulder Mt Parks, & Colorado State Parks. Those interactions with us climbers were partly due to climber-climber interactions that didn't really best represent us. Jefferson County OS manages a lot of land, well beyond CCC and N. Table Mt. A quick peek at a National Geographic map for Golden/Boulder $9.95 by Trails Illustrated shows you they have most of CCC, N. Table, S. Table, White Ranch, Matthews/Winters, Lair O'The Bear, Beaver Brook, Elk Meadow, Mt. Falcon, Mt. Lindo, Meyers Ranch, and ... (from what I've been told) Cathedral Spires under their jurisdiction. We climbers are just one, albeit in my mind very significant, user group. There are indeed significant issues resultant from our climbing, as I saw over this year as we climbers volunteered to do at least 5 climbing trails days at Tiers of Zion (as we saw the erosion resulting from new crag & route development) and at Cathedral Spires. My interactions with JeffCo OS has been positive (there are climbers at JeffCo OS, too), but I now see they have lots on their plates including wildlife management, federally protected species, invasive plant species (e.g. myrtle spurge), mountain bikers, slackliners, hikers, fishermen, ice climbers, ice farmers, skiers, trail repair, and trail development. Although my fear of a bolting ban were peaked earlier, I don't think that's where we or they want to go. Yes, there are certainly closed areas like the Ralston Buttes, which stick in my side like others. Certainly ill-advised interactions could push things that way, I certainly hope that we can do better than that. The reality though is that land management is their primary responsibility. Let's go into this with open minds. My take is that this is going to be an evolving situation where we can have a significant and positive role.

Thanks Leo,
It is worth noting that the Flatirons ban was spurred not by the City of Boulder but by climbers (and apparently hikers) who were upset by trailside sport routes such as Superfresh in Fern Canyon. Since that time the consensus on sport climbing and climbing access has shifted and Boulder OSMP has proven to be very helpful in helping climbers develop the potential in the Flatirons.

While some may complain about the low numbers of climbs being added to the Flatirons, others might consider the sheer quantity and less than inspiring quality of climbs in more open zones such as Boulder Canyon or Clear Creek to be an issue as well. The fact that the crags in BoCan and Clear Creek are often roadside does not preclude their being potentially environmentally or culturally sensitive. Nor are climbers an impact-free user group. Claims of rights to untrammeled access to or modification of climbing areas ring hollow in 2015 as the climbing population increases with every new gym opening and guide being published.

Tony, you may not like that I considered the possibility of individuals in climbing organizations advocating for a FHRC, but judging from this thread there seems to be quite a few people who are just fine with idea of an FHRC in Clear Creek. Never mind the fact that they have reaped the benefits of having lots of routes, thanks to a few equippers in a unregulated area. My advise to them is stay off all routes that are not FHRC approved, since they're not willing to defend the climbing freedoms that have given you so much opportunity. Opportunities that someone else did the work & paid for. Perhaps that should include you too Peter Beal.
The reality is that less than one tenth of one percent of the climbing population has bolted a route. Only a fraction of that has actually established a dozens to hundreds of routes. Many people have benefited from their work. I find it appalling that here in the land of free & home of the brave (isn't that a joke!) that we have more regulations on bolting than almost any country in the world. Bolts are becoming more regulated than guns.
Most of the routes in Clear Creek are excellent, the few that are less quality still provide more climbing & help to spread out the crowds.
While Clear Creek Canyon seems to be the focus, these new regulations include North Table Mountain, South Table & the Cathedral Spires in the South Platte. Climbers started bolting in the South Platte in the 1970s, North Table Mtn. has a history of sport climbing dating back to the late 1980s. Sport Climbing development in Clear Creek Canyon started in 1990. Jeffco didn't acquire land in Clear Creek until 1999. The tradition of bolting has been long established. The fact is that bolting activity has slowed way down on the Front Range, since 2010. The last route I drilled one North Table Mountain at the East Quarry was in November 2011. I fail to see the need for a FHRC. There is rock to be found on North Table & Clear Creek, but a lot more untapped potential on South Table Mountain. This bolting ban won't just effect sport climbing but trad climbing as well. There are unclimbed cracks on the walls east of the East quarry & probably a lot more on South Table, where top anchors will be useful.
As for Monty, he accepts the idea of an FHRC in Clear Creek. If I understood him correctly, he is an seasonal employee on Jeffco Open Space. He obviously doesn't want to make waves with his employer.
What I am most interested in finding out, is what are the penalties for bolting without a permit. Can submitting the route on MP or in a guidebook be considered proof that you bolted the line or will you have to be caught in the act? If I decide to bolt a new line, I won't be applying for a permit. I will just do what I have always done.

It would be nice if Jeffco would spend some of their vast financial resources on doing something material toward impact mitigation like building sustainable trails, rather than just gobbling up more acres of land in the county that they don't need. Also, I looked at the deed documents for Ralston Buttes and never saw any restrictions from the previous owner. I never knew Howard Lacy to be all that interested in green issues, but he was good at getting the best real estate deals he could. If there are deed restrictions on Ralston, I'd like to see them, or is that just something that Jeffco made up?

Mark Rolofson wrote:Tony, you may not like that I considered the possibility of individuals in climbing organizations advocating for a FHRC, but judging from this thread there seems to be quite a few people who are just fine with idea of an FHRC in Clear Creek.

There probably are individuals who feel that way. That is different than an organization agitating for regulation out of the blue.

Tzilla Rapdrilla wrote:It would be nice if Jeffco would spend some of their vast financial resources on doing something material toward impact mitigation like building sustainable trails, rather than just gobbling up more acres of land in the county that they don't need.

Todd,
You can't think of any examples where Jeffco has done so?
If not, contact me offline and we'll chat. They are putting in on the order of 6-figures into trails this next year into external resources. I'm not sure how much internally, but it is not insignificant.

Tzilla Rapdrilla wrote: Also, I looked at the deed documents for Ralston Buttes and never saw any restrictions from the previous owner. I never knew Howard Lacy to be all that interested in green issues, but he was good at getting the best real estate deals he could. If there are deed restrictions on Ralston, I'd like to see them, or is that just something that Jeffco made up?

We're on the same page here. I think that this is an opportunity to ask about this again and I hope someone does. Unfortunately I have another obligation that night, but I am sure there will be a follow up and I plan on following the matter and hopefully participating in the discussion.

Tony, JCOS may have plans to do some real trail work next year, but so far the limited trail construction that has been done is the result of climber's volunteer work. Erosion and soil impacts are the only significant environmental impacts in reality. Aside from the Ralston deed restriction red herring, JCOS also throws a varied array of weak biological excuses that constantly change and aren't backed up by anything legitimate. When I challenged them at an advisory board meeting a couple of years ago they noted how only a few percent of "open space" was closed. How much of Rocky Mountain National Park is closed to all access - absolutely none. The JCOS lands were purchased with money taken from taxpayers and none of it should be closed, even that bought for the use of their non-Jefferson County friends from the CSU biology program.

Mark,
Times have changed since 1990 or even 2010. The frontier is closing at least on the Front Range and the days of just rolling up to a cliff a few miles from a major city and doing whatever you want are pretty much over. That's the way it goes. If you want freedom to do whatever you want, there are other more remote locales to go visit.

I'm not sure what the comment about climbing non-FHRC-approved routes is about since I have bolted a few routes myself but if it makes you feel better to say that, I don't mind. Lots of people appreciate your work developing routes Mark but that era has passed and a different outdoor recreation management approach is on the horizon. With the massive population boom on the Front Range and a new gym being built seemingly every month in the metro Denver region,that's going to happen .

From my perspective FHRCs actually work, are not particularly restrictive and allow sustainable route development in partnership with land management agencies giving climbers real presence and power when important decisions are made.

Mark Rolofson wrote: We should be more worried about the impacts of driving to climb here. It's too bad there is not a bus or shuttle that we could take to the crags.

^^this is a great idea. I would use it to fish and run as well.

I too am looking forward to asking about Ralston Buttes and the Peaks to Plains trail that is starting to look like a boondoggle.