Indian Creek PSA

I will write in support of a nicer road and outhouses.  I think it's a good idea.  
FWIW I've been climbing at the Creek since 1987 when we would drive in and camp in Donnelly Canyon.  We would be the only climbers for entire weekends back then.  The Meat Walls were shrouded in mystery and barely known at that time.  I wish it were still like that, but gee whiz, climbing is real popular.  Who would have thought?

 I posted because everyone has a voice and it deserves to be heard. I knew full well that the overwhelming majority of folks would be in support of development of the Bridger Jacks and so far the posts confirm it. Society of convenience and everything easy. I Knew full well that there would be responses from plenty of people who have very little or zero experience or knowledge of the Creek. Its good, it creates discussion and education. I'm against the (possible) development of the Bridgers. My points are in line with Rob Dillon. I only have a (roughly) 12 or so year personal history with the Creek, but is nothing sacred anymore? There are those among us who appreciate the (relatively) isolated nature and the more difficult access of the Bridger's. I also have really dialed waste management systems and so do the people I camp with. Its not that difficult and doesn't take that much effort. Just a bit of research and effort. I find it much more pleasant than dealing with a line for a vault toilet. There are plenty of developed campgrounds. We can't leave the nicest one alone? Yes we need resource preservation. Yes we need education. Now more than ever, there are more user groups than ever besides climbers using the Creek. For the first time I saw 30 foot RVs in Creek Pasture this past week.

You guys will have to forgive Grog, the dude can't even climb without ripping his fingers off.  You can do the math on that one.

Locals Only wrote: You guys will have to forgive Grog, the dude can't even climb without ripping his fingers off.  You can do the math on that one.

Poor Grog can’t do higher math now because he is always missing a digit :(

ShireSmitty wrote:  I posted because everyone has a voice and it deserves to be heard. I knew full well that the overwhelming majority of folks would be in support of development of the Bridger Jacks and so far the posts confirm it. Society of convenience and everything easy. I Knew full well that there would be responses from plenty of people who have very little or zero experience or knowledge of the Creek. Its good, it creates discussion and education. I'm against the (possible) development of the Bridgers. My points are in line with Rob Dillon. I only have a (roughly) 12 or so year personal history with the Creek, but is nothing sacred anymore? There are those among us who appreciate the (relatively) isolated nature and the more difficult access of the Bridger's. I also have really dialed waste management systems and so do the people I camp with. Its not that difficult and doesn't take that much effort. Just a bit of research and effort. I find it much more pleasant than dealing with a line for a vault toilet. There are plenty of developed campgrounds. We can't leave the nicest one alone? Yes we need resource preservation. Yes we need education. Now more than ever, there are more user groups than ever besides climbers using the Creek. For the first time I saw 30 foot RVs in Creek Pasture this past week.

I'm totally with you and Rob, et al, but the reality is that the Creek is only becoming more popular and, sadly, that means an ever increasing crowd of people who are ignorant about proper practices. As we know, the desert is a fragile place, requiring much more sensitive, mindful practices than a lot of other places, so it doesn't take much of that to trash it. Thus, pit toilets and restricted (controlled) camping is a necessity if we don't want to trash the place further. Makes me sad, but the masses continue to come, and we need to establish some ways to mitigate it sooner than later. I do think leaving the road in rough shape could help keep people out of the Bridger area, but, as someone mentioned earlier, that just results in people camping where they really shouldn't.

sacrificial cows gonna sacrifice.  

ShireSmitty wrote:For the first time I saw 30 foot RVs in Creek Pasture this past week.

I wonder if some of this stems the fact that the IC campgrounds are so close to Canyonlands, but so much cheaper. I saw a 30' RV at Creek Pasture last year, and I watched its elderly residents put their trash in the free box just before driving off.

I did not recognize it as trash until I got to the free box, otherwise I would've given them an earful.
Regardless of who is ruining the landscape, the opportunity to self-police was lost in the 90s, back when 1% non-compliance per weekend might mean 2-3 people in the entire canyon. Now, we've huge groups of people all convinced that the rules don't apply to them, and that their particular experience of interacting with the landscape is the only one worth respecting, much less preserving. We have proven that we can't prevent damage to the resource via self-policing, so the managing agency either has to police us, or lose the resource.

I agree that pooping in the desert is a problem. I vote for a very aggressive sign in the Bridger Jack's that basically says if you can't go back to Beef Basin to take a shit then don't camp here. I'd rather have the blm go dig up some more boring land by Superbowl or creek pasture. I would imagine the influx of Canyonlands tourists are also putting a strain on the main 3 campgrounds but once a road goes to the BJs that place will get totally fucked.

ShireSmitty wrote: Society of convenience and everything easy. 

That is really miss-labeling a majority of the arguments that are pro-additional development.  What we are saying is that we chose the lesser of two evils.  We'd rather have this than limiting the number of entrants, losing access altogether, or just dealing with a bunch of people's literal shit.  

It royally sucks that places get popular, crowds get bigger, lines get longer, and the concrete jungle starts to sprout up.  But that happens whether we like it or not.  I'm glad folks fight the development because it helps slow it down to only as fast as needed, but I also support responsible development to maintain access.  

Mike- I get your point. Its a good one and I agree with you. I think you (may have) missed my bigger point and focused on my salty moment. The part which concerns me is the "responsible development" bit. I think it is a broad idea that gets blurred by ease of access and a complete lack of education.  Is it really responsible to spend so much money to create more spaces for RV accessible "campgrounds" for people to "camp" in... I.e. sit inside of and watch TV whilst running a generator? To consume so many more resources? Don't those folks have enough options with literally tens of thousands of campgrounds nationwide? The current model creates no personal responsibility whatsoever and zero accountability. A 3 by 4 foot poster board with illustrations of cryptobiotic soil and environmental concerns that nobody reads doesn't cut it. After an RV left Creek Pasture I took 3 big white kitchen bags of trash to Monticello that they'd left behind.  Would I support development of Bridger Jacks for tent or car only camping and a toilet? Maybe... It depends on the plan. Am I against paying for camping? No, absolutely not.

ShireSmitty wrote: Mike- I get your point. Its a good one and I agree with you. I think you (may have) missed my bigger point and focused on my salty moment. The part which concerns me is the "responsible development" bit. I think it is a broad idea that gets blurred by ease of access and a complete lack of education.  Is it really responsible to spend so much money to create more spaces for RV accessible "campgrounds" for people to "camp" in... I.e. sit inside of and watch TV whilst running a generator? To consume so many more resources? Don't those folks have enough options with literally tens of thousands of campgrounds nationwide? The current model creates no personal responsibility whatsoever and zero accountability. A 3 by 4 foot poster board with illustrations of cryptobiotic soil and environmental concerns that nobody reads doesn't cut it. After an RV left Creek Pasture I took 3 big white kitchen bags of trash to Monticello that they'd left behind.  Would I support development of Bridger Jacks for tent or car only camping and a toilet? Maybe... It depends on the plan. Am I against paying for camping? No, absolutely not.

As much as I'm not a fan of big RVs, I doubt they're the ones shitting all over the place. 

When I first went to IC in '81 I saw it right away for what it was; the canary in the coal mine.

There are dozens of comparable Wingate canyons in Utah, but without the paved road access. Arguing about a minor side road improvement is missing the entire picture. AS IC goes so goes the entire canyon country.

As long as people can't shut their pie holes about how awesome this cool new place is (yeah, good luck with that) then we will continue to metastasize until the people that protect us from ourselves outlaw climbing.

If people don't start putting in and USING rap chains that blend in then I see a fixed anchor ban coming to IC soon. Now that it is NPS it can happen with the wave of a hand.

I'm raising mules to go where I climb. Just gotta beat the crowds and stay out of sight.

Gravel and an outhouse? Deck chairs on the Titanic!

Sorry but some of you don’t see the writing on the wall. It’s not a question of paving a road as much as it is keeping a campground open. There is no long term third option. Bridger Jacks has been getting hammered by over use for more than a decade. If you want a remote desert experience then go somewhere remote. If you want to keep camping at the Jacks then support the BLM in it’s fight to preserve the area. 

I made it there in a mini van its not that bad

The BLM's fight to preserve the area? Surely you jest. The only way for the BLM to preserve the area if that were truly the endgame would be to close it entirely.  The writing doesn't HAVE to be on the wall. There IS middle ground here. Like others have said, the Creek is a big place and there's plenty of "pedestrian" or "uninteresting" terrain that could be used. But that would take effort and a change of consciousness wouldn't it? 

ShireSmitty wrote: The BLM's fight to preserve the area? Surely you jest. The only way for the BLM to preserve the area if that were truly the endgame would be to close it entirely.  The writing doesn't HAVE to be on the wall. There IS middle ground here. Like others have said, the Creek is a big place and there's plenty of "pedestrian" or "uninteresting" terrain that could be used. But that would take effort and a change of consciousness wouldn't it? 

Isn't the BLM talking about putting facilities there exactly BECAUSE climbers are already camping there? And they're hoping to lessen the impact of said camping? Maybe if the community of climbers doesn't want a formal campground there we should also stop having an informal one there?

Señor Arroz wrote:

Isn't the BLM talking about putting facilities there exactly BECAUSE climbers are already camping there? And they're hoping to lessen the impact of said camping? Maybe if the community of climbers doesn't want a formal campground there we should also stop having an informal one there?

Is this the case of someone chiming in who hasn't been to the Bridger Jacks CG?  The Bridger Jacks CG is a formal BLM CG with designated sites, just a primitive one with an unimproved dirt road and no toilet facilities.  Personally, I love it that way but understand perspectives on both sides.

I have not been to Indian Creek in ten years.  The best action you can take as an individual if you sense a climbing destination is becoming overused is to discontinue climbing at said destination.  Climbing has evolved to having its own tourism sector.  Paddling, mountain biking, fishing, there are few outdoor sports that are immune to tourism type tendencies.  The largest of which is that many "climb" for the social element vs the actual climbing itself.  Holidays and weekends dominate these "tourist crags".  If you took a survey in a climbing gym in any major city out west, Indian Creek and Squamish would rank at the top of where these folks want to climb outdoors.  

From an individual perspective, the solution is simple. If you want to avoid pit toilets, paved roads, trash, feces, RV's, dogs, etc, you climb more remote areas.  In many instances this requires a higher grade of climbing which goes without saying but can quickly get you away from the masses.  I have summited over a 100 towers in the Moab area, the annual visitors to two of those towers would put the other 98 to shame, in terms of shear numbers, not quality of climbing: Castleton and Ancient Art.  Getting a photo atop Ancient Art is akin to getting your photo with Mickey Mouse at Disney.  It is basically the same principle.

If you REALLY want to protect an area from overuse and/or development, the best thing you can do is to discontinue using it yourself.  Of course that ship has sailed on Indian Creek.  Some funny solutions have been sought here.  Some are crying for SOMEBODY to enforce rules on RVers as though climbing groups are saints when it comes to trash, dog shit, etc.  If you ask to be babysit in the backcountry, the government will be sure to oblige with roads, toilets, rangers, fines and fees.

Required reading for anyone really interested in this sort of thing is Desert Solitaire by Edward Abby, although I know many who have claimed to have read it but anything he had to say was lost on them when it comes to their personal entitlement.  He published it in '68, but it is as relevant today if not more so.

Dow Williams wrote:   Getting a photo atop Ancient Art is akin to getting your photo with Mickey Mouse at Disney.  It is basically the same principle.

LMAO There certainly is some truth to this. 

Good thoughts DOW.

Isn't Dow a part of that tourist sector...i.e. guide?