Escalante - Cabin Wall closed to climbing

Cory Nwrote:

Hey Eli G,

I think we should wait to hear what the land owners say the problem was. I wonder if the ranchers think climbers have more of an impact compared to the OHV crowd, it will be interesting to hear. Maybe the land owner just got scared about a lawsuit, maybe some climber is suing them that we don't know about, or maybe they don't like seeing people on their walls. Either way it's their land they can do what they want. Escalante is a beautiful place that still holds plenty of adventure for those seeking it, shoot I think half the cracks I have seen are not on MP. This idea that the canyon is overrun is pretty strange given that you can climb in the canyon on the weekends and be the only person at the crag. I was there a few weeks back in Feb; we climbed at Zappa all weekend and maybe 2 cars drove by. This has always been my experience. Everyone else I have run into in Escalante has been kind, cam sharing, and as stoked on the chossy sandstone as the rest of us. I wonder how we might interact in person, I own a van and a copy of Desert Rock '88. Am I the person you are talking about? It would be a wonderful thing if we could use these types of access issues to come together rather than to be torn apart. Let's stop blaming each other and wait for the land owners to tell us what happened.

I get it man, I'm all for coming together to enjoy and respect the land. I'm just saying that areas with sensitive access issues might not be well suited to being put online. It just encourages lots of use which can be detrimental to access in the long run. I have been there when it is completely empty. I have also been there on a weekend when there were 35 kids from the CU Alpine Club hanging top ropes. Regardless of what the ranchers say, I'm just putting it out there that protecting sensitive climbing areas from being loved to death is worth thinking about. 

Eli LGwrote:

 sensitive climbing areas

What is the definition of a "sensitive climbing area" ? 

Eli LGwrote:

I get it man, I'm all for coming together to enjoy and respect the land. I'm just saying that areas with sensitive access issues might not be well suited to being put online. It just encourages lots of use which can be detrimental to access in the long run. I have been there when it is completely empty. I have also been there on a weekend when there were 35 kids from the CU Alpine Club hanging top ropes. Regardless of what the ranchers say, I'm just putting it out there that protecting sensitive climbing areas from being loved to death is worth thinking about. 

Thanks for clarifying what you meant. The previous post seemed really directed at a certain group of people when really it was about over overuse in general. Again there is another message in this post about overuse by a certain group that doesn't include you (I'm guessing). For some fun facts, Jesse Zacher posted the Cabin Wall in 2006, the land actually became private property in 2017. Is the solution here to remove crags that end up on private property? Is it to limit the people who can see the crag (this might be coming with the onX acquisition of MP)? If the crag was once public and then became private what are we supposed to do? Do you think that the crag being posted is more damaging than Desert Rock? If Desert Rock was still being published would mountain project still be an issue? Would reaching out to the CU Alpine Club and asking them politely to reduce there footprint be a good solution? Just trying to keep the conversation more solution based than finger pointing. Finger pointing does nothing good for anyone, lets work together.

Considering that the property was acquired in 2017, at best the land owner is trying to shakedown Access Fund and most likely is not going to reconsider without more encouragement. Some civil disobedience while the "negotiations" take place might be good. Tell as many people in the climbing community as you can to make sure people know. Green Machine should definitely be posted. The landowner seems concerned that more people are going there and has closed this wall in an attempt to prevent that. We should make sure that their closure ends up speeding that process. Then maybe they will reconsider their closure.

Buck Rockwellwrote:

Considering that the property was acquired in 2017, at best the land owner is trying to shakedown Access Fund and most likely is not going to reconsider without more encouragement. Some civil disobedience while the "negotiations" take place might be good. Tell as many people in the climbing community as you can to make sure people know. Green Machine should definitely be posted. The landowner seems concerned that more people are going there and has closed this wall in an attempt to prevent that. We should make sure that their closure ends up speeding that process. Then maybe they will reconsider their closure.

No. Don’t be a jerk. 

Chad Millerwrote:

No. Don’t be a jerk. 

By jerk do you mean a landowner that used a corrupt land grab to deny people access to an area where people have been climbing for 30+ years. That’s what I’m speaking out, and encouraging people to take action against. What are you doing to restore access?

Buck Rockwellwrote:

By jerk do you mean a landowner that used a corrupt land grab to deny people access to an area where people have been climbing for 30+ years. That’s what I’m speaking out, and encouraging people to take action against. What are you doing to restore access?

Working within the legal system along with the Access Fund and WCCA to reopen the area.

What are you doing?

Seriously. Do you think causing trouble for the landowner by trespassing and harassing them will make them open access again?

Do you live in the area or even the state?  
Have you ever dealt with a situation like this?  

Buck Rockwellwrote:

... Some civil disobedience while the "negotiations" take place might be good. ...

As someone who is pretty familiar with the folks in this area, i can assure you that your idea is completely moronic.

slimwrote:

As someone who is pretty familiar with the folks in this area, i can assure you that your idea is completely moronic.

The owner is in his 70s and lives in Lafayette. He’s more Mr Burns than John Rambo.

Buck Rockwellwrote:

The owner is in his 70s and lives in Lafayette. He’s more Mr Burns than John Rambo.

Yes however his staff that oversees the land are locals.

Again - do you even live in this area or the state?   

Buck Rockwellwrote:

The owner is in his 70s and lives in Lafayette. He’s more Mr Burns than John Rambo.

That's nice isn't it. Bet the land has some water rights too. My land, my water, my cliff. Mine. 

Dang, what a drag...  Hopefully all the last good areas aren't taken away.   Very sad news.  I'm glad I got to climb there this spring

How's come climbers haven't challenged this bullshit with easement challenges? Why not throw that at them?

I’m seeing a lot of armchair QBing from users with no idea what’s going on. 

Vanilla Drilla From Manilawrote:

How's come climbers haven't challenged this bullshit with easement challenges? Why not throw that at them?

As someone who is not a lawyer, has little legal knowledge, and had to google it, I think that's a great idea! It's frustrating that the Dept of Wildlife did not include an easement when they transferred the land. I encourage people to contact Access Fund (303.545.6772  or hi@accessfund.org) and ask them what their plan is for restoring access to this area.

Does anyone have updates from the AF? I know they are involved. I am wondering if there is any more information on what happened.

BLM / CDPW did a land trade (edit, see below).
Cabin Wall is now on private property.
New land owner / manager was fine with climbing for several years.
Land owner / manager got sick of climbers being disrespectful (trash, speeding, illegal camping)
Land owner / manager said no more climbing. 

Edit:

The  Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife facilitated and performed the actual land trade. While it was BLM owned land that was traded CDPW had final legal say in the matter  

Vanilla Drilla From Manilawrote:

How's come climbers haven't challenged this bullshit with easement challenges? Why not throw that at them?

Already tried when land was swapped.  Didn’t work. 

Grug Mwrote:

That's nice isn't it. Bet the land has some water rights too. My land, my water, my cliff. Mine. 

That is the definition of ownership. 

Chad Millerwrote:

BLM did a land trade.

The Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife did the land swap in 2017. The Delta County Assessors site ( itax.deltacounty.com/assess…;doc= ) has some good information. For example, on the Tax History page you can see how MK AG Corp pays less than $22 dollars a year for the 160 acre parcel that Cabin Wall is on (348915300001). The total value for this parcel is calculated at just $1,334.