Climbing at Paradise forks

Yes I know "yuurrrr gonna die"

I read through the page on climbing at the forks, but all the TRing conversations stopped around 2012. Has there been any updates on the proper way of climbing there? I hope to go there end of this month with a party of 4. Two of are will mostly do the leading with the other two following. We will probably swap routes so setting up TR is going to be necessary for our two parties. I know we will most likely sling a with a long static line, but to avoid the rope from swinging/moving and causing more erosion, I plan to leave a cam up top to weigh the TR rope and have the static line as a back up (something that was suggested on the paradise fork page). Is that still the common practice done here?

Also we dont have a guide book for the area, will MP be good enough to climb here if we go thursday-sunday?

It's been a couple of years since I've personally been there, but all (or at least most) routes can be set up as a TR just below the rim. You don't need to anchor off of the trees. Also I have always found the info on MP.com to be more than adequate, but take that with a grain of salt because I am already familiar with the area, thus not a first-timer. HTH!

Mike wrote: It's been a couple of years since I've personally been there, but all (or at least most) routes can be set up as a TR just below the rim. You don't need to anchor off of the trees. Also I have always found the info on MP.com to be more than adequate, but take that with a grain of salt because I am already familiar with the area, thus not a first-timer. HTH!

Thanks! To clarify, it's easy to build a 3 point anchor below the rim for the other climbers?

Jan Tarculas wrote:

Thanks! To clarify, it's easy to build a 3 point anchor below the rim for the other climbers?

Generally speaking, yes it is. It's not always as comfortable of a stance as sitting on the rim with your feet dangling over the edge, but it's OK enough, and you can help reduce the erosion in the area. There are probably exceptions, but this is mostly the case.

Are the roads to PF open yet? 

Roads are open. Big potholes, beware! You cant really generalize about how to set up anchors for tr or top belay. You just need to have some skills, some common sense and use both. Dont drop yourself or your partner, dont knock rocks down on yourselves or others. I dont think of the Forks as a lead and switch topropes kind of place. It's just not that kind of crag. The Waterfall is more conducive to that, everything has an anchor.

Protect trees with a wrap if you are going to rappel or use them as anchors. Please don't use the dying Prow tree for an anchor, plenty of trees and large boulders to wrap behind it.  Thanks.

I think it's high time the Forks entered the 21st Century and had bolted anchors.

Richard Fernandez wrote: I think it's high time the Forks entered the 21st Century and had bolted anchors.

Just remember, you brought it upon yourself...

Matthew Bouffard wrote:

Just remember, you brought it upon yourself...

I'm not concerned.

Matthew Bouffard wrote:

Just remember, you brought it upon yourself...

Give me one good reason that doesn't involve romantic notions and disregard the present conditions and inevitable future.

My opinion:

1.  It would be difficult to place 148 (MP’s # of routes) anchors within reach of the rim—so people will still tie off trees to reach the anchors and/or climb routes without anchors and/or to rap into the canyon.

2.  I believe it is wilderness.  If so, then it is illegal to “Bosch” bolts.

3.Even if it were not wilderness, leaving rap anchors is probably illegal as well.  In the Coronado a climber was charged with “abandoning property” and “creating an installation” based on hangers.

4.  I think that it is good to have areas that are different from one another.   In Arizona the number of sport routes are rapidly overtaking trad routes.  For example, in Arizona, according to MP, 40% of the routes are sport and 34.5% are trad. In Northern Arizona, 33.6% sport and 39.8% trad.   For “ Flagstaff Crags” 61.1%, sport and 37.3 trad.  For Sycamore Canyon 94% of the climbs are trad.  Obviously anchors do not make a sport route, but I would be concerned the temptation would eventually become irresistible—as appears to be the case with anchors.

5.  Making it easier to climb at the Forks will probably  increase traffic and increase impact.

6.  Placing a huge number of convenience  anchors is probably not going to endear climbers to other non-climber users, environmental groups and the Kaibab Forest Service.  For example, the forest service web site states:

The Sycamore Rim Trail was first proposed in 1975. Born of the idea that this environment of ponds, streams, cliffs and deep canyons was unique, and worthy of preservation in as nearly an undisturbed condition as possible, the trail was built to provide access to the area so people could enjoy it without impacting its scenic values.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/recarea/kaibab/recreation/recarea/?recid=11674&actid=50

7.  I think any decision altering these wonderful routes should involve the people who put them up.

Scott, I could almost agree with just about everything in your post except the visual impact. Ropes tethered to trees dozens of yards away from the tops of routes is hardly pristine.

The damage caused to numerous trees is shameful.

Baushing bolts in wilderness, oops.

As of recently there are bolts at the forks. Some people make their own exceptions.

Well camo'd anchors atop the most popular routes would only be positive.

It doesn't make sense to me to place rap anchors above every route, nor does it seem responsible to continue using the trees. Why not place just a dozen rap stations at the top of of key points along each wall. For example, two for the Gold wall, one for the Prow, two for Pillow, etc..
This would decrease the impact of additional permanent anchors and reduce impact on vegetation.
I would happily volunteer my time for this.

Scott M. McNamara wrote: My opinion:

1.  It would be difficult to place 148 (MP’s # of routes) anchors within reach of the rim—so people will still tie off trees to reach the anchors and/or climb routes without anchors and/or to rap into the canyon.

2.  I believe it is wilderness.  If so, then it is illegal to “Bausch” bolts.

3.Even if it were not wilderness, leaving rap anchors is probably illegal as well.  In the Coronado a climber was charged with “abandoning property” and “creating an installation” based on hangers.

4.  I think that it is good to have areas that are different from one another.   In Arizona the number of sport routes are rapidly overtaking trad routes.  For example, in Arizona, according to MP, 40% of the routes are sport and 34.5% are trad. In Northern Arizona, 33.6% sport and 39.8% trad.   For “ Flagstaff Crags” 61.1%, sport and 37.3 trad.  For Sycamore Canyon 94% of the climbs are trad.  Obviously anchors do not make a sport route, but I would be concerned the temptation would eventually become irresistible—as appears to be the case with anchors.

5.  Making it easier to climb at the Forks will probably  increase traffic and increase impact.

6.  Placing a huge number of convenience  anchors is probably not going to endear climbers to other non-climber users, environmental groups and the Kaibab Forest Service.  For example, the forest service web site states:

The Sycamore Rim Trail was first proposed in 1975. Born of the idea that this environment of ponds, streams, cliffs and deep canyons was unique, and worthy of preservation in as nearly an undisturbed condition as possible, the trail was built to provide access to the area so people could enjoy it without impacting its scenic values.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/recarea/kaibab/recreation/recarea/?recid=11674&actid=50

7.  I think any decision altering these wonderful routes should involve the people who put them up.

Agree 100% 

Craig Blankenship wrote: It doesn't make sense to me to place rap anchors above every route, nor does it seem responsible to continue using the trees. Why not place just a dozen rap stations at the top of of key points along each wall. For example, two for the Gold wall, one for the Prow, two for Pillow, etc..
This would decrease the impact of additional permanent anchors and reduce impact on vegetation.
I would happily volunteer my time for this.

That's definitely a good start. I would add a few anchors atop The most popular routes that are most vulnerable to using trees. Sensible.

Darren Mabe wrote: When was the last time you have been there? Have you seen it recently?

I'm out there all the time, it's not busy at all. Most that I ever see is 2 or 3 other parties. I've been climbing at The Forks since 95. Please don't put bolts over the edge! The White Wall is a different situation, isolated and with a mostly chossy top band. Leave the other walls alone. Please!

Ivan Cross wrote:

I'm out there all the time, it's not busy at all. Most that I ever see is 2 or 3 other parties. I've been climbing at The Forks since 95. Please don't put bolts over the edge! The White Wall is a different situation, isolated and with a mostly chossy top band. Leave the other walls alone. Please!

2 or 3 other parties, PER Route.

Richard Fernandez wrote:

2 or 3 other parties, PER Route.

Anyone that thinks Paradise Forks is crowded should probably move to Alaska. 2 or 3 parties per route would equate to about 1,500 people there. 

No Richard, that's in the whole area. And I have a few more things I'd like to say on this subject. I climbed out at Volunteer Canyon for my 1st time in many years this past weekend. There were 7 or 8 cars at the campsite when we pulled up. Volunteer is currently being used much more then The Forks. Yet I see no one discouraging people from rapping off the trees there. And to be clear, I do not believe that tieing a rope around a tree and rapping off is damaging to the tree (unless you put it either side of a tree, went double rope and pulled it down sawing against the tree, and I dont think anyone would do that). What is damaging to trees is the erosion climbers create as they walk around trees to tie them off. If we wanted to be smart, we would pile lots of big rocks around the base of frequently used trees. That way we could prevent erosion which exposes the roots and weakens the tree.

And on the subject of placing bolts over the rim for fixed rappels. I think Scott McNamara spelled it out really clearly why it's a bad idea. But it seems that he did not get the point across. So I'm going to try to explain how I see it. So lets start out from the understanding that nobody wants an anchor at the top of every route, right? That means when you top out most climbs you will still need to walk back to a tree for your anchor in many cases. And as far as a fixed, bolted rappel station goes, every wall is different. But since The Prow and the poor dyeing Prow tree is what everyone brings up, lets consider that wall. Where would one put the rap station? Would it go at the top out for Mutiny or The Prow? I believe that either spot would be defacing a beautiful climb. And what's more, it would be awkward and dangerous reaching over to set up and start your rappel. To do it safely, many would want to tie off to a tree to protect setting it up. One logical place on The Prow for a fixed rap station would be at the ledge on top of Mayflower/Fools' Game. It's an easy scramble down, it would be out of sight and comfortable to set up. But there are many excellent gear placements on that ledge. So if we wanted a rap station there we could easily build it. So why have bolts?

Alright that's the end of my rant. I hope I have not made the NAZ climbing community despise me. But if I can stop people from slamming in bolts at The Forks it's worth it. And lets not be too hard on ourselves regarding the condition of The Prow tree. Tourists walking around are causing erosion too. And there are many trees that have never been used as rap anchors that are dyeing from bark beetles.