No matter how shady they may be, banning climbing goes hand in hand with protecting land. Climbing is hard on areas around cliffs, compacted soil, erosion, uprooted vegetation; once that crack is cleaned nothing is going to grow there. The impact on the land by climbers and climbing is significant altering the landscape considerably. Look around next time youíre at the crag think about what it would look like without the continuous foot traffic, route cleaning thats been done and lines of white dots on the cliff face, itís easy to understand Nature Conservancy's no climbing policy.
once that crack is cleaned nothing is going to grow there.
Been to New England?
And you are right, they may do a good job of acquiring land and making all access illegal or doing the same on public land they manage and that has utility in conservation realm but, we are also right in our statement that they are NOT a climber friendly organization. If you're looking to donate towards conservation AND climbing, THEY are not where I'd put my money.
Not that I care as a volunteer for the AF, but you guys should donate to the access fund ;)
Yes indeed Iíve been to New England from the eroded gullies of Ragged to the compacted earth of the Gunks. My comment was more about the impact of climbing & climbers then the Nature Conservancy, and I really do not see it as a for us or against us type of thing. While team tough did a great job (and probably deserve a community service award) in the development of Rumney should every cliff resemble Wallyworld? If your job is maintaining wilderness, or you are a land owner who appreciates wilderness do you really want a bunch of people on your land who have the goal of developing the cliff and the access to it ? Though the Nature Conservancy has restricted access to some of what little climbing there is in my home state (RI) deals orchestrated by them have opened up access to thousands of acres in the north east.