Las Vegas Climbers Liaison Council needs your feedback
|
Dear Fellow Climber, |
|
I wrote a long letter to the BLM over a year ago commenting on their 'ideas' for climbing management. Has something changed since June '07? This initiative is certainly appreciated, to keep people informed and involved, but if there is nothing new from the BLM, this seems a little dated. |
|
Do I have to pay a fee for the LVCLC to support my opinion? Last time I checked they did. |
|
Andrew, Karsten wrote:Do I have to pay a fee for the LVCLC to support my opinion? Last time I checked they did. For what's its worth I support the management initiative.To all interested in joining the LVCLC, please do not be misinformed by Karsten's statement. Anyone can attend our meetings and share their opinions. To my knowledge, it has always been that way. There is a $10 per year($0.83 a month) membership fee that helps the LVCLC and its mission. This membership, which might separate the casually interested person from the more involved person to vote for the LVCLC's board of directors. As many people realize, this is fairly standard for most organizations. |
|
Anyone have a link to the actual plan? |
|
To get a copy of the plan, one way to do it is to go to the LVCLC home page and follow links to current issues/bolting, and you will find the BLM's initial proposal. It takes some time to get through it. |
|
Aaron, |
|
Same proposal, just the BLM may finally be getting around to it's next draft based on our past comments? |
|
Doug Hemken wrote:What's new here is that you are asked to share your comments with LVCLC.Done. Are the comments and results going to be posted at some point? I wouldn't mind a copy of mine. Cheers, -Brian in SLC |
|
Certainly the BLM should have a sound management plan for the wilderness areas around Red Rock Nevada. But my reading of the proposed management plan as it pertains particularly to the control of bolting and establishing of new climbing routes leads me to conclude that the BLM is focused on the wrong priorities. It seems that the drafters of the management plan have indulged themselves in taking a side on the long-standing debate about the ethics of bolting. This should not be the role of the BLM as an organization or its individual staff. There could be so many other higher priorities in managing the wilderness area to preserve and protect the wilderness experience. |
|
raygay wrote:Certainly the BLM should have a sound management plan for the wilderness areas around Red Rock Nevada. But my reading of the proposed management plan as it pertains particularly to the control of bolting and establishing of new climbing routes leads me to conclude that the BLM is focused on the wrong priorities. It seems that the drafters of the management plan have indulged themselves in taking a side on the long-standing debate about the ethics of bolting. This should not be the role of the BLM as an organization or its individual staff. ...Ray, I think you are getting the wrong message from the plan. Though I am not affiliated with either the BLM or the CLC, I have been involved in countless hours of discussion and brainstorming with the local BLM guys over the last several years. Here is my interpretation: The BLM wants no part of an ethics debate. They are not trying to eliminate sport climbing. The Red Rock supply of sport-bolted routes already numbers in the thousands, and there will certainly be more. These are mostly in the non-wilderness part of Red Rock, and are thus unaffected by the current plan. There are a few reasons to expect that bolt management is essentially guaranteed to be part of the wilderness plan. Importantly, the BLM has the authority to regulate them (stemming from the Wilderness Act of 1964). There is also an institutional expectation that bolts will be regulated-- this goes up the organizational chart back to Washington and may be related to outcry from non-climbing outdoor users. Third, and most related to the point you bring up, is the differing impact patterns characteristic of the "sport" and "trad" approaches. The classical traditional climb consists of climbers hiking to the base, disappearing up a cliff face, descending, and departing. The sport approach, which is essentially dependent on bolts, is associated with swarms of people hanging around on the ground for long periods of time. Not only is the impact magnified, but the Wilderness Act specifically states: "where man himself is a visitor who does not remain" "without permanent improvements" "the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable" So, if the proposed plan appears tilted away from sport climbing, it is not because of a misplaced intrusion of the BLM into climbing ethics. Rather, it is the result of a direct congressional mandate. I think the objective of the proposed plan is to allow the use of bolts where they are incidental to the mountaineering experience, and restrict them when the function is the construction of outdoor exercise equipment in a primitive area. (The details of the plan are also affected by other elements of the regulatory framework, specifically NEPA. Lots of explanation on the CLC site.) If you, as a climber, disagree with the the BLM objectives, I think you will have a long, steep road ahead of you. Probably have to start with a call to your congressman. If the above objective is palatable, I think the best approach is to help the BLM sort out the details in a manner that minimizes the burden on climbers while still protecting the wilderness resource. Again, nothing here but my highly unofficial opinions... |
|
Larry, perhaps I am getting the wrong message from the plan. I appreciate knowing your interpretation. It stimulated some thoughts that will take a lot of words to express. My apologies for taking up so much space to do so. |
|
The part about not allowing bolts in the first hundred feet is irresponsible and dangerous. |
|
There are many many problems with the BLM's proposal, but climbers (that's us, right?) need to step up and comment, and get involved. They, the BLM, have had public input sitting on their desk since June '07, so if you're just getting up to speed with the plan, you're on the late side. But it's never too late until the govt. signs off on the final document. |
|
J. Thompson wrote:The part about not allowing bolts in the first hundred feet is irresponsible and dangerous. Is the BLM trying to promote "R" and "X" climbing? that's sure what it appears like.Just to clarify, the proposed plan does NOT contain a prohibition on bolts in the first hundred feet. It says if you want to bolt close to the ground, you don't get the simplified permit (you have to have the "permit 2" instead). |
|
So, if it's placed 89' feet off the deck, "permit 2"; 103', go to "permit 1"? That's a workable plan? |
|
Andrew Carson wrote:So, if it's placed 89' feet off the deck, "permit 2"; 103', go to "permit 1"? That's a workable plan?Maybe I'm missing your point-- what is unworkable about that? |
|
Larry DeAngelo wrote: Just to clarify, the proposed plan does NOT contain a prohibition on bolts in the first hundred feet. It says if you want to bolt close to the ground, you don't get the simplified permit (you have to have the "permit 2" instead).Fair enough, guess I missed that part. However by having 2 different plans, or permits at all they are just making it weird. Hand drilling only has worked VERY well in every other wilderness area. I think if this plan moves forward you will just continue to see the rogue bolting that is currently going on. josh |
|
J. Thompson wrote: I think if this plan moves forward you will just continue to see the rogue bolting that is currently going on. joshJust to play devils advocate. Does the BLM know that climbers are still rogue bolting currently? If they do why should they consider allowing new bolts and limits if they know climbers will do anything they want anyhow? I mean, shouldn't climbers be working with the BLM instead of against them? It seems a little two faced to say lets work with the BLM and then the next day go bolt a new route. |
|
Andrew Carson wrote:So, if it's placed 89' feet off the deck, "permit 2"; 103', go to "permit 1"? That's a workable plan? Larry DeAngelo wrote: Maybe I'm missing your point-- what is unworkable about that?This is what is unworkable about "permit 2": 1. 30 day review. 2. Applications only reviewed once a month. 3. One application per person. 4. Only five permits, drawn at random, are reviewed. So if you want to put one single bolt at foot 99. Please wait a month, only work on one route, hope you are the lucky five. You had better not need a bolt when you are doing a FA with only "permit 1". This seems like it is only going to create very dangerous behavior. I really don't get what plans like this are trying to accomplish. What is the real problem that is being solved? It seems to only create a environment for litigation where the BLM is now responsible since they are "managing" it. |
|
lin wrote: Just to play devils advocate. Does the BLM know that climbers are still rogue bolting currently? If they do why should they consider allowing new bolts and limits if they know climbers will do anything they want anyhow? I mean, shouldn't climbers be working with the BLM instead of against them? It seems a little two faced to say lets work with the BLM and then the next day go bolt a new route.The BLM is not stupid...ofcourse they know. The thing is climbers are working with the BLM. Some VERY specifically. The belief I get from alot of folks is that certain climbers that worked with the BLM on this plan have interjected their personal agendas and not looked at the climbing community as a whole. The problem I see is that the BLM is trying to manage something that doesn't really need any more managing. The standard in every wilderness area in the country is no power drills. This standard has been very effective. Now enter the BLM....which doesn't have alot of experience in the management of these areas....and they want to reinvent the wheel. Is the rogue bolting right? It depends on your opinion, and there are many things to consider. Is it helping with the climber BLM relationship? Probably no. Should the BLM realise that they will NEVER be able to affectively enforce the permit process? Yes. Those canyon's are to big, they don't have enough man power, nor will they. What they will do is push First ascentionist's underground. They should encourage the climbing community to rally around itself. No power drills in the wilderness is an appropriate way to do that. There is a much better chances of climbers self policing this common standard. josh |