Planned Seasonal Closure of Clear Creek Canyon (formerly "Clear Creek Bolting Ban?")
|
What if hunters had to take a picture of their intended game then report to a hunting committee for consideration and approval.... |
|
The reason routes were bolted at Castlewood under a permit system was that Ranger Bob Finch was also a climber, and he advocated a now ignored concept in land management called Front Country. Front country being viewed primarily in terms of recreational development, thus lessening the pressures on Back Country. Since it was proactive and actually made sense, it has been eschewed by the state. |
|
Kirk Miller wrote:What if hunters had to take a picture of their intended game then report to a hunting committee for consideration and approval.... Are climbers being singled out? Perhaps it is time to unify behind the concept of permitting qualified climbers to bolt within defined areas, following guidelines, as opposed to permitting routes, one at a time, by committee. Pretty sure there's precedents, I seem to remember some of Castlewood Canyon got bolted by a use permit allowing the climbers to complete a set number of routes in specific corridors. The initial routes at Staunton went in real quick by a select group... I could be wrong but I don't think they submitted their routes to a committee.Actually hunters do, kind of... There are roadside check points where you have to show that your take is legal. You always have to have you license with you. A game warden can come into your home without a warrant, if they suspect that you have exceeded bag limits or poached. I have had to show my license tag every time I have taken an elk. So, it could be worse.... I think a lot of the issue is going to be regulations from those that don't understand climbing...I have always been suspect of giving authority to a committee. They always become authoritarian. What we have already have has worked well, so far. Climbers, as a whole are more aware of, and prone to natural resource protection than any other group I know of. I think that we have one of the best records of protecting and working with other groups, land, etc. I really feel that this whole thing is unwarranted. We are one of the lowest impact user groups there is and we are very small compared to most other groups...also reducing impact. Maybe it is all part of agenda 21...tinfoil.... |
|
Peter Beal wrote:Thanks for your thoughts Tony.Yes Tony, thanks for your kind words. And Peter, sincere thanks to you too, for your great routes, your volunteer work and for your thoughtful insights into climbing. Regardless, I think this is a time the climbing community needs to act as advocates for our interests. This isn't a reasoned discussion between equals who intend to come to a happy compromise. Jeffco will rule and if we aren't united could easily end up like the local mountain bikers. Driving somewhere else to recreate. Reading reports of the meeting, I don't know what to say. Tony B comes out discouraged, Mark R encouraged, and Mark A's summary looks dreadful. Anyone feel like suggesting talking points for letters we can write? Personally I think bolting should be allowed except where prohibited at sensitive cliffs, ask developers to notify Jeffco (but not get permission) and would be OK with vetting developers ahead of time. I think the idea of monitoring all the fixed hardware is impossibly ambitious. And doing so in the interest of safety is impossible. Might as well pass a regulation requiring climbing to be safe and outlawing injury and risk. And a law making gravity less burdensome too. |
|
Mark, thanks for your excellent summary of the meeting. I too left the meeting without a warm and fuzzy feeling about the future of climbing in CCC. JCOS whole approach to this seems to me to be the classic “decide and defend” method. By allowing such a short comment period and waiting until they claim they’re pressured by a self-imposed February 1st deadline to get this whole thing in place leads one to believe that they already have their mind made up and are just trying to go through an illusionary public input process. Keeping the timeframe short allow some interaction so they can claim they had public input and then let the whole storm blow over as quickly as possible seems to be the tactic here. |
|
Kirk Miller wrote:The initial routes at Staunton went in real quick by a select group... I could be wrong but I don't think they submitted their routes to a committee.The initial 10-15 routes went through an application process, but when the park became inundated by our emails they decided to trust our abilities and let us self govern. If there was a route that we thought might ruffle feathers, we would submit it (which happened a time or two). This system worked great, but as opening day approached the park went back to wanting a permit process (though we argued tirelessly for an approved bolter program). I believe that we can leverage an approved bolter system in Jeffco, and from the conversations I've had with staff, they don't want a process like what was forced on us at Staunton. On a side note, it sounds like they are willing to adjust their current system as the FHRC there has fallen apart (tired of unnecessary process) and the park is under new management. |
|
David Barbour wrote:The raptor closure sounds disastrous. Basically the entire canyon. The remaining areas will become a shit show of biblical proportions.I am really concerned with this development as it directly restricts climbing on a yearly basis and based on what has been observed in Palisades and other areas in the Front Range, the closures can remain in place throughout the Summer. Eagles actively seek nesting sites in January, so by early to mid-February they likely have picked a site, so to close just about all of the canyon is unwarranted, even worse if the crags remain closed for whatever capricious reason staff find appropriate. I guess I was not that far off with at least one of my "rumors" earlier on this thread. |
|
Mark E Dixon wrote: Anyone feel like suggesting talking points for letters we can write?This should be a role for the Access Fund, even though the AF has been conspicuously quiet throughout this process and the AF member attending the meeting did not speak up... |
|
Rui Ferreira wrote: This should be a role for the Access Fund, even though the AF has been conspicuously quiet throughout this process and the AF member attending the meeting did not speak up...I don't and can't speak for the Access Fund. Hopefully they can all touch base with all of their board and make a response to that. All of what I said unto now has been personal, but I'm going to address one point as a BCC Board member: The BCC had no role in this thing. The board was not offered a copy of the draft plan and it was not discussed in our last meeting, 7 weeks ago other than that something was coming. If some individual on the board knew more or was in a discussion, I can't say, but they sure as heck never mentioned it to me and I'd think that they would have. But before saying that 'no member had any involvement,' I'll have to touch base with all of them to make sure nothing was misunderstood or what have you. The BCC can, as a board, respond to this thing. But the problem with that is that we have no official charter to speak for climbers at large. We presume the general support of our membership, but can't even claim to represent them in unanimity. I expect this to become a topic for the BCC board after the thanksgiving holiday and hopefully wrap up before Dec 7. |
|
I also will contact the AF as well as the FCC about this. It should be noted that the bird closures, which are certainly a problem for winter/early spring climbing on Boulder OSMP lands, were not part of the draft JeffCo climbing management plan per se. A PDF of the draft plan is here: jeffco.us/WorkArea/Download… at jeffco.us/open-space/activi… |
|
Mark E Dixon wrote: ...if we aren't united could easily end up like the local mountain bikers. Driving somewhere else to recreate.Indeed, Ranger Krause actually said during his presentation: "You know there are other areas to climb within an hour drive of Clear Creek..." I think JCOS would be perfectly happy with us driving somewhere else to recreate. More importantly, I absolutely agree we must be united at least on the broad points. Fortunately(?!) I think we can all agree that the seasonal closure will substantially impact the climbing community. Mark E Dixon wrote: Anyone feel like suggesting talking points for letters we can write?Great idea. I have some ideas. EDIT: I've been and will continue to edit these as I learn more information. -Regarding Natural Resource Protection:
-Regarding Eagles:
[I calculated the 78% number by dividing the number of CCC crags east of Junction 119 shown on the MP CCC page (60) by the number of crags included in the list I posted last night (47). These mumbers may not be perfectly accurate, but it's a good estimate. If we went by number of routes, I think the % would be higher, but that would take a lot more time to tally. Regarding the 50/50 statement, during the presentation, JCOS showed the results of a random, statistically significant survey of 10,000 JeffCO residents who were asked how JCOS should balance resource protection with recreation on JCOS lands]
-Regarding Aging Fixed Hardware:
Let me know what you think of these (feel free to add on/edit etc and re-post). I'm getting pretty exhausted at this point, but if I come up with more later I'll share them here. Others feel free to do the same. |
|
Monty wrote: The initial 10-15 routes went through an application process, but when the park became inundated by our emails they decided to trust our abilities and let us self govern. If there was a route that we thought might ruffle feathers, we would submit it (which happened a time or two). This system worked great, but as opening day approached the park went back to wanting a permit process (though we argued tirelessly for an approved bolter program). I believe that we can leverage an approved bolter system in Jeffco, and from the conversations I've had with staff, they don't want a process like what was forced on us at Staunton. On a side note, it sounds like they are willing to adjust their current system as the FHRC there has fallen apart (tired of unnecessary process) and the park is under new management.Monty, thanks for sharing, and it was great to see you at the meeting. Would you be willing to provide some more details on what went wrong with the Staunton FHRC? We could use those deficiencies as an example of how an FHRC may not be the ideal solution for JCOS. |
|
Tony B wrote: The BCC had no role in this thing. The board was not offered a copy of the draft plan and it was not discussed in our last meeting, 7 weeks ago other than that something was coming. If some individual on the board knew more or was in a discussion, I can't say, but they sure as heck never mentioned it to me and I'd think that they would have. But before saying that 'no member had any involvement,' I'll have to touch base with all of them to make sure nothing was misunderstood or what have you. The BCC can, as a board, respond to this thing. But the problem with that is that we have no official charter to speak for climbers at large. We presume the general support of our membership, but can't even claim to represent them in unanimity. I expect this to become a topic for the BCC board after the thanksgiving holiday and hopefully wrap up before Dec 7.Thanks Tony, I appreciate that and certainly I do not hold the BCC responsible in any way. I really appreciate your desire to bring this to the BCC board. We need all the help we can get. I think if nothing else, it's safe to say that the BCC represents more climbers in the local area than any other LCO (since there basically is no other LCO). Perhaps you could draft a BCC position and then allow any and all climbers to sign a petition in support of that position. Then you could say "this position was endorsed by XXX climbers." One thing perhaps some Front Range climbers do not realize is that the seasonal closure will impact EVERY climber on the Front Range. Even if you never plan to set foot in CCC, you only climb trad, or only climb in the gym, or only north of HWY 72. This closure will displace literally hundreds, if not thousands, of climbers. Those climbers are going to end up somewhere else. Maybe Shelf, maybe Eldo, maybe The Spot or Indian Creek. If you desire some measure of solitude in your outdoor recreation experience, you should be in favor of maximizing the number of potential destinations, because that spreads people out and thins out the crowds. |
|
Peter Beal wrote:...It seems there are two very different agendas at work here. One is management of fixed hardware which I would argue will ultimately cause minimal interference for the average climber in the canyon. While a FHRC would slow down route installation, I doubt it would significantly reduce it, let alone terminate it altogether. The second one, extensive raptor closures of established climbing areas, would have far more impact on route developers and climbers alike and deserves serious scrutiny from all climber advocacy groups in the area. ...Amen and thanks for emphasizing that. The FHRC is a big pain for someone like me, who bolts extensively in CCC (17 routes on JCOS land in 2015 so far). However, it really only directly affects a few of us. Just a handful of people are putting in the vast majority of new routes in CCC. Granted, the other 99+% may eventually be affected indirectly if fewer new areas are developed, but that pales in comparison to the effect of the seasonal closure. If you look at it in terms of user-days, at a minimum, if we go by JCOS' best intentions (1 month closure), the seasonal closure will reduce user-days by 8%. More likely it will be closer to 3-4 months, or a 25-33% reduction in user-days. The FHRC will never come close to having the same negative impact. Realistically I'm probably the ONLY person who will spend less days in CCC as a result of the FHRC. Maybe that will someday trickle down to guys like Cardwell and Seigrist if there's nothing new for them to flash and downgrade :) but that's not a major concern for the community at large. As stated above, every climber on the Front Range should be seriously concerned about the seasonal closure, whether you climb in CCC or not. |
|
As someone who does a lot of hardware replacement in Colorado I really appreciate the 'one-for-one no permit required" policy at Eldorado State Park. Having to submit a request for every single bolt is really cumbersome especially if there is any any turnaround time when an application is submitted. |
|
When I said I felt more positive after the meeting, I wasn't referring to the raptor closures. It is worse than I thought. I couldn't see the map at the back of the room, but Highlander was bad enough. |
|
....has anyone purposed a 7 day wait limit on hammer drills? :) good thing they don't sell bolts at walmart. I think jeffco needs to get their priorities strait. The bird thing is a joke!!!!! the highway,its noise,its pollution,its traffic,its toxicity to the environment is ok and a peaceful climber like a lizard crawling over the rock as natural as the sun itself is being reigned in?out of all the construction, diversion of the watershed, radioactive antennas, fisherman,gamblers,miners, powerlines, trash, biohazards, signs,etc. ......i think climbers are the least of the evils........when they are climbing and not trying to form committees to control. |
|
Monomaniac wrote: Those climbers are going to end up somewhere else. Maybe Shelf, maybe Eldo, maybe The Spot or Indian Creek. If you desire some measure of solitude in your outdoor recreation experience, you should be in favor of maximizing the number of potential destinations, because that spreads people out and thins out the crowds.This. I just don't understand how these birds are just now threatened in this busy, loud, semi-urban corridor. The whole crux of the argument for regulations is to reduce or minimize impact, but this closure creates a catch 22 as mono has highlighted. I wrote to JCOS and insisted that the timing is not sufficient for public input. The response was essentially: "We expect that this will be a learning process and later amendments will likely be made". Don't count on these regulations changing much by January 1. |
|
evan h wrote: I wrote to JCOS and insisted that the timing is not sufficient for public input. The response was essentially: "We expect that this will be a learning process and later amendments will likely be made". Don't count on these regulations changing much by January 1.Perhaps it would be more effective to send our letters/emails to someone higher in the JeffCo food chain, emphasizing that JCOS is violating its own policy by not collaborating with the climbing community. JCOS Senior Management JeffCo Elected Officials |
|
[I apologize for meag-posting like a maniac but I keep finding more information] |