Ok peers, rev your judgment engines.

I opened a can of worms today when my partner and I showed up at Boulder Falls to access the Lower Dream Canyon. He wanted to take a trail that gets you to the climbing area in five minutes (rather than the 40-min. approach that's described in the guidebook.) He says this trail has been taken for thirty years by hundreds of climbers and by himself the last dozen or so times he's climbed there. I refused to go because there was a very conspicuous sign (several, actually) stating that the land he wanted to hike up was closed to hiking by the powers that be due to unsafe conditions. There were also probably fifty tourists in the vicinity that would have watched us ignore the signs, which I feel gives us a bad name and works against what the Access Fund tries to accomplish.

Partner was peeved with me because I didn't want to play along with "tradition". He thinks I'm being a wet rag. I admit this is a possibility. We're both interested in what y'all have to say about this.

I climbed at Plotinus wall the other week and took the long approach. I wouldn't want to jeopardize access to everyone by doing the old approach, I did however hike over to Boulder Falls and look down upon all the tourons from the top of the Falls. How did he get up there? Was the look on their faces. The old approach in my opinion is so close but too far away from the ethics we should have in regards to respecting posted signs as much as possible.

I'd observe the closure, it's the world we live in.

A crag I seldom climb at has a fairly easy approach, but one can drive right up to the wall with any type of vehicle. I'll admit I drove to the wall the first two times, but after learning from the guidebook and about climbing ethics, I have been parking where it has been suggested. I wouldn't want to jeopardize others from access to the wall...respect the rules of the area

I'd take the permitted path.

It's all about public perception, goodwill, and access. Climbing isn't a right. Climbing/climbers usually takes second priority to other uses/users in the minds of land management.

Evan

Given the reason for why the entire Boulder Falls area was closed for many months (visiting woman seriously injured by falling rock near the old approach), we're probably in big doodoo individually and collectively if we should be linked with another similar situation. Caveat Emptor!

No doubt you were taking the right approach! (pun intended)
Your friend is being an ass and jeopardizing access to this area and perhaps others by his selfish actions.
We should all take exception to those who "play by their own rules"
in these situations. Good job taking a stand!

The last dozen times? What is your friend's name? Perhaps the local climbing community should let him know how they feel about him being too lazy to care about our future ability to climb there.

I'm with you Dani,
That's a touchy area with all the private land and recent rock fall. I'd stick with the approach in the book.

Hey all,
I'm the friend and my name is Shane. The first time I went up to Lower Dream Canyon, I went with a friend, and that was the approach that we took. Later, as I bought guides and continued to climb in the area during 2005, 06, 07 and 08, I used the short trail dozens of times, as did every trad climber I met trying the wall of winter warmth, sport climber trying The Scientist or Lucid Dreaming, and every boulderer working on Freedom. It was good place to spot locals in the fall and spring precisely because of the short approach, good climbing and southern exposure. At that time, there was a fixed line on the downward approach to make it easier/safer if it was icy; and the line was replaced seasonally.

I'm honestly not sure what the legal status of the approach was before the 18 month closure that just ended. There were brass plaques mounted directly in the granite warning of "many deaths" that had occurred over the years, but not prohibiting trail access. Their were some signs over by the gables; my impression was that occasionally a non-technical tourist would try to scramble and end up falling or drowning. There was in fact a tourist death that occurred without a closure during the 2004-2008 period. Even guides, both in print and online, described the short trail to lower dream canyon, mentioning that use had been occurring for decades, and that the trail was entirely on public land. In short, I don't feel the least bad for any of the times I used the trail prior to 2008, nor do any of the climbers that I know who have used the trail prior.

Obviously, things are be different now-- while "many deaths" had occurred prior to the closing, they had been operator error; the accident that closed the area was unique in that it involved a person hit by falling rock while on the path, as opposed to a person who fell to their own death. I don't know whether the person who knocked the rock loose was a careless climber or a dumb tourist, and it doesn't really matter I suppose-- boulder open space was not very happy about the incident. When the new guide book came out the approach was closed-- not by the gables, but at the mouth of the entrance, and to everyone. The longer approach was described in D'Antonio's as that was the only way to get to lower dream canyon at all. The shorter approach was also described-- in part because it was somewhat of a mystery as to what would be allowed once boulder falls reopened.

Well now Boulder Falls is open again, and the signs are brighter and newer. The boulder OSMP website notes that during the closure loose rocks were removed with plans for more removal set during the seasonal closures. Hopefully this will eventually mean restored access to the path. This rather long winded post is simply to point out that: prior to the closure, using the short path was the accepted way of accessing the area --and-- that the status of the trail is not entirely clear to some of us on first inspection. After all, D'Antonio published while the falls were completely closed-- my impression is that even if the trail is re-opened by boulder OSMP, the scary signs will stay to keep hikers out, and the notice that the trail is legal will be online only. In any case, I'm not using the trail until it's reopened- which it should be, as it's on public land and has been used for the better part of a generation.

Shane, is it too late for me to wager a sixpack on the verdict? ;oP

I contacted the access fund about this issue the other year prior to the closure of Boulder Falls. First, while all of the climbing walls are in public national forest land, the short path is on land controlled by OSMP, which has the right to ban access. The short path has been closed for as long as I can remember and although the access fund has been trying to create better access, I am not aware of any progress.

I definitely understand that taking the short path is easier, especially in the winter when the 5 minute approach to warm sunny walls is very appealing. That being said, there is alternative access, and although it is a bit long, it isn't ridiculous.

I also know that OSMP regularly tickets climbers that use the closed short trail. If you go there on a busy weekend and a ranger happens to be there, you are likely to get a ticket. (Those college kids last year that used the trail and then got hurt in an accident got a ticket when the rescuers came and their cars were parked by Boulder Falls...)

In my opinion, there are lots of cliffs with annoying access issues. In this case, the only problem is a bit of a walk. Since you can go around, why not do it? I doubt violating the closure will jeopardize access since the cliff is in forest land, but it could result in OSMP being less likely to open the trail in the future, and it could also result in a ticket and fine for the violators.