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

Tony B wrote:2) I understand the suggestion to rap from anchors instead of lower. Requirement is an absurd term, and guideline has no teeth. Why not call a duck a duck and call it a request or suggestion?

It is a suggestion that they are rewording. See my last post here:

mountainproject.com/v/jeffc…

David Barbour wrote: It is a suggestion that they are rewording. See my last post here: mountainproject.com/v/jeffc…

Agreed David, but I wanted to be sure to add my voice to that. I can't wait to see what revision they make and then comment after that...

From Mark D.
--You and Peter can be as considered as you like, but the bottom line is you are helping take away access from other climbers. For no good reason that I can see. What are the environmental and cultural resources that are being damaged in CCC? It's a highway corridor with countless semis roaring down canyon. And if the environmental and cultural concerns really are paramount, then I stick by my suggestion that trad and boulder routes have nearly as much impact.---

Mark D., your argument is pretty weak and you should know better. The highway is very quickly left behind by pretty much everyone except climbers. There is natural habitat back there and climbers have an impact on it, yes including trad and bouldering. However to suggest that trad climbing or bouldering has even remotely the same impact in Clear Creek that developed sport climbing has had is disingenuous to say the least

From Mark R

---I think your rhetoric & attitude does the climbing community of Clear Creek & N. Table real harm & a huge disservice. It is not what we need to hear at tonight's meeting.---

I have stated my views elsewhere in this thread. If climbing had the same impact today that it did in the mid-90s and the same population numbers existed on the Front range today as then, then I might agree but both you two are in denial about this and spitting in the wind regarding current land management trends. Climbers can hide their heads in the sand about it or get out in front. The organizations I work with are doing real work on behalf of climbers being able to enjoy extraordinary access on public lands. Last I checked I haven't seen you out there meeting with land managers or building trails. If I missed something I apologize.

Peter Beal wrote: Mark D., your argument is pretty weak and you should know better. The highway is very quickly left behind by pretty much everyone except climbers. There is natural habitat back there and climbers have an impact on it, yes including trad and bouldering. However to suggest that trad climbing or bouldering has even remotely the same impact in Clear Creek that developed sport climbing has had is disingenuous to say the least

I agree there's plenty of natural habitat. And it deserves protection. Maybe we just disagree on how much negative impact sport crags have. Especially if everybody except climbers is leaving the highway far behind. As for other forms of climbing, I think much of the explanation for their lower impact is just that so many fewer people participate. I'd guess more folks climb at the Canal Zone in a day than do trad routes in CCC in a year.

Peter Beal wrote:From Mark R ---I think your rhetoric & attitude does the climbing community of Clear Creek & N. Table real harm & a huge disservice. It is not what we need to hear at tonight's meeting.--- I have stated my views elsewhere in this thread. If climbing had the same impact today that it did in the mid-90s and the same population numbers existed on the Front range today as then, then I might agree but both you two are in denial about this and spitting in the wind regarding current land management trends. Climbers can hide their heads in the sand about it or get out in front. The organizations I work with are doing real work on behalf of climbers being able to enjoy extraordinary access on public lands. Last I checked I haven't seen you out there meeting with land managers or building trails. If I missed something I apologize.

Mark R can speak for himself, but I think the thousands of dollars he's invested in putting up new routes is appreciated by many of us. Not to mention cleaning routes, establishing trails, etc.
As for me, I'm not a trail day person. I contribute financially and maybe that's not enough in your book, but it's more than some. If you need to see my receipts, just let me know.

Apart from the environmental concerns, there's nothing stopping anyone from turning CCC into a giant Sport Park. Nor is there anything stopping from using incorrect hardware or bolting unsafe routes (remember the loose boulder with anchors on it?).

More quality, thoughtfully equipped routes is good. Poor quality routes are a liability and unnecessary maintenance.

I'd hate to see an FHRC as restrictive as the one in the Flatirons, but an FHRC is clearly going to be necessary at some point, as the sport grows.

Tony B wrote: So overall.... This seems heavy handed to me, so... 1) I'd like to know what perceived need precipitated this shift in policy so that I can understand if it is necessary at all. Some specifics would be nice, becuase imaginary hobgoblins never went far for me... Are the regulations as minimal as possible to address those concerns?

There were several reasons presented at the meeting as to why the 2008 Climbing Policy is being updated the first being that climbing development in the county has expanded tremendously since the early 2000's and needs to be managed more properly: looking at CCC back in 2004(?) there were 300 routes documented and in 2015 the count is currently at over 900, with 10 routes having been added in the last weeks.

There is a concern that routes will be developed in sensitive areas not conducive to climbing and JeffCo wants to prevent that from taking place, which is why the proposed regulations require that new crags be approved in advance by staff. These include habitat sensitive areas, areas with difficult access that could lead to landscape degradation, etc. In discussions with staff after the meeting they indicated that they have identified 15 new crags in CCC alone that could be of interest to climbers for development. (Anyone with some free time and knowledge of CCC can spend a few hours on Google Earth and find a few...). It appears that they are trying to preempt development in new crags that they want to maintain closed for various reasons.

Another concern is that they have seen some routes being developed with poor "sub-standard" equipment and they want route developers to be vetted by the proposed FHRC in advance of routes going in. Similarly with the influx of new climbers venturing outdoors they might not be knowledgeable in identifying unsafe fixed hardware and conditions that could put them at risk requiring self-evacuation, rescue, etc.

Finally JeffCo wants to establish a database of all the fixed hardware in the county and have it updated as individual bolts, anchors, etc. get installed or replaced so they can monitor the safety of the equipment in their Open Space. They expressed a wish to work with equippers and organizations dedicated to bolt replacements to manage this process. They do not want to be in the business of dictating how many bolts go in per route, or the type of equipment to be used, but they want to have minimum standard guidelines for hardware being installed.

Mark E Dixon wrote: As for me, I'm not a trail day person. I contribute financially and maybe that's not enough in your book, but it's more than some. If you need to see my receipts, just let me know.

And I'm not going to pick sides here, as you're both good folks and have some reason to what you are saying. But I will settle one small aspect of the discussion if you'll allow me.
Both time and Money are needed to make the various models of crag maintenance work.
Mark has been pretty generous in his membership in and additional considerable gifts to climbing non-profit organizations. I wouldn't mention it if it were not already invoked, but since it was, I'll give that the nod.
I'll mention too that I've seen Peter organize and participate in some heavy lifting at crags to a fine end.

I've been at trail days when I was the ONLY volunteer there, and I've tried to work on projects where there was a funding problem. Both sorts of commitment are needed. Some people got more time, others got more money.

I admire the commitment you both have to maintaining our crags and environment. And as my wife sometimes says when both of us are exhausted with work, kids and life and getting quarrelsome: "We just need to remember, we're not the enemy, we want the same thing."

Rui Ferreira wrote: There were several reasons presented at the meeting as to why the 2008 Climbing Policy is being updated the first being that climbing development in the county has expanded tremendously since the early 2000's and needs to be managed more properly: looking at CCC back in 2004(?) there were 300 routes documented and in 2015 the count is currently at over 900, with 10 routes having been added in the last weeks.

OK, brief questions on that talking point:

Q) How many of those 900 routes are in Jeffco and how many are in Clear Creek County?

Q) 10 Routes in the last few weeks? Didn't someone in the meeting give quite a different number? What routes and where?

Rui Ferreira wrote: There is a concern that routes will be developed in sensitive areas not conducive to climbing and JeffCo wants to prevent that from taking place, which is why the proposed regulations require that new crags be approved in advance by staff.

I don't think that is accurate at all, and I'd be less concerned if it were.
Didn't I read that all new bolts/hardware/slings required a permit? That is far different than new crags requiring approval. I asked point blank why not just make it for new crags and not for all new routes. If ti is just new crags, then I will happily withdraw my objection on that point, but if you are misstating or misrepresenting the facts, I'd like that corrected too.

Rui Ferreira wrote: It appears that they are trying to preempt development in new crags that they want to maintain closed for various reasons.

And given tangible specifics for any given crag, I'd have no objection for that. But this seems to be failing the litmus test I asked about earlier of "Are the regulations as minimal as possible to address those concerns?"

Rui Ferreira wrote: Another concern is that they have seen some routes being developed with poor "sub-standard" equipment and they want route developers to be vetted by the proposed FHRC in advance of routes going in.

So then if that's the concern, it can be alleviated by a blanket permit issued to a bolter after 1 route is approved, or routes vetted by the FHRC on a rolling basis, and not on some 3x/year government rubber stamp.

Rui Ferreira wrote: Similarly with the influx of new climbers venturing outdoors they might not be knowledgeable in identifying unsafe fixed hardware and conditions that could put them at risk requiring self-evacuation, rescue, etc.

Equipment failure shouldn't even appear in the top-5 of concerns with respect to that, but again, see my point above.

Rui Ferreira wrote: Finally JeffCo wants to establish a database of all the fixed hardware in the county and have it updated as individual bolts, anchors, etc. get installed or replaced so they can monitor the safety of the equipment in their Open Space. They expressed a wish to work with equippers and organizations dedicated to bolt replacements to manage this process. They do not want to be in the business of dictating how many bolts go in per route, or the type of equipment to be used, but they want to have minimum standard guidelines for hardware being installed.

Back to that earlier litmus test I asked about"Are the regulations as minimal as possible to address those concerns?"
There is a difference between necessary and sufficient. Both semantically and legally. Not all that is here seems necessary to assure the outcomes you suggest as being goals. A much lighter hand should be sufficient.
So lets say a bad bolt is reported. I can't have someone like Greg Barnes, Jason Haas, or Greg German with a blanket permit to replace "likfe for like" with a stock of pre-approved hardware? Are you kidding me? WHO CAME UP WITH THIS? Those guys helped write the books on equipment and techniques for this work that JCOS will be using as guidelines. There must be a lighter way to do this other than to statutorily require a permit for every bolt or anchor.

So at present, my comment on the document as presented is "disapprove."

Tony, I am just the messenger here, I do not condone the proposed regulations nor do I have answers to all your follow-up questions or concerns (I do have my own thoughts and ideas).

Best is to provide detailed comments to JeffCo and propose workable/tolerable alternatives.

The 900 routes are all in JeffCo and not in Clear Creek county. I was very surprised by the high number as well. The 10 new routes were disclosed in side discussions with staff after the public meeting. I do not know what and where those routes are located. This number was given as counter argument to climbers' assertion that route development have slowed down in CCC.

As a side note anyone putting routes before the end of the year needs to disclose them to JeffCo so they are not catalogued as illegal in 2016.

All new hardware: new routes, replacements need advance approval. New crags need advance approval. Different thresholds applied for new crags, or hardware replacement versus new route installation. I see new route approval being a real challenge for one single volunteer FHRC to manage for an area the size of JeffCo.

In discussions after the meeting they seemed open to the idea of having more application deadlines, flexible schedule, etc. Again all of these recommendations/suggestions should be logged on their website so they are officially considered before 2016.

RUi,
Well understood.
I am not expecting you to wear the mantle for the county.
I do however want to check my own understanding and interpretation of things and vet out my PERSONAL positions publicly prior to responding to JCOS formally.

Also, knowing that they read this, I want them to see the public response and thought process in order for them to be able to respond or participate to and even react to that dialong, given the limited time-frame for revision of this (if any).

My immediate goal is for them to (immediately) reconsider if this will be an up/down vote on the document as it stands or how extensive the revisions will be for it to become actually representative of a collaborative effort... which the document itself proports to be the foundation of.

Because as it stands, I see the rather strict guidelines here as sufficient to enforce their stated ends... but hardly necessary. A much lighter hand could be used.

As for this statement:

Rui Ferreira wrote: The 10 new routes were disclosed in side discussions with staff after the public meeting.

To be agreed upon with evidence. Until then... they are suggesting an anecdote as data? Are they proposing that route development is occurring at a rate of 520 (10/week) or 260 (10/2 weeks) routes per year? That would be absurd. Anecdotes are not data, and unfounded anecdotes are just rumors until evidence is shown. Regardless, it is an unproven talking point to me at this time, worth questioning, but not serious consideration.

For starters: Advance permit of a new crag in a developed area is probably a good way to address some of their stated concerns... but once a crag is approved, the crag and the developer thereafter should be considered "report required" (if that) only and not requiring additional permits.
While Mark R (by way of example) and I don't really see eye to eye on a lot of things, but that does not mean his vision need be unnecessarily restricted. I think it may be a reasonable compromise for someone like him to draw a permit a new crag development a few weeks or months before completing actions at said new crag and agree to conform to simple hardware standards (3/8"+ stainless with a rated hanger, which he likely already does) but then thereafter he should have a blanket release for development at that crag within the proposed area and within the existing boundaries of development at other existing crags.
And so not have to apply for more permits just to assure that he knows the hardware standard. JCSO should be able to give on that. Simple notification of installation on the order of the 30 days a fixed draw can be left in place should do the trick. And be far more likely to gain a broad compliance.

Same goes for non-new crag developers adding routes to existing crags or replacing crappy hardware. Once they get one permit and are vetted and understand the rules and agree to them... then leave them to their business.

There is always time to bring a heavier hand later if is is demonstrated to be necessary, but a lighter hand, history dictates, will not come once this happens. it will just drive development underground or to the fringes and make it an enforcement problem for JCOS.

I should also hope that JCOS would consider that forcing a permit process to replace bad hardware means that bad hardware will stay there longer and in higher numbers.

Though I'd given local politics much more benefit of the doubt, things like this make me consider that Bubb's theorem #1 on government may occasionally apply at this level as well:
"With benevolence in mind, Government will generally achieve the exact opposite effect of that which is intended."

Thanks for your thoughts Tony.

After attending last night's presentation by Jefferson County Open Space staff, I feel a lot more positive toward any future review process than before hand. Thank you Rui Ferreira for updating everyone that did not attend last night's presentation/meeting. Thank you Tony Bubb for remaining vigilant & I am sorry you could not attend last night's meeting.
Peter Beal may think I have my head in the sand, but I have been quite aware of the huge climbing population increase & the impacts that has brought. I have just never thought a fixed hardware review process was about addressing impacts, as much as limiting new routes & micro-managing their creation. I believe that Jeffco's review process has the potential to be less burdensome than in the Flatirons or Eldorado.
I made the suggestion that rather than permit every individual route we should be permitting skilled equippers. Then, an equipper can go directly to the open space staff & submit their proposal for a new crag to be developed. I also stated that skilled re-equippers should be permitted to replace bolts routinely and not have to apply every time they want to replace a bolt or route.
I had a good conversation with Dave Davenport (their outdoor recreation coordinator) after the meeting last night. Unlike in the Flatirons where permits are granted for a certain number of bolts, he has no interest in that level of micro-management. He said that a crag with 5.13 routes would probably get approved much faster than a crag with lots of 5.10 & under routes where the number of users is much greater. Anyone currently bolting new lines at a specific crag should contact the open space staff, as so to grandfather in their project.
I felt it is important to take a step back & look at this from the perspective of Jeffco Open Space Staff. I think there is even something to be gained, here. Imagine having a trail & base work already done to a new crag. In any case, I am afraid a review process is inevitable. It does raise some new questions.
If a review committee of 5 members is going to handle all potential new routes for every climbing area that Jeffco manages, then they may have their hands overly full. Maybe it should be a paid position. I think their time is better served permitting equippers & not looking at every single route that is proposed. Jeffco staff may have their hands full trying to facilitate this process, too. That said, I was impressed with the pro-climber attitude that the Open Space staff displayed. Several of their rangers are climbers. We need to count our blessings here, this could be quite positive.
If there is anything we should be complaining about it is the short time for public comment & how quickly this change is happening.

Reasonable discussion, although I'm relatively certain this thread would have been much more entertaining to read back in the era of regular posts from the likes of "ac" and "anonymous coward."

I recognize this is a serious topic, but it's OK to chuckle now.

Mark Rolofson wrote:After attending last night's presentation by Jefferson County Open Space staff, I feel a lot more positive toward any future review process than before hand.

I'm glad to see this post from you Mark, and thanks for coming out last night.

Tony,

Thank you so much for your comments and skepticism. FYI, Dave Davenport said the meeting was filmed, so you may be able to get a copy of the video from him.

Anyway, I would like to address your questions from my perspective, since I feel like it's quite different from that of the optimists (whom I envy greatly):

Tony B wrote:1) I'd like to know what perceived need precipitated this shift in policy so that I can understand if it is necessary at all. Some specifics would be nice, becuase imaginary hobgoblins never went far for me... Are the regulations as minimal as possible to address those concerns?

Great question. JCOS presented a series of perceived issues. These included:

1) Overcrowding (including garbage and human waste)
2) Aging fixed hardware
3) Natural Resource protection--specifically Golden Eagle nesting sites
4) Natural Resource protection--specifically soil erosion and vegetation removal at cliff bases and multi-use areas
5) I feel like there was another one I'm missing.

Their FHRC FAQ also states the following:

"Why is JCOS making these changes?
• To be proactive in building sustainable access and belay areas before resources are degraded
• To minimize emergency response time
• To allow a legal method of installing permanent fixed hardware
• To promote safe, sustainable, and properly placed hardware
• To improve two-way communication between the climbing community and JCOS
• To improve visitor safety
• To improve resource protection and management of seasonal wildlife closures
• To have an on-going record and inventory of when hardware was placed"

RE: are the regulations as minimal as possible, I would say absolutely not, but obviously there is a great deal of disagreement here.

RE: Overcrowding, several people tried to point out that many of JCOS' "solutions" will actually INCREASE crowding--such as closing the majority of the canyon seasonally, limiting development of new crags/routes. If JCOS acknowledged these comments, I didn't hear it.

RE: Aging/substandard fixed hardware, several climbers made good suggestions on alternative solutions. Monty pointed out that MP was building a database of hardware that could be used to solve their concerns about aging hardware. JCOS was receptive to this idea. JCOS never explained why a permit is needed for 1-for-1 replacement, other than they want to know when it is happening and what hardware is being used. Mark R suggested approving equippers instead of approving routes. If JCOS had an opinion on that idea, I didn't hear it.

Regarding soil erosion and vegetation, various climbers attempted to argue that climber impact is relatively minor compared to the damage being done by the Peaks-to-Plains trail project (which is literally blasting a 15-foot wide swath through the pristine side of the canyon as I type). Each time JCOS deferred the question/comment, saying they would address the P2P Trail later. They never addressed the question of relative destruction. This may have been an honest misunderstanding (but, overall in my view they were quite dismissive of critical questions, and often changed the subject or said we were running out of time whenever a tough question was asked; eventually they just stopped calling on the few of us asking tough questions). At the end of the 15-minute Q&A period they explained that they don't know how they will connect the trail around Tunnel 2, but they intend to keep building discontinuous segments while considering potential solutions (such as a cantilever over the river).

Regarding Golden Eagles, this part of the night was the most contentious by far. Here is my perception of events: Ranger Krause explained during his presentation that there is one known pair of Golden Eagles, and they typically nest near the Blonde Formation, and so they would seasonal close that cliff and two adjacent cliffs (Stumbling Block and Bumbling Stock). He made a joke about how nobody likes those cliffs anyway, which got a nice laugh from the back row, and then another about how whoever came up with "Bumbling Stock" was quite the jokester. Everybody was happy at that point, and ok with temporarily losing access to those three cliffs. Then he went on to the next topic.

At that point I interrupted and said (sic) "Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought I heard that guy [motioning to the Natural Resource Specialist] say that all the cliffs in the pink circles [see image below] would be closed each year starting Feb 1st?" Discussion ensued among JCOS staff. They appeared to not understand the question, so I asked "Will Highlander be closed on February 1st 2016". Again there was confusion/discussion but we were ultimately told "yes".

Things got somewhat heated at this point. There were a lot of people talking simultaneously and I couldn't follow everything that was said. The guy sitting next to me ("Josh", didn't get his last name) wanted to know why in 2016 we were suddenly closing the canyon when they'd never done that before. If an answer was provided, I didn't hear it, and eventually we moved on to another topic. At various points during these discussions I heard the Natural Resource Specialist say the following things (IIRC):

• The eagles had not used any of the up-canyon nests in at least 12 years
• The state recommends a half-mile closure radius [he never said or I didn't hear around what, but presumably around potential nesting sites. Note: emphasis mine]

My personal, uninfomred opinion based on those comments is: JCOS has some latitude in implementing the Eagle closures, and for some reason they are now taking a much more conservative approach than what is required by law. After the formal meeting was over Dave Davenport stated the Golden Eagle is no longer Endangered or Threatened, but the law to protect them is still on the books. He said further that the land manager is liable for a $100,000 fine and jail time if the law is broken. I would very much like to see the details of the law, because I'm skeptical that it's being implemented as minimally as possible.

Closure Map- Pink/Purple circles indicate closure radius.

The Pink/Purple closure areas shown on the map include the following crags:

New Hipster Rock
The Sports Wall
Ghost Crag
The Blonde Formation
The Stumbling Block
Bumbling Stock
Postcolonial Crag
Skinny Legs Formation
268 Wall
The Red Slab
Piledriver
Rainy Day Rock
Little Eiger
The Garden Wall
Point Break
The New River Wall
The Highlands aka Highlander
Twitch Rock
Rapids Rock
Highwire North
Evil Cave
River Wall
Wall of Justice
Low Spark of High Wire Crag
Low Wire
High Wire
Higher Wire
Left Wire
Punk Rock? (not sure)
Irok? (not sure)
The Mission Wall
Flood Wall
Back of the Nineties
Wall of the '90s
The Monkey House
Death Rock
Sex Cave (aka Pete's Wicked Cave)
Shark's Fin
New Economy Cliff
Bionic Crag
Rebel Wall
Nightworm Pinnacle
Prestige Worldwide Wall
Real Hidden Valley
A Little Piece of South Dakota
Jerky Boulder (263)
High Profile Wall

Tony B wrote:2) I understand the suggestion to rap from anchors instead of lower. Requirement is an absurd term, and guideline has no teeth. Why not call a duck a duck and call it a request or suggestion?

The rappelling nonsense was never addressed at the meeting. However, in the discussion afterwards, Dave Davenport said that in JeffCo terms, a "Guideline" is a rule that can be changed at JCOS' level without requiring approval from the Board of Commissioners, whereas a "Regulation" must be voted on by the commission. So, the logic behind the Climbing Management Guideline is that each "Guideline" explains how JCOS has opted to interpret/enforce pre-existing "Regulations". Regulations are shown in italics with a number like: C.17. Hazardous Activity. So bottom line, "Guideline" in this context does NOT mean "recommendation" or "suggestion". A "Guideline" is enforceable by law, but can be drafted at JCOS' discretion, and is punishable by whatever fine/penalty is shown on page 5 of the CMG.

Tony B wrote:3) I wanted to know why only 3x permit periods per year (6 would be much better, with summer and fall being dense in reviews).

Either Dave Davenport or Erik Krause addressed this question. The answer was, (sic) "it's a volunteer committee and JCOS can't expect them to meet more than thrice yearly." My opinion is, select the committee and let them decide how often they want to meet. If it were me (it won't be) I'd rather review 2 applications per month than 8 every 4 months. YMMV. JCOS says they are planning to review applications constantly anyway, since hardware removal or replacement applications will skip the FHRC and be reviewed by JCOS on an ongoing basis. So it would seem the FHRC could potentially meet more frequently if they wanted to. My opinion: JCOS seems open to negotiation on minor points like this.

Tony B wrote: 4) Likewise, if a FHRC is really needed, then the powers that want to be should consider delegating that authority of approval entirely to them on existing crags until such time as it proves insufficient to regulate the resource. The officials will be simply rubber stamping these expert's opinions anyway, right? That can be done if the committee has a guidance document and assures that routes follow it.

This was not suggested at the meeting, but I think it's a great idea.

Tony B wrote:5) So let me get this straight... we are to incorporate all concerns and comments by Dec 7, and then this document becomes permanent? Where is the time allotted for revision of this plan and document? That sounds like a ram-rod to me. So I guess I propose not approving the document until adequate time for a community response to coalesce has been had, and then time for the land agency to review that response, discuss it, REVISE the proposal, and then pass it after the revisions are reviewed. The document claims to be the basis of collaboration between the climbing community and JCOS, but if there is not significant revision, or explanation of the need for each questioned line item (not from me, from climbers in general) upon comment, it undermines any perception of earnestness or earned trust in the process.

Couldn't agree with you more. The CMG is dated 1 Oct 15, but it wasn't shared with the public until 19 Nov 15 and the comment period closes 7 Dec 15. I absolutely believe it is a "ram-rod".

After the formal meeting I pleaded to Dave Davenport for more time to review the CMG, discuss with advocacy groups, comment, hold more meetings, and iterate on drafts. He said that he would still accept comments until 31 Dec but the plan would go final on 1 Jan regardless because they had to meet the 1 Feb seasonal closure deadline (he didn't say/I didn't ask what happens during January, maybe printing of signage?). So I asked can we just implement the seasonal closure and leave the rest of the plan open to discussion? He said no, but said the plan could be changed in the future if it didn't work out. Some others pressed him on this and he said the earliest they would re-visit the plan would be "at least a year" from now. During this discussion he said the CMG had already been vetted by the Access Fund. I'm skeptical of this, but if true I'm seriously disappointed that the AF didn't get community input on such sweeping changes.

I encourage others who were present to speak up if you feel I've misrepresented the events. Even during the informal discussions there were other MPers present like Leo Paik and Mark Rolofson who can corroborate or refute these recollections.

This is clearly the work of the nanny state, globalist, banking elite. SMH....

And is it a coincidence that this globalist thrust to limit the freedom of liberty loving rock climbers is occurring a mere hour's drive from the Denver International Airport?

Need I remind you that Denver already had a fine airport, Stapleton International. But despite WIDESPREAD protests, Denver International was built and opened in 1995, with FEWER RUNWAYS, THUS REDUCING Denver's flight capacity. This airport's construction began with FIVE MYSTERIOUS BUILDINGS(!!!!!) that were completed and then buried intact, with the cover story that they were "built wrong". Up to 8 levels of underground facilities that are known to exist, and workers who go there refuse to answer questions about what they do.

Plus, the entire airport is surrounded by a barbed wire guard fence, with the barbed wire angled inward, to keep people in, like a giant prison, not out like at other airports. And if viewed from the air, the runways are revealed to be laid out in the shape of a Nazi swastika.

After taking these facts into consideration, how can any rational person look at this JeffCO restriction on liberty in Clear Creek Canyon as anything other than a blatant attempt to restrict liberty in the "safe room" state of choice for the globalists?

Thank you Monomaniac for your near perfect memory of the meeting. The underlying truth about this whole thing is that it is a ramrod. Regardless of how you feel about new guidelines or regulations, most public comment periods are at least 6 months. Then it takes time to finalize everything. We should be looking at 9 months to a year before anything can be finalized.
I have no idea, who was there from the Access Fund. It was the first time, I became aware that the Access Fund property on North Table Mountain is now owned & managed by Jeffco. I feel that bolting should remain unregulated on this property. This property was originally donated to the Access Fund /climbing community. We had the freedom to bolt new routes & accepted the responsibility to replace fixed hardware. It was Access Fund property for almost 20 years.
I think the Access Fund & all other climbing organizations should be contacted so we can learn just how much input they actually had on the climbing management plan. So far, I have not heard boo from anyone in these organizations.
I believe if a review process is now necessary, it needs to be carefully thought out & should require much more input. Jeffco has decided they need to end unregulated bolting. There may be a some wiggle room on how to best implement a review process but very difficult to stop it.

Monomaniac wrote: The CMG is dated 1 Oct 15, but it wasn't shared with the public until 19 Nov 15 and the comment period closes 7 Dec 15. I absolutely believe it is a "ram-rod". After the formal meeting I pleaded to Dave Davenport for more time to review the CMG, discuss with advocacy groups, comment, hold more meetings, and iterate on drafts. He said that he would still accept comments until 31 Dec but the plan would go final on 1 Jan regardless because they had to meet the 1 Feb seasonal closure deadline (he didn't say/I didn't ask what happens during January, maybe printing of signage?). So I asked can we just implement the seasonal closure and leave the rest of the plan open to discussion? He said no, but said the plan could be changed in the future if it didn't work out.

Let's call a duck a duck then. I think this means that they never had any serious consideration of a change to the plan. "I'll take suggestions on how to change the rules until I inevitably pass them the next day."

Monomaniac wrote: During this discussion he said the CMG had already been vetted by the Access Fund. I'm skeptical of this, but if true I'm seriously disappointed that the AF didn't get community input on such sweeping changes.

I'll write our friends at the A.F. about that now and ask how true that is. I have a fairly close relationship with them. I'll point out that addressing this is probably a good idea.

Apologies to the early naysayers on this thread. I thought you guys were being reactionary. It sounds pretty bad now though.

The raptor closure sounds disastrous. Basically the entire canyon. The remaining areas will become a shit show of biblical proportions.