What causes more environmental damage?

OK, I'm bored. It's been raining since Wednesday and is supposed to rain all weekend, so climbing isn't an option. Let's start a pointless debate. What is worse for the environment, extreme overuse of one crag or more moderate use of several crags? 

Let's say in a 10 mile radius there are 10 smallish crags and 200 climbers who climb at least once a week. Is it better for the larger environment of the whole area to have everyone climb at one of those crags, or have climbers spread out the use of those crags evenly? In theory, the first case does a lot of damage to one crag, but helps to preserve the rest of the area while the second case decreases the damage done to each crag individually and spreads out the environmental impact. Hypothetically the overall impact should be the same, but is that true is reality? 

I think if you keep the crag all trad without fixed anchors or super runout then the environmental impact would be minimal.

Carolinawrote:

I think if you keep the crag all trad without fixed anchors or super runout then the environmental impact would be minimal.

Tell that to all the cliffs with receding clifftop vegetation and ever worsening erosion problems.

Wherever there are humans there’s problems (broken glass, plastic trash, erosion, etc…).

I think it’s an interesting ecological study you’ve proposed nonetheless. 

It seems like a more localized human impact at a single crag would theoretically have less of an overall impact than affecting many smaller ecologically sensitive areas. There’s a ton of factors to try and correlate here, but an initial survey of bio indicator species at a particular crag and many crags would seem like a logical inventory to initially take in order to see a cause and effect impact. Proximity to streams within a watershed seems like a factor to consider as well.

Have fun! Climb safe! 

Leave No Trace (as much as humanly possible of course)!

https://www.outdoorlife.com/story/fishing/whats-gained-and-lost-by-privatizing-river-access/

Interesting article applying your same question to riparian rights. The jury is still somewhat out, but if you read up on some of the studies that spurred the author to write the article it would appear that spreading the impact out over multiple areas has less overall impact. 

Whether or not the vertical environment is as intertwined as our waterways is the only question. If you essentially kill off one tributary river it will have a cascading effect on those around it. The same may not be true for neighboring crags isolated by the likes of elevation and geology. 

Carolinawrote:

I think if you keep the crag all trad without fixed anchors or super runout then the environmental impact would be minimal.

Certainly attempting to make/keep crags less accessible to the average climber can and has worked, its a bit tougher to do in a densely populated urban environment.

I think the best option not mentioned is to keep people in the gyms. Too many snakes, spiders, dirt and falling rocks. Its just not worth it.

Where are these crags? There isn’t just one kind of environment; deserts and rain forests are different. 

Spreading out isn’t going to be universally better or worse, different environments have different concerns.

What would cause more enviro damage is for one of those 200 to blab about these 10 crags on the internet, and post directions, route info and a welcome mat to any and all comers.

If The Two Hundred avoid the temptation to advertise their little paradise, they can expect to enjoy their pristine crags for years to come with hardly any enviro degradation at all.

I find these conversations less and less engaging as we see more environmental disasters occurring due to climate change. I'm not sure I believe that closing an area off would actually do much to preserve it since it will likely be irreversibly changed in the next 50ish years anyway. I still try to do my part and be a good steward since it's just what I've always tried to do, but at this point I'm most concerned with maintaining access so that we can enjoy our natural areas while they last and we have the resources to do so. 

I think we get hung up on immediately visual impacts like erosion when that is really not a huge deal for the surrounding ecosystem when it's isolated to non-motorized trails and cliff top/bottom. Or maybe I just watched the latest Attenborough doc and the forests are closed due to wildfire danger - perhaps my apathy is a symptom of spiraling existential dread/depression.

Releasing Wild Tigers is almost always the most efficient solution for all sorts of overpopulation problems.

Crag too crowded: release the tigers

Homelessness out of hand: release the tigers

White Nationalists storming the capital: release the tigers

chris pwrote:

OK, I'm bored. It's been raining since Wednesday and is supposed to rain all weekend, so climbing isn't an option. 

You can climb in the rain, you know. Better than the gym and it's probably pretty adventurous for Connecticut.

Carolinawrote:

I think if you keep the crag all trad without fixed anchors or super runout then the environmental impact would be minimal.

It's certainly worked for Eldorado Canyon. No environmental impact there.

I think if you control for the number of participants, trad climbing is markedly harder on the environment than sport climbing.

Obviously it depends on the area, but sport routes typically ascend blank faces ending in lower off anchors below the crag top.

The only impact from the routes themselves is on a bit of lichen. Plus some compaction of the cliff base of course.

Trad climbing not only compacts the cliff base, but also the cliff top, and worse, typically involves excavating soil, plants, insects, saplings, etc from any and all nearby cracks. 

Worse yet, trad crags are often in more environmentally sensitive areas, think RMNP vs Clear Creek Canyon, heightening their deleterious impact.

Let's face it, the only responsible solution is to ban trad climbing immediately.

Pure trad climbing doesn't clean cracks. Pure trad climbing climbs the purest, cleanest, aesthetic lines. Anything that isn't ready for ground-up in its natural state is choss, and, essentially, sport climbing.

Daniel Chode Riderwrote:

Pure trad climbing doesn't clean cracks. Pure trad climbing climbs the purest, cleanest, aesthetic lines. Anything that isn't ready for ground-up in its natural state is choss, and, essentially, sport climbing.

Is this backwards day?

Cherokee Nuneswrote:

What would cause more enviro damage is for one of those 200 to blab about these 10 crags on the internet, and post directions, route info and a welcome mat to any and all comers.

If The Two Hundred avoid the temptation to advertise their little paradise, they can expect to enjoy their pristine crags for years to come with hardly any enviro degradation at all.

So you're saying keeping the impact all localized to one spot is less harmful that spreading that impact more evenly? Or are you saying you don't really care as long as your favorite crag gets left alone? 

JonasMRwrote:

Where are these crags? There isn’t just one kind of environment; deserts and rain forests are different. 

Spreading out isn’t going to be universally better or worse, different environments have different concerns.

It's a hypothetical, I didn't mean for it be to about any specific area. That's an interesting point though. What kind of environments would be better suited to each? 

Mark E Dixonwrote:

Let's face it, the only responsible solution is to ban trad climbing immediately.

Mark is right. I'm changing my vote to ban trad climbing immediately. It's bolts only from here on out and we shall call it the tradiban.

chris pwrote:

It's a hypothetical, I didn't mean for it be to about any specific area. That's an interesting point though. What kind of environments would be better suited to each? 

I bet someone here actually works in environmental impact related fields and might be able to answer that question. 

If I were to guess, I could imagine that 10 climbers a day might wear a desert down to mineral soil. After that, 100 climbers a day isn't making things that much worse; so pack em in. But a grassier cliff might be able to take 50 climbers a week; so spread 'em out and no cliff is down to mineral soil?

Claudine Longetwrote:

Releasing Wild Tigers is almost always the most efficient solution for all sorts of overpopulation problems.

Crag too crowded: release the tigers

Homelessness out of hand: release the tigers

White Nationalists storming the capital: release the tigers

Noted!

Peter Bealwrote:

It's certainly worked for Eldorado Canyon. No environmental impact there.

Maybe not in Eldo but it seems to have worked well in many Western NC (Cashiers area) crags. Some of the finest (and tallest) granite walls anywhere, most of which are runout as hell, even by Eldo standards... I suppose could also be shit weather, bugs, snakes, private property issues, and rednecks with guns that are keeping people away too.