List of areas that have been closed in the US?

20 kN wrote:

You might be misunderstanding what the Access Fund actually does. The Access Fund has a small office in Boulder and maybe a dozen employees. They do not have the resources to physically approach every land owner at every crag in the nation and take lead on the matter. That is the responsibility of the LCOs (Local Climbing Organization). The Access Fund will get directly involved in major climbing areas of national value, and they will supplement assistance as required to smaller areas. However, for small areas it's the primary responsibility of the LCO to work on reopening the area along with secondary support from the Access Fund. It's not that the AF is unwilling to assist or uncaring about small crags, but it's a matter of what they can physically do. Land managers are going to be much more open to local residents and tax payers of the area visiting them in person than they will be to some company located several states away who is calling them on the phone to try to negotiate reopening an area.

The AF's main purpose is, and has been for a long time, national oversight of large-scale access. They deal with policy management with the feds and major states, stewardship and leadership of LCOs. They WILL come and personally visit a specific crag if doing so is likely to assist (they flew an attorney to my crag to help us when we had problems), but the AF cannot take the lead on reopening some area that's located 1,500 miles away, talking to someone they dont know, and doing so without even having a physical presence in that state. That's the job of the LCO as the LCO will always be in the best position to deal directly with the land managers.

All the more reason for an accessible database of closed areas and their status.  They have regional coordinators in most states  https://www.accessfund.org/meet-the-access-fund/our-network/regional-coordinators one LCO and several additional local representatives in New Mexico.  I assume they are unpaid but are official contacts of the Access Fund.  I got nothing out of these people when I asked about specific crag situations beyond a very vague "we got it covered" and "please don't talk to the landowner".  I was asking about several different closed areas that have a variety of private, state and federal ownership.  That was years ago and nothing has changed that I am aware of.  A friend hit them up about the same areas and more last year with roughly the same results.   Personally, I think the AF, LCO and AF local representatives approached one landowner and have not ever approach the others.  But how would I know?

I think the AF is useful at the national level but a failure at the local level.   I support the AF with annual donations simply because access is critical and threatened and the AF is the only game in town.  

climber pat wrote:

All the more reason for an accessible database of closed areas and their status.  They have regional coordinators in most states  https://www.accessfund.org/meet-the-access-fund/our-network/regional-coordinators one LCO and several additional local representatives in New Mexico.  I assume they are unpaid but are official contacts of the Access Fund.  I got nothing out of these people when I asked about specific crag situations beyond a very vague "we got it covered" and "please don't talk to the landowner".  I was asking about several different closed areas that have a variety of private, state and federal ownership.  That was years ago and nothing has changed that I am aware of.  A friend hit them up about the same areas and more last year with roughly the same results.   Personally, I think the AF, LCO and AF local representatives approached one landowner and have not ever approach the others.  But how would I know?

I think the AF is useful at the national level but a failure at the local level.   I support the AF with annual donations simply because access is critical and threatened and the AF is the only game in town.  

Well, all I can say is the same as I would for any other company: work your way up the ladder. If you're not getting the answers you expect from the local reps, contact the Boulder office. 

Guy Keesee wrote:

Ha hahah we all have one.....    

20kn.....  so what happens when the AF will not even try to go to court, for one of the biggest closures? 

The Landowner is the US government and there is no local voice. 

I am thinking Williamson.

Major national destination area of significance? Williamson????? I might recall hearing of it once or twice in the last 40 years. 

Some folks in this thread seem to be under the misimpression that the AF can work magic - tell them you want an area opened and a year later you have full access. The landowner can just as easily say "No. Go away and don't ever come back. "

Marc801 C wrote:

Some folks in this thread seem to be under the misimpression that the AF can work magic - tell them you want an area opened and a year later you have full access. The landowner can just as easily say "No. Go away and don't ever come back. "

I am not asking for magic, I am asking for information.  What have they done for areas I care about?

Senior Hernandez wrote:

No, I am under the impression that AF only really cares about the "loca" crags in CO, and once in a blue moon they do something outside of their home base. Apparently that is to be expected as they're only 15 of them and they live in Colorado. I agreed that it would help local communities if they provided more transparency in their dealings, and encouraged the local affiliates to be more proactive. In my experience this is not been the case.

Fair enough. I don't entirely agree with everything, but those are minor points.

Guy Keesee wrote:

Ha hahah we all have one.....    

20kn.....  so what happens when the AF will not even try to go to court, for one of the biggest closures? 

The Landowner is the US government and there is no local voice. 

I am thinking Williamson. 

It looks like AF is doing what they can to help re-open Williamson...

https://www.accessfund.org/news-and-events/news/progress-on-southern-californias-williamson-rock-closure

Pat, absolutely get involved, meet people, and work your way upstream as you look for information.  Nothing gets done without feet on the ground, and if only a couple of locals are working on it, there is no pressure for change.

But also be aware that climbing value is not the sole value of most of these publicly owned places.  If we want non-climbers to respect what we value, we have to be ready to respect and contribute to what they value (much of which we probably already value, too).

Doug Hemken wrote:

*: the real one in Idaho, not that place in NM   

Here's one in Littleton Colorado.  We climbed here for years without issue.  Months before it closed there were issues with trash and destruction to the property.  The land owners decided they would no longer allow anyone to climb there.  

https://www.mountainproject.com/v/deer-creek-crag/105746614

Marc801 C wrote:

We as climbers don't have any more rights to the rock than anyone else. Doesn't mean clueless decisions cannot be made (see Twin Sisters in City of Rocks*), but it does mean we don't have special privileges.

Unfortunately, this is the attitude of AF and why I refuse to give them a red cent.

AF is supposed to be a one-issue advocacy group, not some hippie commune of kumbaya peace pipe passers. I wonder how many people know that Castle Rocks just north of CoR was wholly owned by AF, just before they gave it to the state of Idaho. I'm sure they'll see the windfall from all that good Karma in the next life. 

What a bunch of tools. 

Politically Correct Ball wrote:

Unfortunately, this is the attitude of AF and why I refuse to give them a red cent.

AF is supposed to be a one-issue advocacy group, not some hippie commune of kumbaya peace pipe passers. I wonder how many people know that Castle Rocks just north of CoR was wholly owned by AF, just before they gave it to the state of Idaho. I'm sure they'll see the windfall from all that good Karma in the next life. 

What a bunch of tools. 

What a bunch of misinformation. They owned it because they were the organization that purchased the various parcels that make up the park. In 2000 the Castle Rock Ranch Acquisition Act was passed, and money from the Conservation and Access funds were used to purchase the private ranch at Castle Rocks which was then turned over to Idaho to manage as a state park. This is exactly what the AF does, and CRSP was hardly the first arrangement of this type. Without the efforts of the AF there would be no climbing at what is now CRSP.

climber pat wrote:

My impression is that the access fund really only cares about big name climbing destinations and rarely gets involved with remote and obscure areas.  

Access Fund just recently secured legal access to Equinox, an awesome sport crag here in NW Washington. It's a word-of-mouth only crag, with no real beta published anywhere, about as under the radar as they come around here at least. I know that's just one example, but I'm sure there's been more. 

I'd imagine the bulk of their marketing and promotion centers around the big name climbing areas because that's what will get the majority's attention.

Matthew Tangeman wrote:

I know that's just one example, but I'm sure there's been more. 

Homestead AZ. That evil Access Fund

climber pat wrote:

I think the AF is useful at the national level but a failure at the local level.   I support the AF with annual donations simply because access is critical and threatened and the AF is the only game in town.  

The Access Fund has been quite active in the Midwest, when asked to be.  Including some impressively podunk pieces of rock - so I think folks should stop worrying about "only big name areas" being of interest.

That said, they have the most experience with Federal land, so they may only be able to give you generic help at a more locally owned property.  That doesn't mean their help isn't incredibly useful.  But if we all sit back and say "The Acces Fund ought to be here", a lot less is going to happen.

Senior Hernandez wrote:

Imagine if hunters had this same outlook for the national forests, I'll bet there would be very little hunting. In fact, hunters believe they do have special privileges and the forest if primarily for hunting. This attitude has made them one of the most powerful voices concerning the use of our forests. 

Imagine if climbers stopped espousing the type of comment you did above, stopped arguing about fixed gear etc, and started actually working together to support access above all else. Climbing ethics have always been mainly the concern of climbers, although oftentimes concern climbers will try to draw other groups into these arguments in order to win their conversations.  After they do this, then accesses is further jeopardized. I would say the people who actually use the rock do have more rights to it, at the very least we should try to claim them. I mean obviously the people playing soccer on the field have more rights to that field, and the fisherman has more rights to the river, and the hunter more rights to the deer, so wtf?  It does not hurt the climbing community to take the stance that we have a right to rock. 

While I agree with your point to an extent, I think the gist of the "everyone has a right to the rock" opinion isn't directed so much at the rock itself, but the trails and places that contain the rock. We need trails to get to the crag that could just as easily be co-opted by mountain bikers, hikers, backpackers, etc. And really... a claim to the rock could be made by photographers who don't want their photos to be "ruined" by some stupid guy hanging from a rope. Its all about what you enjoy doing.

The take away here should be fight for as much protected land as possible because clearly there is a need for more. 

cjohns716 wrote:

And really... a claim to the rock could be made by photographers who don't want their photos to be "ruined" by some stupid guy hanging from a rope. 

Which, IIRC, is exactly what happened in the Superstitions, and which led to the first bolting ban.

I'm with Senior. Climbers need to advocate for climbers and let other interest groups advocate for themselves. 

Understand and compromise when appropriate, but don't sell our interests out.

Senior Hernandez wrote:

Imagine if hunters had this same outlook for the national forests, I'll bet there would be very little hunting. In fact, hunters believe they do have special privileges and the forest if primarily for hunting. This attitude has made them one of the most powerful voices concerning the use of our forests. 

Imagine if climbers stopped espousing the type of comment you did above, stopped arguing about fixed gear etc, and started actually working together to support access above all else. Climbing ethics have always been mainly the concern of climbers, although oftentimes concern climbers will try to draw other groups into these arguments in order to win their conversations.  After they do this, then accesses is further jeopardized. I would say the people who actually use the rock do have more rights to it, at the very least we should try to claim them. I mean obviously the people playing soccer on the field have more rights to that field, and the fisherman has more rights to the river, and the hunter more rights to the deer, so wtf?  It does not hurt the climbing community to take the stance that we have a right to rock. 

QTF. Agree 100%

You can't negotiate by playing both sides. Even IMBA is trying to open up some wilderness to mtbiking. They aren't wasting their time arguing for equestrian rights—they can do that for themselves and very well. 

90s era rock climbers know what to call this, but I can't say it on this forum. 

Nick Goldsmith, what entity is mandating the removal of your bolted sport routes?  Seems a shame.  

they are not all sport routs. many are mixed ground up trad routes. The town of Lyme NH owns the land. I thought it was state land.  anyways the town board voted to have the climbs removed. the chief of police contacted me with the news.......