Landscaping bouldering zones is not cool

Not Hobo Greg wrote:

you don’t actually have to climb every single rock on the planet

Heresy.

Not Hobo Greg wrote:

That’s natures way of saying you shouldn’t be climbing there. I know this is bordering on blasphemy, but you (the royal you) don’t actually have to climb every single rock on the planet. 

Agreed. But unfortunately many of these problems (that I’m referencing specifically) were established decades ago and are in guidebooks. So people aren’t going to stop going to them.

So what’s the solution? Since it’s basically impossible to stop people from climbing on them, isn’t it best to build a landing to prevent unmitigated erosion?

Doctor Drakewrote:

Agreed. But unfortunately many of these problems (that I’m referencing specifically) were established decades ago and are in guidebooks. So people aren’t going to stop going to them.

So what’s the solution? Since it’s basically impossible to stop people from climbing on them, isn’t it best to build a landing to prevent unmitigated erosion?

Stop putting them in guidebooks.

This has demonstrably been an effective part of the Mohonk Preserve's Tiered preservation plan. Areas without guidebooks get significantly less traffic.

It's not impossible to stop people climbing on boulders. That has happened overnight in areas where people weren't responsible with their use of the land. If we can't self-regulate there are authorities who will regulate for us, and the results will not be favorable.

Saying "don't climb it" as an answer to mitigating climbing impacts is like saying "don't drive" as an answer to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It's unrealistic and therefore, not a viable answer. The "natures way of telling you not to climb it" is like saying, "if it doesn't take removable protection" you shouldn't climb it and shouldn't bolt it. It's the same useless discussion.

caesar.saladwrote:

Saying "don't climb it" as an answer to mitigating climbing impacts is like saying "don't drive" as an answer to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It's unrealistic and therefore, not a viable answer. The "natures way of telling you not to climb it" is like saying, "if it doesn't take removable protection" you shouldn't climb it and shouldn't bolt it. It's the same useless discussion.

It's not "unrealistic" to not climb things. Every climber can and does choose not to climb things on a regular basis, for a wide variety of reasons. Environmental impact is just another reason to not climb something that is part of a responsible climber's considerations when deciding whether to climb something.

What you're saying here is that you're going to climb even in cases where it causes negative environmental impact. There are tradeoffs here, and I'm not saying you should never climb something if climbing it will have negative impact. All I'm saying is, take responsibility for your decisions instead of pretending you "have to" climb things. If you really believed what you're doing is right you wouldn't need to pretend you're being forced to do it.

Don't drive. Don't bolt. Don't climb. Don't eat. Don't breathe. Just stay in bed and die. Then you won't affect anything. The only real way to save the world is to just not exist. I'm gonna keep landscaping. If you wanna save the world, come tear 'em down.

Not Hobo Greg wrote:

Except bolts don’t damage plants or cause erosion. Rock are pretty inanimate, soil is not.

Cragging damages plants at the base of cliffs. Landscaping prevents erosion. What do you think the term "retaining wall" means? It literally holds dirt. Source: an actual landscaper

caesar.saladwrote:

Don't drive. Don't bolt. Don't climb. Don't eat. Don't breathe. Just stay in bed and die. Then you won't affect anything. The only real way to save the world is to just not exist. I'm gonna keep landscaping. If you wanna save the world, come tear 'em down.

Can we agree that "don't climb that boulder with the erosion under the landing" isn't going to kill you, and "don't breathe" is going to kill you?

No, of course we can't, this is MP.

If we're against landscaping landings we should also be talking about Giuliano Cameroni moving the namesake wagon of "off the wagon" in order to make his ascent of the "sit" start which is now the stand start. Or maybe it's Shawn Rabaoutou who we should be chastising for bringing the wagon into the picture in the first place.

But I'm conflicted because obviously it's the first ascentionist who gets to decide the ethics of the boulder... But now Giuliano has the FA of "off the wagon stand sans wagon"...

Not Hobo Greg wrote:

Except bolts don’t damage plants or cause erosion. Rock are pretty inanimate, soil is not.

It is bad for the plants that grow on the rock you’ll be climbing. It also involves intentionally removing loose rock for the route youre making right there. That’s pretty darn close to erosion.

Source for this super scientific info: An arborist that goes to college for geology.

Edit: all the dead trees on the base of the cliff and at the top really disagree that they don't get damaged. People making shitty anchors that damage cambium, which kills trees, are at every single crag I've ever been to. Roots from those trees prevent erosion. You are causing erosion by killing those trees my guy

The hypocrisy is real. Why do you guys feel the need to justify why you don't like boulderer's? Are you really so crusty and insecure that you have to go out of your way to justify why bouldering is worse by making up some shit about erosion?

Grow up

I love bouldering. 

Boulderers though...

Climbers say they care about the "environment", they really don't.

I carry a steel bar to re-arrange stones. It’s quick wound and heal technique 

Watch this video for examples, especially at the end.

All you rope climbers in this thread bitching have obviously never seen what goes into cleaning and bolting a sport route yet you have no problem benefiting from that work. 

caesar.saladwrote:

All you rope climbers in this thread bitching have obviously never seen what goes into cleaning and bolting a sport route yet you have no problem benefiting from that work. 

I have created many bolted routes. They are among the most popular in my area.

I have also gardened TF out of some boulder landings.

There are those of us who live in the harsh reality of how much hard work life in general takes. And there are apparently shittons more (mostly under 30) who have no idea and live off of the toil of those who went before. A Day of Reckoning is fast approaching though. All the pluralities and fluidities and hair colors in the world won't help them then. 

Now I must get back to yelling at the sky.

• Tradibanwrote:

Climbers say they care about the "environment", they really don't.

Cracks me up when city folk show up at the crag in their SUV or built-out van, decked out in the latest synth outdoor gear, then complain because a few rocks got moved. 

Tradibanwrote:

Climbers say they care about the "environment", they really don't.

Shouldn't this be Climbers say they care about the "environment", 

WE really don't.  

Or are you not a climber?

Tradiban wrote:

Cracks me up when desert folk try to make the comparison of driving cars to vandalism of our natural spaces, tis not the same thing and if it was one act of environmental violence does not justify another.

Cracks me up when giga-trolls play the contrarian 

Watch my video if you want to see some violence, especially near the end Leave a nasty comment