Overlook in Oak Creek Canyon (Flagstaff area) - tree protection and bolted anchors

There's been a recent discussion regarding tree protection for the Overlook in Oak Creek Canyon (near Flagstaff). This discussion is probably better located here in the forum section. Here's the link to the overlook: Overlook comments
 
I have some questions:

1. Are the trees being damaged from the top ropes?
2. Are the trees damaged from compaction and erosion?
3. Are some worse than others and should some sort of action be taken?
4. What is the solution? One solution is to somehow mandate trad anchors only (not sure how you'd do that) or add bolts/chains to the tops of the climbs where the trees are severely damaged.
5. Do we want to see bolted anchors at the top of each climb?

You'd need an anchor for almost every climb. It might be a big project. I can't imagine how many anchors you would need. Seems like it would be a very expensive solution. Even with bolted anchors, I'm not sure how you'd keep people from attaching to trees. Even if it's just to get to the edge to set up their trad anchor. There are a lot of climbers that go there and don't have a trad rack or the skills to set up a trad anchor. Better that they connect to a solid anchor (tree or bolts) instead of a failed trad anchor that kills someone.

Maybe it makes sense to add a few bolted anchors to locations where the trees are in serious danger and slowly expand over time as needed? This is not my local crag so I'm not sure of the ethic or other solutions being discussed. If there's consensus (and only if there's consensus) that bolted anchors need to be added, I'm happy to help.

 

The Overlooks future looks like a sweet bottom up crag. Very easy to do.

The fact that you have to make a trad anchor at the top of every climb is one of the reason why I really like The Overlook. There are plenty of other areas you can go to if you want to use bolted anchors. 

When I go there I usually set up one rappel line off a tree that is close to the edge, put padding around the tree where the rope runs against it, and I'll get back down to the ground using that all day. For every route, lead up, build a gear anchor, bring up my follower, and then we both descend down that one rappel line. You can usually even share the same rappel line among various groups for even less impact. 

Thought about this recently, while at the Forks. It seems like education and awareness may be more sustainable methods for this. My thought was really focused on if an informative sign/board around the area that could highlight the best practices (use of trees, padding, using gear to go indirect off trees, notice to not throw rocks, etc.). Something that is physically present and easy to read/see for users, while not being overly invasive to the space (which could be challenging). 

For those new to the areas, it seems like the knowledge gap is the biggest reason for going direct off the trees. Once informed of the best practices, the users are almost always very responsive to redirecting the anchor point. It's a little conflicting because a sign would impact the aesthetics of the area. Thoughts?

Could be something as simple as this: 

Maybe it makes sense to schedule a get together out at the crag with all interested parties and we can try to come up with some sort of consensus. Sounds like there's a preference toward:

1) Encouraging people to use trad anchors vs. tree anchors.
2) If you have to use a tree for an anchor, bringing protection and using caution not to damage the soil around the tree.

If there are specific trees/locations that see a lot of use (and abuse), would it make sense to put in a couple fixed anchors for rap stations? Personally, I'd rather see a 2 bolt rap station than a dead tree. As much as it makes sense to educate people new to the area, a sign may not be enough. If there was a sign it should have a  picture of a trad anchor on it and say "preferred" and a pic of a tree with padding and say "only when a trad anchor is not possible" (or something like that). 

What do you think about setting a date/time for climbers to meet in person to discuss. Maybe combine it with a bit of crag cleanup and plenty of climbing. Invite and encourage newbies to attend by offering a short session on how to place trad gear and build a proper trad anchor? Or just bring a couple cases of IPA. That would be a big incentive.  

https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B00945OMVA?tag=amz-mkt-fox-us-20&ascsubtag=1ba00-01000-s1060-mac00-dsk00-smile-us000-pcomp-feature-scomp-wm-5&ref=aa_scomp

How about we put two of these in at the top of each route  with a plaque and route name.

I would be in for meeting out there to support and discuss solutions. Probably not the best time to host a large gathering but I would be in for a small group gathering. 

Darren Mabe wrote:

Like a site-visit? Great idea John.

I'm always up for getting outside whatever the reason. Also interested in meeting some more climbers from Flag and trying to convince them to leave their cool temps and sweat down here with me in Sandy-dona. What would be the best way to reach people that are interested in this issue and get them out to the crag to discuss solutions? Is the climbing gym open? Would that be a good place to post a meeting? How else could we get the word out? How active is the No. AZ Climbers Coalition? Seems like a logical place to start. 

Tyler Mwrote:

I would be in for meeting out there to support and discuss solutions. Probably not the best time to host a large gathering but I would be in for a small group gathering. 

We can always mask up and socially distance. We all seem to be getting used to this as the "new normal". We should be fine as long as we don't build a water park or plan to go tubing. 

Agreed, there is a responsible way to gather in public settings. Count me in. NAZCC would be a good place to start. Also, posting something in local climbing Facebook groups is generally a great way to spread the word. Facebook groups that come to mind: Flagstaff Climbing Partner Finder, PHX Local Climbing Friends, Phoenix Climbing Scene.

After reading some of the comments, I feel it is very important to point out that there is more impact at the base of this wall with exposed roots to trees and a very loose eroding trail. This should be our first concern. I frequent this crag because of the nature of either leading ground up with a partner or top down with a natural anchor and sometimes gear (Tr solo) whatever is available and safe.

With the above being said, I do believe there are a few areas at the Overlook that could possibly benefit from an anchor. This has been beneficial at other top down crags, such as Paradise Forks, West Elden, and Volunteer Canyon, where it helps in the safety of the climbing route or area.
There is definitely a need for a local discussion again on top down crags and minimize impact to soil around crag area. 

Thanks to John, Darren, and all for getting this discussion going once again. Much needed. Hope I can make the site visit! Cheers

Oliver Clothesoff wrote:

...please make sure to widely distribute the date and time of the meeting so the opinions of more than just a few people are included...

Hi Tamara, I appreciate your comment. I am working steadfastly towards this goal. In all reality, the pool is actually being purposefully narrowed to "opposing" viewpoints mostly. I'm trying to make sure that doesn't happen.

Oliver Clothesoff wrote:

convenience is the enemy. 

Thanks.

True convenience is not doing anything to address a deteriorating situation.

My opinion:

1.  Once upon a time, Northern Arizona was renown for a strong trad ethic.  Many Northern Arizona climbers possessed very broad climbing skills.  The Overlook was the school where many learned to tie their shoes.

2.  As of 07/26/2020 MP lists 10,081 Arizona routes, of those 38.9% sport and 34.3% are trad.

       In Northern Arizona, 32.8% sport and 40.1% trad.  

        For “Flagstaff Crags” 59.8%, sport and 39.1% trad.  

3.  Most climbers I meet in the gym these days have never climbed trad.  Most have no interest.  If trad gear is no longer needed at the Overlook, then it will probably increase traffic and impact. 

4.  Climbing management plans may not be far away. Placing a large number of top rope anchors without the advise and consent of the Coconino is probably not going to endear Flagstaff climbers to other non-climber users, environmental groups and the Forest Service. 

5.   The temptation to retro-bolt may become irresistible—as skill sets decline.

6.  I think that it is good to have areas that are different from one another and require different skill sets.  For example, The Pitt as compared to The Overlook.  Perhaps, trad (minority) users should still have some place to go, too---where there are no bolts.  

7.  I have never seen a scientific study delineating which causes more impact—tying off trees or clipping top rope anchors.  

8.  If there are not top rope anchors for each of the 85 routes, then people will still tie off trees.  Indeed, sometimes it may be wise to tie off a tree to reach the anchors. Moreover, hanging from top rope anchors to belay seems unwieldy, when sitting on the rim is so much more comfortable.  But to belay from the rim probably requires the anchors to be behind the belayer.

9.  I think any decision altering established routes should involve the people who put them up. Adding anchors can change a route.  Take “Mint Jam” for example.  The top out is probably one of the cruxes.  Finding pro to make it safe is part of the puzzle.  If we can reach up and clip the anchor, then the route has been changed. I believe most of those first ascentionists are still climbing---they are getting old, slowing down and dying out--- so very soon the future of the Overlook will rest completely in the hands of those that did not "build it."

10. While I deeply believe in consensus and local climbing coalitions making reasoned decisions, it just never works out that way.  I doubt the community will ever decide much of anything.  It will be a few, very active, prominent, skillful, self assured, local climbers who decide Flagstaff’s climbing future. I hope they bear in mind they are choosing for all.

Scott, All good comments. I'm not ready to give up yet on consensus. I know getting climbers to agree is harder than herding wild cats. However, I think we have an opportunity to come up with a "well supported solution" that we can present to the community and the land managers. Even if it's not a perfect solution (since there's no such thing), I think we can get a solution that is supported by most climbers. 

If we do nothing, which is an option, we risk land managers imposing their solution on us. Which could be as draconian as complete or partial closures. That probably won't happen at the Overlook but it has happened in some climbing areas. I know in the climbing community there's a degree of mistrust when it comes to working with the land managers. That goes back at least into the 50s and 60s. My experience in working with land managers is that they are very busy dealing with more serious issues - hunters, guns, drinking, illegal campfires, forest fires, lost hikers, forest management plans, etc. Most land managers are willing to work with recreation groups that present them with reasonable solutions to problems.

I know you mentioned "retro-bolting". That's like a dog whistle to old-school climbers. I don't think anyone is suggesting retro-bolting. However, adding one or more top rope anchors is being considered. I guess some consider that retro-bolting but if it saves a tree, then I think it's a reasonable solution. Thank you for thoughtful comments. It seems like some "trolls" just throw bombs and run away. Let's keep the discussion open and focused. 

This is timely conversation for the community to be having as the FS has reached out to us to discuss the closure order (2 days ago). I want to be clear there has been no commitment or indication of interest to lift the closure; they are reviewing it (hasn't been revisited that I know since 1993) and simply asked "Would you like to see it lifted or do you see any safety issues?"

I share mainly because this thread will be directly relevant to that process regardless of decision on the closure (ie - working with land managers for sustainable access/solutions). This was the FS stance in regard to a similar matter at Volunteer Canyon, "We don’t believe that bolts are really going to fully solve the issue. The rope impact on trees is low as it would have to break the bark to inflict damage to the tree. Soil compaction on the trees root system is most of the impact to the tree and would likely still continue to occur at most trees even with bolts." 

Additionally, it sounds like The Overlook is experiencing significant impact at the bottom of the cliff as well as the top, I do not want to lose site of that as this conversation generally focuses on the erosion at the top and bolts vs trees as anchors, neither of which will positively affect the impact at the bottom.

So from what I have read, we have differing viewpoints on the offering without concrete data as to what is the main cause of, and thus what would be the main solution to, our impact ton the trees/soil (other than our presence). The NAZCC is organizing a site visit for Volunteer Canyon, likely in mid-September. It would be awesome if these efforts could be coordinated to avoid conflicting strategies (or maybe we opt to try two different solutions at each crag and learn from the outcomes). All parties share a common goal of minimizing impact to protect these areas and prolong the fun, how to best achieve that is the next step.

John Knightwrote:

It seems like some "trolls" just throw bombs and run away. Let's keep the discussion open and focused. 

Yes, certain "trolls" like to throw bombs, run away, and go back to pretending they're a New Age spiritual espresso zen goddess.

Back to the open and focused discussion: I feel that the overuse of fragile trees can be mitigated in fairly quick fashion. Here's the scene nowadays. Newcomers are typically instructed to toprope off the trees. This is what I was told when I first climbed there in 2015. For example, and this is no dig at Marty whatsoever, but the (excellent) 2008 MK pamphlet guide dedicated to the Overlook includes phrases as explicit as, "Bring extra rope for TR anchor 'trees' on top," and "Bring slings for tree belays." I suspect other resources from this era might say something similar. Yet it seems the local consensus on anchors has naturally evolved a bit since 2008, unto the realization that gear anchors definitely have less of an impact than tree anchors. Remember, trees vs. gear anchors was the primary motivation for the OP. With this in mind, there's gotta be a reasonable solution for this: I can get behind Tyler's idea of adding a simple informative sign explaining best practices at the rim. "Use gear anchors instead of tree anchors wherever possible. If you must rig a tree in order to set up a gear anchor at the lip, here's how to do that with minimal impact..." etc.. 

Additionally, it sounds like The Overlook is experiencing significant impact at the bottom of the cliff as well as the top, I do not want to lose site of that as this conversation generally focuses on the erosion at the top and bolts vs trees as anchors, neither of which will positively affect the impact at the bottom.

So from what I have read, we have differing viewpoints on the offering without concrete data as to what is the main cause of, and thus what would be the main solution to, our impact ton the trees/soil (other than our presence). The NAZCC is organizing a site visit for Volunteer Canyon, likely in mid-September. It would be awesome if these efforts could be coordinated to avoid conflicting strategies (or maybe we opt to try two different solutions at each crag and learn from the outcomes). All parties share a common goal of minimizing impact to protect these areas and prolong the fun, how to best achieve that is the next step.

Both good points, well worded. Interested to see where this idea goes.

NAZ CCwrote:

The NAZCC is organizing a site visit for Volunteer Canyon, likely in mid-September. It would be awesome if these efforts could be coordinated to avoid conflicting strategies (or maybe we opt to try two different solutions at each crag and learn from the outcomes). All parties share a common goal of minimizing impact to protect these areas and prolong the fun, how to best achieve that is the next step.

I'm glad to see that people are talking about working together, opposing viewpoints and all, and coming up with solutions for these issues at these areas. I want to point out that one feature which may require different solutions at Volunteer Canyon and The Overlook is that Volunteer Canyon is in Designated Wilderness and the Overlook, in Pumphouse Wash, is not. Not sure if it will affect things at all, but I thought it worth mentioning just to keep awareness up about the varying land designations in the places we climb. These two places are both in the Coconino NF which should be helpful with coordinated efforts.

NAZ CCwrote:

The NAZCC is organizing a site visit for Volunteer Canyon, likely in mid-September. It would be awesome if these efforts could be coordinated to avoid conflicting strategies (or maybe we opt to try two different solutions at each crag and learn from the outcomes). All parties share a common goal of minimizing impact to protect these areas and prolong the fun, how to best achieve that is the next step.

Two things: 

1. VoCan - I understand that VoCan has similar issues to the Overlook. Although the Overlook sees significantly more traffic. I suggest we try and find a solution for the Overlook, then see if we can approach VoCan (or other areas that may be similar) and use what we come up with for the Overlook. 

2. Meeting at Overlook - I'll check w/NAzCC and see if we can lock in a date for a site visit to the Overlook. Would like to hear suggestions on the best way to publicize a date for the site visit. We want to get a broad group of people with diverse interests to show up. I'm thinking maybe 9am on Saturday Sept. 12th or 19th? The 5th is Labor Day weekend so we should avoid that date.