Mt Evans Bouldering Guidebook--Request for Public Opinion

SAL wrote: So is it not reasonable to think that estatblished trails could be provided for bouldering as well??? Dropping the chalk issue for a moment. Just somthing to think about. If we can have multipitch climbs trails then why not bouldering circuts?

I think the operative word in Peter's comment was "circuit" - as in "bouldering circuit trails"

PRRose wrote:Accordingly, it is legitimate to distinguish multipitch climbing from bouldering. There is thus no inconsistency or hypocrisy inherent in proposing that an area might be closed to bouldering but open to multipitch climbing, that chalk could be banned on boulders but allowed on multipitch climbs, or that unoffical climber trails to multipitch climbs are permissible but bouldering circuit trails are not.

I rarely boulder and while I see the reasoning for a potential rule/distinction, it still seems like an incredible double-standard.

Personally, I think that putting chains and cement on the "hiking trails" in some of the National Parks is a gross eyesore, but the NPS is undoubtedly putting up more chain and pouring more cement with each passing year. I think that chalk is the least of their problems. The absolute least.

Ken Cangi wrote: Why are you quoting me for something that someone else said?

Edited. My bad.

--Marc

William Dacier wrote: But the NPS put the marks on the rocks, and they are the land managers. I don't believe the climbing community is the land manager of the public lands, so your argument is not logical.

Your point makes sense and is well received. But I think of it this way: if the NPS painted a bunch of bulls-eyes on rocks, how can they complain about/take action against people for using chalk on rocks, which is water-soluble--very much unlike their form of marking "trails." I understand, however, that is not how they operate, which I think is too bad.

Of course I also don't think that The Keyhole Route should be marked as a "trail," but that's an entirely different thread.

William wrote:You might not care what other user groups think about the chalk issue, but when enough of them bitch, you might not like what the land manager may do in response.

There's very little the NPS does that I really like. And I understand the point you're making here.

William wrote:As an analogy, I mountain bike in the Phoenix Mountain Preserve, which is an inner city, very urban encompassed park. When I see other bikers riding really fast by hikers (bikers are supposed to yield to hikers and equestrians) this frightens the average hiker because he or she isn't sure if the biker will lose control and crash into them. If the majority of bikers did this, then the land managers could restrict we mountain bikers from riding there. I always thank the hiker who moves aside for me, and I damn well slow down when coming up on them and passing them, so that I leave a positive impression on that person about the mountain biking community in general. We don't live or climb in a vacuum and we should be aware of how other user groups perceive our actions

I understand how different user groups get along also. While I don't do all of these on the regular, to some extent I am a mtn biker, road cyclist/commuter cyclist, skier, snowboarder, x-country skier, snowshoer, climber, hiker, sky-diver, blah blah blah. There are definitely a bunch of different user groups out there trying to recreate in the same areas, sometimes in the exact same areas; there are going to be differences.

Which is exactly why it doesn't make sense to me that a climber would dog on another climber for the doing the exact same thing that he does (ie using chalk), only in a slightly less visible place--other issues aside.

--Marc

Marc Horan wrote: Your point makes sense and is well received. But I think of it this way: if the NPS painted a bunch of bulls-eyes on rocks, how can they complain about/take action against people for using chalk on rocks, which is water-soluble--very much unlike their form of marking "trails." I understand, however, that is not how they operate, which I think is too bad. Of course I also don't think that The Keyhole Route should be marked as a "trail," but that's an entirely different thread. There's very little the NPS does that I really like. And I understand the point you're making here. I understand how different user groups get along also. While I don't do all of these on the regular, to some extent I am a mtn biker, road cyclist/commuter cyclist, skier, snowboarder, x-country skier, snowshoer, climber, hiker, sky-diver, blah blah blah. There are definitely a bunch of different user groups out there trying to recreate in the same areas, sometimes in the exact same areas; there are going to be differences. Which is exactly why it doesn't make sense to me that a climber would dog on another climber for the doing the exact same thing that he does (ie using chalk), only in a slightly less visible place--other issues aside. --Marc

You are forgetting about the biggest usergroup of all - the tourists who don't use the parks for any recreation other than to take in their natural beauty. Those are the people who generate the most tourist revenues, and their complaints are the ones that generally catch the ears of the land managers and governing bodies.

If you doubt this, I refer you back to the DA debacle. The shit hit the fan when the bad press reached the governor's office.

PRRose wrote:An issue to consider is how intensity of use affects an area. Bouldering is a high intensity use compared to multipitch climbing. Whether measured in recreation hours or by the amount of climbing that actually gets done, there can be a disproportionate number of people, chalk, ground impact, rock impact, trail impact, etc. involved in bouldering compared to multipitch climbing. Accordingly, it is legitimate to distinguish multipitch climbing from bouldering. There is thus no inconsistency or hypocrisy inherent in proposing that an area might be closed to bouldering but open to multipitch climbing, that chalk could be banned on boulders but allowed on multipitch climbs, or that unoffical climber trails to multipitch climbs are permissible but bouldering circuit trails are not.

Complete Bullshit, Sorry but I don't buy this at all. All forms of climbing have impact, bouldering, sport climbing, single pitch trad, and multi pitch trad. The amount of impact depends on: The number of climbers, how the climbers act in regards to the landscape (this is where education comes in), and the fragility of the landscape.

The amount of rock impact is directly proportionate to how many people climb that rock. I find chalk marks ugly whether or not they are on a boulder or on the first pitch of a trad climb. The number of people in a single group is easy to limit by limiting group size. Trail impact ?? (not circuit trails) are boulderers somehow fatter that they make more of a trail impact. Circuit trails, once again comes down to education, and promoting a well established trail to access the areas. Some of the worst trail areas I have seen are at trad areas are where everyone is accidentally getting off the main trails and creating there own trails in the process.

In short if you want to limit climbing impact, limit population growth. Because everyone has the right to climb, and everyone has the right to climb how they want to within local ethics.

Anyways from an impartial reading off the entire thread, I don't know Bob, Cameron, and have never been to Mt Evans. My original reading of everything was that Cameron wanted the guidebook to not be released until well maintained access trails had been implemented (something that I believe requires working with the land manager in most cases), and it could be ensured there was an appropriate content in the guide for dealing with the unique fragility of the Mt Evans landscape and that it is a wilderness area.

DisturbingThePeace wrote:everyone has the right to climb, and everyone has the right to climb how they want to within local ethics.

Maybe in your world, although local climbing ethics have nothing to do with rights, in the real world. Climbers don't make the rules; state and federal governing agencies do. Make no mistake about that.

They care little about equality among different types of climbing access. If one type of climbing conflicts with land management's agenda more than another, then that activity is more likely to come under scrutiny.

Ken Cangi wrote: They care little about equality among different types of climbing access. If one type of climbing conflicts with land management's agenda more than another, then that activity is more likely to come under scrutiny.

I think it could be possible that is all or none in evans. Maybe alpine climbing would be lost as well. I think instead of bitching at eachother over who has the greater impact for once sack up and find a solution as a climbing community. Even those of you who think bouldering is not included should grow a sack and work towards a common goal for once.
That would be friggen amazing.

Actually, SAL, as a non-boulderer, I agree with you. Just because there are distinct impacts associated with different kinds of climbing doesn't cancel out our common interests in the outdoors and in working effectively with public administrators.

PRRose wrote: Oh my...where to begin? If you think that the impact on, say, Lumpy, is the same as at any popular bouldering area, then you're blind. The simple fact is: bouldering tramples and destroys vegetation around and beyond the fall line of every problem and leave gobs and gobs of chalk on clearly visible holds (as well as on the ground. Multipitch climbing's impact at the bottom of a route is relatively minimal. And nice job ignoring the fact that bouldering areas almost always have trails around and between boulders--i.e., circuit trails. Of course, if you ignore the impact on the ground and rock--bouldering is low impact. I have nothing against bouldering--but it is a higher impact use, and may not be compatible with fragile high alpine environments.

Never been to Lumpy, so really can't comment on that. I don't think it is a simple fact that bouldering has a larger impact than other forms of climbing per person. Sure bouldering might be more popular in a given area, therefore there are more people and more damage occurs. The point I am trying to get across is that multipitch trad climbing has alot of impact as well, look at Red Rocks.

I took my girlfriend, who had never been around climbing before, up to Eldo for a walk and a picnic lunch. She's an amateur photographer and she loved taking pictures of the rocks and climbers. At first, she asked what are all of those white spots on the rocks, bird shit? (being from the California coast she'd seen plenty of that on rocks). I laughed and said yes! (later when she saw some climbers up close on the Bastille I had to fess up)

Government agencies and land managers don't distinguish between prefered styles of climbers. We're all climbers in their eyes and because we are a growing user group we will be controlled.

We can take the iniative and come up with a plan for ourselves or the land management agency will do it for us. A big concern land managers have is how to keep the impact on the ground down. The number of trails to a minimum. They just aren't as concerned about chalk marks. Having designated trails to the different bouldering circuits and to the base of cliffs and keeping to these is a positive first step.

Argueing amoung ourselves about whose impact is greater is non-productive and gets us nowhere. We're all climbers. We can lose it all or we can come out smilin'

JACK

Ken Cangi wrote: Maybe in your world, although local climbing ethics have nothing to do with rights, in the real world. Climbers don't make the rules; state and federal governing agencies do. Make no mistake about that. They care little about equality among different types of climbing access. If one type of climbing conflicts with land management's agenda more than another, then that activity is more likely to come under scrutiny.

Are there any areas that allow multi-pitch climbing, but not bouldering or visa-versa. Seems like if one form is outlawed then all forms will be. Bolting and fixed anchors being it's own case.

The local ethics (or rules in some cases) part was that in some areas bolting is disallowed, or not encouraged. Once a route has gone on clean aid or free, pounding pitons is considered bad form, chipping / glueing .... No doubt about the state and federal governing agencies making the rules.

PRRose wrote: Land managers do differentiate. The NPS's concerns over pads in Chaos Canyon did not threaten climbing elsewhere in the Park.

These were stashed pads.
Not people carrying pads in or out.

Same goes for stashed packs and gear though.

PRRose wrote: The pads walked in and stashed themselves?

The problem was not with boulderers themselves but with the pads that the "boulderers" walked in and left.

Stashed pads cusaed the up roar not bouldering in chaos.

"Land managers do differentiate. The NPS's concerns over pads in Chaos Canyon did not threathen climbing elsewhere in the park".

Actually they don't always. When Boulder Mountain Parks and Open Space deveoped and instigated the latest management plan for this area they considered the latest "climbing impact", which was the bouldering craze and lumped it in altogether with other styles of climbing. They looked at the numbers of trails in the area and decided what constituded 'reasonable use and access" to ALL climbing. Thus, when the plan came out in its finalized version they had closed some trails that had been used for years for access to climbing cliffs because they felt that by allowing newer trails to bouldering areas they had to cut back on other 'social" trails. Likewise with the ice climbing that we are trying to get going in BLDR CYN. The feeling in the BMPOS is that climber's needs are being met and deserve no further consideration.

From what I've seen in government, they lump all styles of climbing into one group and do not differentiate between long routes, bouldering, short routes, ice climbing etc..

So when does this guide book come out?

Its a FREE country write and print whatever you want. If you do not want to buy or read something don't. As far as chalk why don't we just ban it all together. Climb without it. If your such a hard man you should not need it. Nothing bothers me more then going for a hold that feels like chalk and not rock.

PRRose wrote: Land managers do differentiate. The NPS's concerns over pads in Chaos Canyon did not threaten climbing elsewhere in the Park.

Well educated and responsible land managers differentiate. Poorly educated, lazy, beaucratic ones do not.

Wow, this post has really turned into a cluster.

I'm not sure why so many people who don't boulder, haven't climbed at Evans, or have been there maybe once feel like they know so much about the situation. The reaction from people in the climbing community who are experience has been really positive; the reaction from the community on M.P. has been disappointing to say the least.

It’s really sad to see someone as dedicated and experienced as Cam trying to help out in a needed situation and receive responses like this. Mt. Project has such a reputation for being a bunch of Gumbys rehashing last months Climbing Magazine. This tread is turning into the perfect example of why. Despite several people offering to give a tour to anyone who wants it, people are still reading this as an attempt to keep the Bouldering to ourselves. Either that or people think that if there are problems we shouldn't even bother climbing in this world class area that is less than an hour from Denver.

Another climber who actually knows what he is talking about (Jamie Emerson) has chimed in on this guidebook. He is in SLC and had the chance to read the guidebook. His analysis is even more disturbing when he points out that very little of the info is even correct. b3bouldering.com/

For the record Cam, I really appreciate all of your efforts to improve Access across the front range. I hope you don’t let things like this from discouraging you in future efforts.

TMB wrote:Wow, this post has really turned into a cluster. I'm not sure why so many people who don't boulder, haven't climbed at Evans, or have been there maybe once feel like they know so much about the situation. The reaction from people in the climbing community who are experience has been really positive; the reaction from the community on M.P. has been disappointing to say the least. It’s really sad to see someone as dedicated and experienced as Cam trying to help out in a needed situation and receive responses like this. Mt. Project has such a reputation for being a bunch of Gumbys rehashing last months Climbing Magazine. This tread is turning into the perfect example of why. Despite several people offering to give a tour to anyone who wants it, people are still reading this as an attempt to keep the Bouldering to ourselves. Either that or people think that if there are problems we shouldn't even bother climbing in this world class area that is less than an hour from Denver. Another climber who actually knows what he is talking about (Jamie Emerson) has chimed in on this guidebook. He is in SLC and had the chance to read the guidebook. His analysis is even more disturbing when he points out that very little of the info is even correct. b3bouldering.com/ For the record Cam, I really appreciate all of your efforts to improve Access across the front range. I hope you don’t let things like this from discouraging you in future efforts.

You are really missing the point. Even if Cam's intentions are completely noble, what does he think he can accomplish from this thread? This isn't China. Bob has the right to publish his book, and nothing that Cameron, you, or anyone else has to say is going to change that.

If the book is that bad, people will figure that out soon enough and Falcon and Bob will lose publishing credibility.