Escalante - Cabin Wall closed to climbing

Saw this posted today. I have no additional information, but it sounds pretty open-and-shut - the local ranch that owns the land the wall is on wants it closed and is fencing it off.

www.reddit.com/r/climbing/comments/ltdv1j/escalante_canyon_cabin_wall_another_area_lost_for/

Cabin Wall

Bummer, some of the best lines were over there. All isn’t lost though, still a lot of good climbing in the canyon. I submitted an access issue to the Access Fund. Hopefully AF can help with the land owner relationship.

The Western Colorado Climbers' Coalition has been working with the land owner to keep this wall open, not sure what happened. I forwarded this conversation to the president and secretary of the board. 

CalTopo shows parcel data as "MIKA AG CORP A COLORADO CORP" adjacent to BLM. What's odd is it also designates the area as public land ownership and "LOCAL", so I'm not sure what that's about. Does it have something to do with the historic cabin?

From the Reddit thread

The thing that gets me about this whole mess is (as I understand) Cabin Wall was public land until just a few years ago when the government did a land swap with little or even no public notice.

The last time I was there, years ago, I saw toilet paper flowers left by who knows who. Maybe climbers, maybe OHV-ers or RV-trailer-campers. I'm sure the ranch is not happy with the zoo that recreationalists bring in the last couple decades.

And neither here nor there, it seems like the ownership of the cliffs is arbitrarily based on rectangular parcels being sold. If the legal/customary/common definition of property boundaries was less confined to be rectangular, aligned with true North, etc, the cliffs might never have been included, as it's not really useful ranch land. All of the fields used by the ranch are irregular shapes squeezed in on the opposite side of the road.

I pulled up the same map last night. I agree that there is no actual ranch usage of the cliffs or even that gully in between Cabin Wall and The Island. The crags in Escalante are generally clean and trash free. We pick up the occasional piece of tape but otherwise I think the community does a pretty good job. I’m looking forward to hearing their reasons.

Delta County GIS is more up to date. This was State Property up until a couple of years ago when they swapped it under the radar for some other land to protect wildlife. This was done at the objection of the WCCC, Access Fund, and the local historical society but the state didn't have to get public input before doing the swap. I do know that the WCCC and Access Fund have been working with the land owner to keep the wall open but I'm not sure what fell apart. 

Edit to add: MIKA AG CORP is the biggest land owner in the canyon and most of the private property is theirs. They have been in that canyon for generations I believe. 

Thanks for your input Randall.

Cory N wrote:

I’m looking forward to hearing their reasons.

It looks like they rent cabins to hunters and provide beta on the big game.

This is the one of the most disappointing developments to date. I know many people would be willing to clean, perform trail repair, etc. The amount of history in this area is astounding. 

A few of us feel it is time to start reassessing and changing the conversation of our impact as climbers in the canyon. A few of us are going to be out in the canyon on Sunday not to protest the closure but instead to show our support for the local ranchers and land managers. We are going to hold up signs reminding people to slow down, speed limit is 20mph in the canyon, and to respect the cliffs we still have access to. Let’s learn from this closure and move forward as a community in a positive way.

So, if you want to come out and support the movement, let the ranchers and land managers know that many of us do care for this place and want to help protect it, please join us.

We may never get access to the Cabin Wall back, but if we don’t respect the closure now it is assured that we never will, please respect the closure.
#learnfromcabinwall #growfromcabinwall #friendsofdominguezescalante

So Willie's hand jive is still open then as well as the other routes across that little valley?  This is sad news... really wanted to try S crack in april.

Nope, the island is part of the same property and is also closed.

Randall Chapman wrote:

A few of us feel it is time to start reassessing and changing the conversation of our impact as climbers in the canyon. A few of us are going to be out in the canyon on Sunday not to protest the closure but instead to show our support for the local ranchers and land managers. We are going to hold up signs reminding people to slow down, speed limit is 20mph in the canyon, and to respect the cliffs we still have access to. Let’s learn from this closure and move forward as a community in a positive way.

So, if you want to come out and support the movement, let the ranchers and land managers know that many of us do care for this place and want to help protect it, please join us.

We may never get access to the Cabin Wall back, but if we don’t respect the closure now it is assured that we never will, please respect the closure.
#learnfromcabinwall #growfromcabinwall #friendsofdominguezescalante

I posted this on the Gunnison climbers Facebook page and someone else mentioned the same experience I have had: nearly head on collision with ranchers driving way over 20mph down the center of the road. While I’m sure they wish we would all go away, I know the County of Delta is actively pursuing a guidebook and recruiting the tourism dollars we bring. Not sure the best way to get into a dialogue with the ranchers but getting all relevant partners talking is a good idea

It seems as though the land owners are running cattle, horses, atv’s and Jeep’s in the canyon, so probably aren’t concerned if climbers are leaving footprints in the dirt or driving a few cars up the road.  Climbers simply do nothing positive for their bottom line, and possibly hurt it.  So it’s probably not the best strategy to show up in mass with signs and what not, or to try to convince the owners we are good stewards, since that is not their issue.  It may be simple monetary equation for them.  Maybe the fence is a shot across the bow, to get somebody to give them some money for our continued access.  We need to buy the land back.  Or pay for access.

Peoples time may be better spent working with the state, who did the land swap.  Or the County, to help buy access to gain tourism dollars for their coffers.

It would have been nice for the state to secure an access easement as a condition of the swap.  But often these swaps are done so that the state can gain a piece of land that they can lease for oil and gas, in exchange for a piece of land like this part of the canyon which isn’t a good spot for drilling.  So there may have been pressure to get the deal done, and that pressure was greater than the need for climbing access.  And oil and gas revenue to the state might be going to fund education, increasing the pressure to get ‘er done, and if you don’t like the land swap you don’t like education.  Think of the children!

So that may be the states point of view.  From the ranchers point of view, consider this.  If I took ownership of a ranch that was previously public land that had been used by the public for both climbing and hunting, would it be reasonable for me to ban hunting but continue to allow climbing?  I would sure hope that would be within my rights, and that it wouldn’t be unexpected by anybody.

Nothing personal....but isn't it dangerous to assume things when you don't have the facts?

....is this not a perfect access issue for the access fund? Suitcase ,attorney, deal, etc.....

..I would definitely make a handsome donation

Jim T wrote:

It seems as though the land owners are running cattle, horses, atv’s and Jeep’s in the canyon, so probably aren’t concerned if climbers are leaving footprints in the dirt or driving a few cars up the road.  Climbers simply do nothing positive for their bottom line, and possibly hurt it.  So it’s probably not the best strategy to show up in mass with signs and what not, or to try to convince the owners we are good stewards, since that is not their issue.  It may be simple monetary equation for them.  Maybe the fence is a shot across the bow, to get somebody to give them some money for our continued access.  We need to buy the land back.  Or pay for access.

Peoples time may be better spent working with the state, who did the land swap.  Or the County, to help buy access to gain tourism dollars for their coffers.

It would have been nice for the state to secure an access easement as a condition of the swap.  But often these swaps are done so that the state can gain a piece of land that they can lease for oil and gas, in exchange for a piece of land like this part of the canyon which isn’t a good spot for drilling.  So there may have been pressure to get the deal done, and that pressure was greater than the need for climbing access.  And oil and gas revenue to the state might be going to fund education, increasing the pressure to get ‘er done, and if you don’t like the land swap you don’t like education.  Think of the children!

So that may be the states point of view.  From the ranchers point of view, consider this.  If I took ownership of a ranch that was previously public land that had been used by the public for both climbing and hunting, would it be reasonable for me to ban hunting but continue to allow climbing?  I would sure hope that would be within my rights, and that it wouldn’t be unexpected by anybody.

I Think there's very valuable experience to be learned from your feedback here thank you so much. I also believe that you have the solution nailed. The issue is, we have a coalition that has poorly represented the community they are just to busy personally to engage properly. Your solution would have to go through them or be funded by them via "legal representation". The goal of getting people into the canyon to spread good stewardship is not necessary the solution. It's a way to begin to engage the conversation and getting people motivated. Ideally the WCCC will then feel compelled to reorganize there board or act. That canyon has been abused by all user groups and the Ranchers don't play games. Far enough so to to drive you off the road. It's also a message to land mangers that we are a serious and "LNT" minded user group. From my understanding climbers are still pretty low on the user group list. With the change of season that canyon will get swamped like it always does with people who don't want to drive the extra few hours to the creek. It's imperative we act now to spread good stewardship before more issues arise. 

The likelihood that those ranchers / Trump'ers care about LNT, stewardship, etc is exceedingly low. Ranching is the literal opposite of all those values. Sure, assumptions assumptions, but let's be realistic that history shows access removal is more often about the owners than the climbing users. Rather than mobilize people to inflame ranchers, maybe we should help the WCCC fight for us. I'll donate for one! 

Jack Crackerson wrote:

The likelihood that those ranchers / Trump'ers care about LNT, stewardship, etc is exceedingly low. Ranching is the literal opposite of all those values. Sure, assumptions assumptions, but let's be realistic that history shows access removal is more often about the owners than the climbing users. Rather than mobilize people to inflame ranchers, maybe we should help the WCCC fight for us. I'll donate for one! 

Perhaps I didn't word my point the best but the goal is for sure to motivate the WCCC. Also, the LNT bit was not about the "landowners" but the land managers" I'm also confused where this inflame the landowner's idea came from. That's not the goal, it's to let landowners know that we can work together. When the WCCC is vocal, updating the community often, hosting public fundraising events. I'll be sure to slither my way back into the shadows and get back to developing local routes. That's way more fun than this!!

Pasquale Verrastro wrote:

Perhaps I didn't word my point the best but the goal is for sure to motivate the WCCC. Also, the LNT bit was not about the "landowners" but the land managers" I'm also confused where this inflame the landowner's idea came from. That's not the goal, it's to let landowners know that we can work together. When the WCCC is vocal, updating the community often, hosting public fundraising events. I'll be sure to slither my way back into the shadows and get back to developing local routes. That's way more fun than this!!

Sorry, let me rephrase too - mobilizing people to be stewards is a worthy goal. I just think that ranchers will react negatively to even a positive event such as you described. I doubt they are looking to work together here. 

I think what is frustrating with land managers and public land thieves is that they are always the ones asking / requiring climbers and human powered sports people to change our ways to fit their requirements. Maybe instead people that are destroying the land with machines and invasive species should be checked for once. I do get that it is rich for me to say all that once the roads are built and I can take advantage of roads / parking lots / bolts / etc. 

Jack Crackerson wrote:

Sorry, let me rephrase too - mobilizing people to be stewards is a worthy goal. I just think that ranchers will react negatively to even a positive event such as you described. I doubt they are looking to work together here. 

I think what is frustrating with land managers and public land thieves is that they are always the ones asking / requiring climbers and human powered sports people to change our ways to fit their requirements. Maybe instead people that are destroying the land with machines and invasive species should be checked for once. I do get that it is rich for me to say all that once the roads are built and I can take advantage of roads / parking lots / bolts / etc. 

Thanks so much for engaging!! 

Just dropping the note that if the movers and shakers point to somewhere to donate to help address this issue (and potentially pay for an access easement), point me in that direction. It can be the access fund, WCCC if they get back involved, or wherever. Hope there is a solution in here somewhere.

I wonder if we (the climbing community) can offer an approach to get access back that addresses some anticipated rancher concerns (not helping the bottom line, liability, etc). We could put a donation box at the parking for the area that goes to the ranch, explain that access does not mean liability under relevant statutes (Colorado Revised Statutes Title 33. Parks and Wildlife § 33-41-103. Limitation on landowner's liability), and make space for them to raise other concerns/requests.

Idk who/what org is best to try to sit down with the owners and chat, but a listening-based approach to try to understand the rancher's perspective, plus some humility and offerings of good faith, seem like the place to start.

edit to add: I'm a weekend desert warrior from the Front Range, but I'd be happy to help engage w/ the landowners in any way that's productive. I've counseled other climbing land owners in the past on similar issues, and I could donate attorney time to the cause, if desired.