Mountain Project Logo

Escalante - Cabin Wall closed to climbing

Gregory Clay · · Arvada · Joined Mar 2017 · Points: 0
DWF 3 wrote:

Running cattle is the opposite of “being good stewards to the land.”

You should see it. Looks a lot like Vedawoo without all the damage from roads, climbers, campers.....people.  Beauty beyond imagination. Mountain lions, wild horses, beavers. Except for the occasional cow you see it looks exactly like it did 1000 years ago. Thank you for your completely baseless opinion tho.

Parachute Adams · · At the end of the line · Joined Mar 2019 · Points: 0
Grug M wrote:

Trad Dad Chad, King of the Western Slope, Sender of 5.5, chiming in again with the big D swinging. He is smarter than all of us so BOW DOWN TO HIS RULE MORTALS. 

Its a simple Google to see how cattle/beef are not a sustainable resource. For a simple example, it takes 1800 gallons of water to produce a single pound of beef. 

A pound of almonds takes 1900 gallons. Almost 10% of all the water in CA is used for almond production. Plus a myriad of horrible environmental practices. 

I agree though, cattle production is abusive but needs to be seen in perspective.

Vanilla Drilla From Manila · · Goiter, CO · Joined Mar 2015 · Points: 50

Here’s the real question:

How much water does it take to raise one pound of human? Because that is the problem.

Chad Miller · · Grand Junction, CO · Joined Nov 2006 · Points: 150
Grug M wrote:

Trad Dad Chad, King of the Western Slope, Sender of 5.5, chiming in again with the big D swinging. He is smarter than all of us so BOW DOWN TO HIS RULE MORTALS. 

Its a simple Google to see how cattle/beef are not a sustainable resource. For a simple example, it takes 1800 gallons of water to produce a single pound of beef. 

Depends on the cattle and type of ranching. Factory ranching takes a lot more water than free range. It’s still a lot of water for free range beef though, around 850 gal per pound of meat  

For some comparisons:

Lentils: 700 gal per pound

Chicken: 500 gal per pound 

Soy: 250 gal per pound

Corn: 120 gal per pound 

Taking a shower: 17 gal

It’s common knowledge that beef production takes a lot of water. There are a lot more resource use, embodied energy, and environmental impact  in food production than just water though.   That’s what I was asking about .

Oh, and I’m more of a Barton of the Western Slope who leads 9’s and one move 10’s. 

Greg D · · Here · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 883
Grug M wrote:

Trad Dad Chad, King of the Western Slope, Sender of 5.5, chiming in again with the big D swinging. He is smarter than all of us so BOW DOWN TO HIS RULE MORTALS. 

Its a simple Google to see how cattle/beef are not a sustainable resource. For a simple example, it takes 1800 gallons of water to produce a single pound of beef. 

Well, I don't disagree with your opposition to that poster.  He might be the greatest detractor to the forums these days.  

I digress.   If b00gle (bogus google) is your source of "fact", I find your "opinion" quite suspect.  Is that really your research, source and conclusion.  This may be one major issue with our nation and world today.  But, keep up your b00gle search for your fact "science".  

Your example from b00gle claims "it takes 1800 gallons of water to produce a single pound of beef".  Well, where does the water come from and where did it go?  Often from a nasty stream or pond, then they piss it back out into the water cycle.  Clearly, there isn't 1800 gallons of water in one pound of beef.  It comes and it goes.  

Another perspective, it's amazing the harsh, dry, sage brush land that cattle are able to graze on and create food for all.   

Chad Miller · · Grand Junction, CO · Joined Nov 2006 · Points: 150
Greg D wrote:

Well, I don't disagree with your opposition to that poster.  He might be the greatest detractor to the forums these days

Sorry I’ve upset you so.  I am curious how I’m the greatest detractor from this site though. I’m not intending to upset people (except for the trolls). 

Chad Miller · · Grand Junction, CO · Joined Nov 2006 · Points: 150
Bill Schick wrote:

New to the desert west, or just generally clueless?  Those cows turn a fragile and rich ecosystem into a barren moonscape.

Actually I was asking a serious question about the ecological impact of ranching in areas like this. I’ve been through several free range ranches in the high desert and was rather curious how much additional resources needed to be brought in / diverted.

Ron O · · middle of nowhere, southern… · Joined Apr 2018 · Points: 0

Climbed there in the '80s and put up a few routes on that wall. Came back a couple of years later to find that deer hunters had tried to shoot the rap anchors down. I counted 76 impact points and removed the drilled angle with 2 fingers!

This was the handiwork of rednecks, part of the same culture that graze cows. Way fucked up without even a single gallon of water.

Man always kills the thing he loves.

POSTSCRIPT: Hmmmph, forgot that I already posted here. Senile I guess,..

DWF 3 · · Boulder, CO · Joined Nov 2012 · Points: 186
Chad Miller wrote:

How would you know?  

Do you have experience or data to back up your claim?  This is a serious question and not some snarky comment. 

I mean, I don't think it takes a lot of experience to see the environmental implications of 94+ million, several thousand pound, hooved, invasive, animals. 

But I could mention Dad's a rancher. And I've never actually been somewhere below tree line in the US a cow hasn't shit (no one has).  Ever drink water straight from a water source below tree line? Why not?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not some militant vegan, I enjoy beef weekly, but we should probably quit making cows.

Chad Miller · · Grand Junction, CO · Joined Nov 2006 · Points: 150
DWF 3 wrote:

I mean, I don't think it takes a lot of experience to see the environmental implications of 94+ million, several thousand pound, hooved, invasive, animals. 

But I could mention Dad's a rancher. And I've never actually been somewhere below tree line in the US a cow hasn't shit (no one has).  Ever drink water straight from a water source below tree line? Why not?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not some militant vegan, I enjoy beef weekly, but we should probably quit making cows.

Thanks for the info.

You should look at the North Shore of MN, specifically he Sawtooth Mountains. They’re right on Lake Superior and about 400’ higher than the inland topo. No cows have ever been grazed there and it’s well below the tree line. 

highaltitudeflatulentexpulsion · · Colorado · Joined Oct 2012 · Points: 35
Ron O wrote:

Climbed there in the '80s and put up a few routes on that wall. Came back a couple of years later to find that deer hunters had tried to shoot the rap anchors down. I counted 76 impact points and removed the drilled angle with 2 fingers!

This was the handiwork of rednecks, part of the same culture that graze cows. Way fucked up without even a single gallon of water.

Man always kills the thing he loves.

POSTSCRIPT: Hmmmph, forgot that I already posted here. Senile I guess,..

Was this “redneck justus” that thing was all pockmarked. And good.

Tony B · · Around Boulder, CO · Joined Jan 2001 · Points: 24,678
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. 

Let's not paint with too broad a brush.  
There are plenty of environmentalist ranchers.
Heck, there are International conservation organizations running working ranches.

Mike C · · Co · Joined Jan 2006 · Points: 1,046

...I have been looking for a good excuse to boycott beef. Thanks ranchers.......

Parachute Adams · · At the end of the line · Joined Mar 2019 · Points: 0

Almonds take more water per pound than beef. Hopefully you don't support that.

Really, this is the reason you want to boycott beef for?

Mike C · · Co · Joined Jan 2006 · Points: 1,046

...already boycotted them too, along with quinoa. This boycott is not about water ,

Greg D · · Here · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 883

I’m gonna boycott golf. Green grass everywhere!! Fucking water hogs. 

Sarah Z · · Golden · Joined Jun 2018 · Points: 613
Greg D wrote:

I’m gonna boycott golf. Green grass everywhere!! Fucking water hogs. 

Quit playing golf for that exact reason. Water shortage in Ca, fucking golf courses in the desert? 

Steve Parker · · JTree & Montrose, CO · Joined Mar 2013 · Points: 0
DWF 3 wrote:

Running cattle is the opposite of “being good stewards to the land.”

Some of you guys are part of the problem. Running  cattle has been around forever, long before climbing. And spouting off on water and cattle issues have nothing to do with the topic.
As for the claims of water and cattle issues, I have seen way more abuse left behind from the climbing community than I’d like to admit. Go look at Joshua Tree for an example.
If I was one of those ranchers reading this thread, I’d say F all you guys. Whereas some of you guys are absolutely full of shit and a horrible representation of us legitimate “Leave No Trace” climbers.
It is what it is…. Just go about it responsibly. 

Greg D · · Here · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 883
Sarah Z wrote:

Quit playing golf for that exact reason. Water shortage in Ca, fucking golf courses in the desert? 

You may want to look up the word "boycott".  

Cory N · · Monticello, UT · Joined Sep 2018 · Points: 1,118

In case you didn't hear, Escalante - Cabin Wall closed to climbing. I almost forgot what this thread was about. Nice job! It's closed because climbers were annoying the people that owned the land. Sad but fair. Hopefully the WCCC can sort something out.

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Colorado
Post a Reply to "Escalante - Cabin Wall closed to climbing"

Log In to Reply
Welcome

Join the Community! It's FREE

Already have an account? Login to close this notice.