Is there a disturbing trend at work here?

Can anyone think of some recent instances where the State of Colorado actually facilitated climbing? Sure, Eldo has the fixed protection committee, but I believe that is only a direct result of history.
I have an outstanding new route permit application in at Castlewood that might be 6-8 years old now. I've lost track. All I do is ask whats the status a couple time s a year. Hurdle after hurdle after hurdle. But there are other examples. One, again at CWC is the newly acquired East section beyond the bridge on 83. No big deal to me, smallish rock even by CWC standards. But the entire area is totally closed off except for escorted nature hikes. This was somebody's ranch a few years ago, and back in the 70's this section of canyon would fill with 100's of bikers and other party-er's every weekend; its hardly some pristine place. I was told there's the potential for Preble's Mouse (ignore the 1000's of rattlers).
Here's another one: Cheyenne Mountain State Park. Opens up a few years ago, covered with boulders and crags. But rock climbing -in any form- is expressly forbidden.
Don't forget the absolute nonsense of Ralston Buttes.
So here's my question: are they slowly phasing us out, like the frog in a slow-boiling pot?

I'd say so, if given the choice between seeing climbers on the wall ruining their nature hike while searching for an imaginary mouse or not seeing people ruining "their wilderness", climbers are out.

Just think of the thousands of those little fury critters that just got displaced out of the burn areas...I mean there must be a huge inventory find resulting from the activity.

I hate it when science is contorted to propagate a continued bullshit political power agenda. Disturbing trend? It has already been trending for some time.

Mike, I can't speak to the other instances you cite, but as far as the Preble's meadow jumping mouse is concerned, we're not being targeted as climbers. Whether the US Fish and Wildlife Service is right or wrong (and this is federally driven), that little critter is an equal opportunity thorn in the side of landowners, developers, and I guess climbers as well.

Yeah, Wendy, I agree its not a climber-only ban, as they closed down all access in that area except for supervised tours on a limited circular path. I personally also lean strongly towards species preservation vs. development; forever is forever. But what is really troublesome here is that someone declared that there is potential for the little buggers here, and that was that.
The precedent here is that if there's merely potential, that's all it takes.
Ralston is closed b/c from what I gather bears sometimes stroll by and there's a plant they say is endangered but grows all over that entire area.
I have no idea what the basis for the all climbing ban at Cheyenne Mountain was, probably raptors. But since when do raptors breed on boulders; they zooked in a blanket prohibition down there.
And if climbing is ok at the Garden, then why not at Roxborough?
IMO we're not really missing anything, yet. But still, this is concerning.
The ranger at CWC way back in the day used to tell me he believed in a concept called "front-country". The premise being allow recreation at areas already under urban influence; which in turn will deflect use out of the back-country. That concept seems abandoned at the moment.

Mike Lane wrote: Cheyenne Mountain State Park. Opens up a few years ago, covered with boulders and crags. But rock climbing -in any form- is expressly forbidden.

Uhhhh. Where??? No boulders worth much, and the crags you speak of are on NORAD property.

Like I said, we're not really missing anything yet, its just the trend. Do they have a pertinent explanation as to why all forms of climbing are prohibited, or is there just some sort of potential for something?

We are missing out at CMSP. My folks live right next to the state park and I was psyched to be able to finally climb on the formations I'd been looking at for years from their driveway. Or so I thought, no climbing, no dogs are allowed (other than the parking lots). My wife & I were hiking up there and people were pissed about the dog thing. I was pissed about the climbing thing and asked the ranger lady about it. She proceeded to tell me that state parks don't usually allow climbing..WTF I asked....what about Eldo, 11 Mile, Castlewood etc.... she then blamed it on the lack of rescue personnel blah blah blah.
We as taxpayers are getting screwed. You're not allowed to hike with your dog; you're not allowed to climb or boulder on the rocks..... contrary to what England says, there is quite a bit of stone up there.
This crag would host a bunch of multi pitch moderates, it is located within the park boundaries. I'm willing to bet there are a few good boulders in there too.....

Mike McHugh wrote:I've posted a lot of (generally ignored) drivel about the volunteer events, trail work, trundling, and other stuff I've done at Eldo. I've documented plenty of stuff that directly benefits climbers in Eldo. Mike - maybe that's not what you're getting at - but please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. State Parks isn't perfect, but some of us are working our asses off on behalf of the climbing community.

Hey Mike, I didn't intend to make this out as a bashing of the people who work for CSP. They aren't the ones making these decisions. As Wendy stated, there is Federal meddling as a part of it. Re-reading my OP, I probably could've phrased things better (as usual). This appears to be a covert policy directive, probably in the upper-management manuals.
But Mike, consider this: imagine that Eldo had been private land forever; and then the State gained possession and made it a park. I have zero doubt that it would open up for the public w/ a ton of restrictions, including a ban on climbing. The historical use is what preserved climbing there.

Mike Lane wrote:Don't forget the absolute nonsense of Ralston Buttes.

Are you talking about the Ralston Roost area in Golden Gate Canyon SP? If so, what's going on there? I've climbed it (live right next door) a few times.

Nice looking hunk of rock Glen there are two nice routs up that left side close to the arete. I mean they look nice.

Jeff F. wrote: Are you talking about the Ralston Roost area in Golden Gate Canyon SP? If so, what's going on there? I've climbed it (live right next door) a few times.

No, different crag. Its also been called Coors Crag. Ralston

Mike,

You forgot to mention Denver Mountain Parks. They operate on a perception that climbers are a problematic user group. There appears to be little will to change their policies because climbers are still a small percentage user group thus easy to ignore.

The best part about all of this is that Colorado loves to market climbing for tourism.

A quick note on Cheyenne Mtn S.P. crags. As Glen mentioned it is a nice crag. However, the hold up to that one is it is also a golden eagle nesting site. I know I know seasonal closures could provide an answer. I'm not disagreeing I'm simply stating a fact. The previous park manager was a climber and regretted having to restrict the climbing and had stated to me several times that the climbers who had participated in the public meetings had been some of the most likely to see a change in the future. There are several areas on the new purchase of the top of the mountain that hold good potential for bouldering and there is one large crag that doesn't lay on NORAD property up there that has the potential for maybe 10 long pitches. I will point out that the backside of the mountain holds lots of undeveloped potential if you can navigate the private property.

Yeah, Denver Parks is a glaring one. I remember back in the 70's that every time the Dead or other such hippie bands came to Red Rocks it seemed some tripper would pitch off the buttress on the north side; I can't fully recall but think thats where their ban came from. I also can't recall that happening with real rock bands of the era, btw.

And Joshua mentions that there were meetings, and the local ranger was sympathetic. Thats my experience, those actually working the areas tend to be pro responsible access. So clearly the decisions to put in these bans comes down from above. By whom? A committee, a single administrator? I know that the Biology Dept. at CSU is aggressively lobbying against public access at every turn. If the concept of an area having merely potential for something is enough to close it all down, that gives out way too much authority to a few individuals. At the very least they should be compelled to publicize all the facts they have to make such a determination and also have a threshold to prove before imposing a ban. Especially since it appears that they are adversarial to user groups who seek more out of public lands than being held by the hand and kept on a concrete pathway.

I want to know who these people are. A group out of the governor's office? High-ups at State Parks? The Feds? I don't like this secret power at all.

Maybe we should bombard Shawn Mitchell with requests about determining what the status is of "Front-Country" concept of land management the way Ranger Bob Finch described it to me.

maybe we outta release some tom-cats, see what we can get for a mice count

Mike Lane wrote:So clearly the decisions to put in these bans comes down from above. By whom? A committee, a single administrator? I know that the Biology Dept. at CSU is aggressively lobbying against public access at every turn. If the concept of an area having merely potential for something is enough to close it all down, that gives out way too much authority to a few individuals. At the very least they should be compelled to publicize all the facts they have to make such a determination and also have a threshold to prove before imposing a ban.

Anyone know if Colorado has an equivalent law to the Freedom of Information Act?

Edit: Forget that last question, I found this:
colorado.gov/dpa/doit/archi…
I know we have some lawyers on this forum, what do you think?

Mike Lane wrote:I want to know who these people are. A group out of the governor's office? High-ups at State Parks? The Feds? I don't like this secret power at all.

The government is in a pinch and the state parks which before these recent economic issues always had problems with funding.

As always the state parks is a large bureaucratic system that only pays attention to those that scream the loudest and those that will affect their pocket-book the most...so not sure if it is any single person but a collective that ignores climbers because we have no voice.

Unfortunately the Denver/front range climbing community is poorly organized compared to other areas in Colorado/US so we do not even register on state parks (or anyone's) radar.

I am always amazed when I go to other areas across the country and see signs pointing towards climbing areas, dedicated parking, dedicated trails, and posted useful information compared to a number of significantly more popular areas in Colorado that have virtually none of that.

Mike Lane wrote:I have an outstanding new route permit application in at Castlewood that might be 6-8 years old now. I've lost track. All I do is ask whats the status a couple time s a year.

I assume they are not responding because they don't see a need to process your permit because they don't see a demand. It is a lot easier to ignore some random dude then it is to work for them. I would love to see more development at Castlewood however I have a feeling that one person is not going to change their minds.

So whatever happened to the Denver Climbers Coalition and other groups that should be the voice of the community?

Andy Librande wrote: I assume they are not responding because they don't see a need to process your permit because they don't see a demand. It is a lot easier to ignore some random dude then it is to work for them. I would love to see more development at Castlewood however I have a feeling that one person is not going to change their minds. So whatever happened to the Denver Climbers Coalition and other groups that should be the voice of the community?

Andy- to be fair, the previous administration did actually pursue several steps towards getting approval. It just took an immensely long time in between them. But the former administrator, Jen Martin, did actually see the value of what I wanted to do and went to bat for for me in the face of a couple of veto's. But now there is a new administration in place, and it sounds very much like I'm all the way back to square one. The previous rangers who worked CWC do see the value of the climbing there, as it accounts for a decent percentage of their visits. The block is coming from somewhere else.
So the essence of my OP here is that I suspect a secret cadre of authority somewhere in the State government that is actively pursuing clamping down on public access whenever they can. Actually, I know they are there b/c you can see the effect they have on policy (same way we observe black holes); the question is who are they. I've always been a despise authority type, so the notion that unknown persons are wielding significant powers really irks me.
Also, there is no climber committee present w/ CWC, probably b/c no one would want to admit being on it. Perhaps its time -sigh- to establish one.

Hey Mike McHugh -

Boulder Climbing Community is a really sweet looking site and I guess my unclear point is that different areas in Colorado have different community groups.

For example Boulder has a ridiculous amount of access type groups and long-history of working with government organizations. Eldo is completely different from Castlewood Canyon as it should be; one is a world-renowned climbing area and the other is a local's hiding spot. Not bashing on either of them and the development at both makes sense, I was talking in more broad terms for all public land groups (Jeffco open space, Denver Mtn Parks, etc). There are a few areas are much different from the norm and invest heavily into ensuring that the climbing community is well-treated and we all appreciate that.

Denver area (C-wood, clear creek, Morrison, evergreen, etc) has a ton of climbing but not an highly visible organized climbing community which I think is an issue and one of the reasons why climbers are not well-heard in the area.

It is awesome that someone like yourself works at the parks and does amazing things for the climbing community and I can only hope that people like you continue to be a part of State parks and other public lands groups.

Lastly I am no expert these are just my views from climbing in the area for the past 7-8 yrs so just some opinions and thoughts on a random monday afternoon.

Joshua Balke wrote:There are several areas on the new purchase of the top of the mountain that hold good potential for bouldering

Joshua, spot on about the climbing issue at CMSP, the former park manager was a nice guy and an experienced climber (hadn't he done a fair amount of big wall stuff?).

The current manager also seems like a nice guy too, and genuinely seemed open to all user groups equally, at least the one time I met him and discussed the master plan for the top of the mountain.

Unfortunately, the top of the mountain really doesn't seem to hold much potential. I've scoured every inch of that land and none of the granite is worth a damn. I've been told that the granite on the top is actually on the order of 500 million years older than pikes peak granite, hence it suffers from decomposition. The north peak and back-side, however, do have potential, and most of that is forest service.

As for the eagle issue, they're taking it seriously enough to re-route a significant portion of the Dixon trail to avoid line-of-sight with the eagle (the existing trail alignment was already a quarter mile or more away from the eagle).

Here's an interesting development:

denverpost.com/news/ci_1774…

This couldn't possibly be good for climbing access in the State Parks.