More Tensleep Drama

Deez Nuts wrote: Climbers (BCC) didn't have the balls to stop Gluey from destroying our shared resource. Now the area is limited to the 1000+ existing routes. Seems fair.

All yalls bitching sounds like the petroleum industry bitching about the epa not letting them continue to destroy our shared natural resources. Cry me a polluted river.

The failure is not the 18's or the FS. The failre is the BCC's inaction and the Gluey family's selfish for profit/ego destruction of our resource.

Does the BCC even have any authority/sway in the area? Seems like a rag tag group of local "stewards".  Still hilarious Louie's wife was a board member of BCC then bailed when shit started hitting the fan.  She is now a part of another local outdoor advocacy group in Ten Sleep lol

coldfinger wrote: MP reading comprehension skills never fail to make me laugh.

This situation really has NOTHING to do with the Red River!  

First the USFS stated that they would lift the moratorium when the development guidelines are implemented as part of the Climbing Management Plan.  Second, the USFS, upon checking with DOJ (their legal counsel since they are so poorly funded and need the help) is also willing to let anchor replacement continue.

I find it pretty funny that the BCC hosted a "ROUND TABLE" for their customary circular talk.

Perhaps the greatest irony is that it appears the Moratorium may only apply to "creating new routes with any type of permanent hardware or apparatus to include bolts, glue, manufactured hand holds; or modifying routes through chipping or hammering new or existing holds".

Call me crazy but if that language is accurate, it is directed squarely at Gluey but as for EXISTING routes would allow the removal of bolts and/or the filling in of drilled or manufactured pockets with glue!!!!  There is no mention of using glue as far as existing routes goes.  Plus there is no mention of red padlocks.  

So while the BCC continues to call the 18 "vigilantes", I don't see anything in the USFS' language directed at them.

So I guess the 18 can continue to remove the routes they couldn't get to and padlocked????  HaHa!!

Uhhhh...no. "Red padlocks" are hardware, so are clearly banned.  As of now, if the Facebook post is correct, all new hardware in the Bighorns, including anchor replacement, is banned. As for implementing a "climbing management plan," this will require that Federal Rules are written, approved and implemented. There are many steps to adopting rules in the FCR, which I outlined above, and the process can take a very long time. 

the schmuck wrote:

Uhhhh...no. "Red padlocks" are hardware, so are clearly banned.  

It says "permanent hardware" on "new routes".  They're not permanent and already there.  So not banned! 

Comparing TS to the RRG’s situation is hilarious. The areas, nor the situations, are anything alike. Not too mention the situation mentioned in the Red was nearly 20 years ago. If anything the only thing that’s comparable between the RRG and TS is roadside being shut down.

The BCC and USFS are way more integrated than the Red. This is also the entire BHNF, not just the northern gorge. Being as it is the entire area and there aren’t other options (whereas the red has PMRP, MFRP, MV, etc).

In my vote the moratorium is doing more good than bad at this point. Only downsides I really see are no trail work or anchor/bolt replacement.

Tradiban wrote:This should have been settled mano a mano a long time ago.

Says the biggest TROLL around here!  You're all hot air.

Besides this involves a sportban not a tradban, so you're out of your depth.

Tradiban wrote: This is what you guys get for complaining to the pigs.

This should have been settled mano a mano a long time ago.

Someone tried to settle it “mano a gun-o” a few years ago, but they were a bad shot.

coldfinger wrote:

Says the biggest TROLL around here!  You're all hot air.

Besides this involves a sportban not a tradban, so you're out of your depth.

Hey buddy, you wanna take this to The Meadow?! I've got Jack Johnson and Tom O'Leary ready for ya.

Tradiban wrote:

Hey buddy, you wanna take this to The Meadow?! I've got Jack Johnson and Tom O'Leary ready for ya.

Cage match with Kyle and Devin as well? I’d buy a ticket...

m Mobes wrote:

Bothering land managers is a really bad idea in a place with bolts all over the place and folks from CO with power drills.

I'll stand by this.

J T 
In my vote the moratorium is doing more good than bad at this point. Only downsides I really see are no trail work or anchor/bolt replacement.

Yeah, no trail work is actually a really big issue. Hardware is generally good for many years, but trails erode. So what happens when existing trails degrade and maintenance is banned?  My guess is that USFS shuts down access. 

Tradiban wrote: This is what you guys get for complaining to the pigs.

I wonder who did the complaining? Really, dudes. Never ever whine to the Feds.

Maybe I missed it but it seems new trails are prohibited, not trail maintenance. 

Tim Stich wrote:

I wonder who did the complaining? Really, dudes. Never ever whine to the Feds.

Could be no one complained. They just read about it on the multiple social media platforms discussing it.

Tradiban wrote: This is what you guys get for complaining to the pigs.

As for the above, you do realize you are calling Forest Service Rangers that word??  

They will read this.  Your contributions: violence, threats, name calling.

Makes you sound spoiled.  Listening to hip hop on your iPhone while you do Peloton or boulder V3 doesn't make you a gangster!!

coldfinger wrote: As for the above, you do realize you are calling Forest Service Rangers that word??  

They will read this.  Your contributions: violence, threats, name calling.

Makes you sound spoiled.  Listening to hip hop on your iPhone while you do Peloton or boulder V3 doesn't make you a gangster!!

I just got a vision of the USFS rapping off a roof and kicking in Tradiban’s windows for calling them pigs on MP.  Think one of the opening scenes of XXX when they raid vin diesels movie release party. 

Eric Chabot wrote: The FS couldn't give a shit about chipped holds. Hold modification has been happening in the canyon for decades.

But when 2 kids are arguing about their toy, what do the parents do? They take it away.

Yes this is true. This conflict went public & the land mangers were eventually dragged into it. Was it all worth it?  Hopefully a good climbing management plan can be developed with good guidelines, that doesn't micro management all new route development (fixed hardware review committees & permits).  But you guys all asked for it.  Like I already stated:  Nobody really wins in these situations & everybody stands to lose.  But you guys couldn't take a look at climbing history to know the outcome.  Simply put:  Those who don't know the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them.  

The bigger problem with this conflict & its resulting bolting ban, is that it distracts us from the real environmental issues & threats to public land, we are facing now more than ever under the Trump Administration.  The fact that the Department of the Interior wants to open up public land to fossil fuel development in areas like Bear Ears National Monument should be alarming & motivate us into action.  Add to that, the climate crisis that will be irreversible in 12 years if we don't take radical steps to reduce fossil fuel use, end factory farming & stop clear cutting the Amazon rain forest. Add to that the US provoking a war with a Iran, that will make the Iraq War look like a cakewalk,. Please remember that the Pentagon is the #1 user of fossil fuels. 

Instead the focus on protecting natural resources gets shifted to a climber dispute over manufacturing holds & bolt removal.  It's a molehill amongst mountains of real environmental issues that threaten the planet with extinction.

Good points Mark.  

Do keep in mind that intensive extraction and industrial uses, along with plain old real estate development, are chewing up large percentages of public (and private) land.  That puts a LOT of pressure on the remainder as far as preserving ecological or recreational values.  The impact of recreational uses in particular is becoming a great problem.

So I have to strongly disagree that this is all about some silly squabble.  At its heart this situation is about people looking at public land as something they can 'do whatever the fuck they want' on.   This is in fact an attitude that reflects what big industry wants, and is an attitude that their political allies have spent a great deal of time sowing.  

Put another way, what do you think public land would turn into if we allowed every other recreational user group, especially motorized ones, the same latitude that climbers think they are entitled to simply because they did the "first ascent"?

coldfinger wrote:
Put another way, what do you think public land would turn into if we allowed every other recreational user group, especially motorized ones, the same latitude that climbers think they are entitled to simply because they did the "first ascent"?

Best point in the whole thread.

hey where’d that cool poem go??

Hamish Malin wrote: hey where’d that cool poem go??

Don't know. That is the song Trees by the band Rush.