BLM TO CHARGE $20 TO ACCESS CALICO BASIN; WILL BUILD TOLL BOOTH

b k wrote:

I would be nervous. Think Hueco-style guided cragging in the long term. Enjoy your "freedom" while it lasts.

There are certainly reasons to be nervous but was there indication of this in the call? I did not come away with the same thought so I am interested in what you heard. 

Ashort wrote:

There are certainly reasons to be nervous but was there indication of this in the call? I did not come away with the same thought so I am interested in what you heard. 

I'm just fear mongering based on chronic pessimism.

b k wrote:

I'm just fear mongering based on chronic pessimism.

Perhaps the most honest reply on MP yet this year.  

b k wrote:

I would be nervous. Think Hueco-style guided cragging in the long term. Enjoy your "freedom" while it lasts.

“Climbing management plans“ also make me nervous, but you can’t pin Hueco on the BLM. That one is on the freedom loving state of Texas. 

CLIMBERS, UNLESS WE SPEAK UP SOON, THERE WILL BE A TOLL BOOTH BLOCKING UNFETTERED ACCESS TO CALICO BASIN.

You will need to request a reservation online to use Calico Basin. There will be a $20 fee to visit Calico Basin (along with the $2 reservation fee which is payable to a private company). 

There will be a quota system implemented which will limit the amount of people allowed in to Calico Basin. There will be a VIP lane for Calico Basin residents and their friends, to bypass the toll booth.

It’s almost certain that Calico Basin will have the same operating hours as the Loop Road, so you will get a ticket for being in Calico Basin after 8pm in the summer (while the sun is still up), or 5pm on a day like today.

A climbing management plan will be soon to follow. All mountain biking in the area will be prohibited.

Until December 8, you can submit comments online at:

https://eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning-ui/project/2016281/510

The draft for the Calico Basin Recreation and Management Plan is available in a .PDF file here:

https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/2016281/200499801/20049485/250055668/Calico%20Basin%20Draft%20RAMP%20and%20EA_508_1.pdf

There is an online public meeting November 18, 2021, from 6pm to 8pm Pacific Time. You can access that meeting at this link:

https://www.virtualpublicmeeting.com/calicobasinramp-home

I really want to know what the Southern Nevada Climbers Coalition is doing to stop this loss of access to our climbing area.

The SNCC is having their major yearly fundraiser this weekend. How does this money benefit climbers if the organization sits idle as Calico Basin falls to toll booths, the reservation system and the ridiculous operating hours?

There are high-end climbers that live in Calico Basin. They stand to gain enormously in their property values as we, the lowly tax-payers, fund the posh, gated-community infrastructure. Do these high-end climbers hold undue influence with the local climbing organization? I see one of those houses went up in value by $400,000 since it was purchased just last year.

Let me make this clear: while we have to pay to climb, our numbers are limited, and we are chased out at 5pm, the residents of Calico Basin (and their friends) will have VIP exclusive, around-the-clock access to some of the world's best boulders.

If SNCC is going to sit this one out, how does one get the Access Fund on the case? The lawyers need to be brought in before it's too late. It's about time we exert some political pressure to represent our interests as climbers.

I did email SNCC yesterday to ask what they are doing about this and so far, I have received no response.

I can’t understand how people aren’t more upset about this. It’s an out of control snowball right now of government restrictions and charging people to use their own public land. Just recently 

• Yosemite full time reservation system to enter the park during season 
• Alabama hills moving to only developed campsites that must be reserved and paid for 
• Red rocks loop full time reservations
• Yosemite institutes big wall permits 
• Red rocks now decided to fence calico and charge $30 a day to use, almost more importantly limiting the use hours to sunset daily 

This is all within the last year and the rationale is always “well people can’t take care of it I saw trash!” Does that mean we fence up every beach in the country and charge people to use the beaches also? I don’t know the right answer but there is possibly nothing less inclusive on earth than putting up gates around trails and charging $30 a day to use them. They’re realizing they can collect huge amounts of money this way and it’s going to continue to happen until they’ve monetized every single activity worth doing. 

Tanner James wrote:

I don’t know the right answer...

Ultimately this is the underlying issue.  No one seems to have ideas on how to curtail the massive (runaway) increase in land use.  Making it less inviting/more expensive has been the trope for public and private land managers for a long time.  They'll continue to do it so long as it works.

John, while i admire your opinion that voicing our concerns will actually make a difference, I am losing hope. The BLM is gonna do whatever they want ultimately, they don't care what the public says, and certainly not what locals say. My current questions are how to access outside of the gate, as I do now in red rock, just hike further from the highway. That or we crowd fund to buy one of those mansions to secure climber access....wouldn't that be sweet. 

I personally think the best chance we have is focusing on the fact that the roads are county roads we pay taxes for and that we are handing over private access to public lands to those residents back there. There has to be some kind of legal precedent against this, and if not we should take this to the courts. 

If (when) they put a gate at calico the thing I would like to see is a very large parking lot or parking garage at the highway to allow people to hike or bike in. 

Regarding the Southern Nevada Climbers Coalition, I would like to find out about the elections that were supposed to be held over the past two weeks for the board of director positions.

From the SNCC website: "Voting will be from November 2nd through November 8th [2021] and will take place online. Instructions will be distributed via email to all members and publicized on Mountain Project and Facebook before elections."

From the SNCC website: "You must be a member to vote and/or be on the board of directors. New membership applications and full payment must be submitted by November 1st to qualify."

I'm a current, dues-paying member of the SNCC and heard nothing about these elections and going back through the Mountain Project and Facebook history, there has been no mention by the SNCC of any elections. The only place that has any information is buried on their out-dated website.

https://www.southernnevadaclimberscoalition.org/elections/

Tanner James wrote:

I can’t understand how people aren’t more upset about this. It’s an out of control snowball right now of government restrictions and charging people to use their own public land. Just recently 

• Yosemite full time reservation system to enter the park during season 
• Alabama hills moving to only developed campsites that must be reserved and paid for 
• Red rocks loop full time reservations
• Yosemite institutes big wall permits 
• Red rocks now decided to fence calico and charge $30 a day to use, almost more importantly limiting the use hours to sunset daily 

This is all within the last year and the rationale is always “well people can’t take care of it I saw trash!” Does that mean we fence up every beach in the country and charge people to use the beaches also? I don’t know the right answer but there is possibly nothing less inclusive on earth than putting up gates around trails and charging $30 a day to use them. They’re realizing they can collect huge amounts of money this way and it’s going to continue to happen until they’ve monetized every single activity worth doing. 

Bingo.  Meanwhile, the Access Fund posts this garbage: https://www.accessfund.org/open-gate-blog/get-ready-more-permit-and-reservation-systems-are-likely-coming.  Look Access Fund, we get it, the crowds are big.  But your mission is to balance access with conservation, not back any permit system or fee structure that comes along.

If the Access Fund isn't stepping in, and the SNCC isn't stepping in, who will?  The Access Fund claims it can balance access with environmental conservation.  I haven't seen them even attempt to do this for any of these recent restrictions.  Instead of consistently deferring to whatever permit system, fee structure or closure public land managers want, the Access Fund needs to actually propose something that will address overcrowding issues while maintaining access for all climbers.  

Pro climbers, the Access Fund, the AAC, and outdoor goods companies like BD or Patagonia all claim to value inclusivity and diversity within the outdoors.  But how can we have diversity when we exclude those who can't afford to spend $30 dollars a day to go climb?  

i predict....

Fees for all climbing anywhere within the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area.

BV, Windy, etc...etc....

Only a matter of time.

In my opinion, the Access Fund is to climbing, what the NRA is to the 2nd amendment. Full of poopies.

jcs

rock freak wrote:

If the Access Fund isn't stepping in, and the SNCC isn't stepping in, who will?  The Access Fund claims it can balance access with environmental conservation.  I haven't seen them even attempt to do this for any of these recent restrictions.  Instead of consistently deferring to whatever permit system, fee structure or closure public land managers want, the Access Fund needs to actually propose something that will address overcrowding issues while maintaining access for all climbers.  

Ultimately this is the underlying issue.  No one seems to have ideas on how to curtail the massive (runaway) increase in land use.  Making it less inviting/more expensive has been the trope for public and private land managers for a long time.  They'll continue to do it so long as it works.

Even if we disregard the oddly low numbers pre-2015, 240K to basically 740K in 5 years is an eye-popping increase. We're seeing the same thing on the Front Range and no the Access Fund or the AAC is not going to be able to resolve the issues raised by this ridiculous increase in visitors. Outdoor rec has pretty much screwed itself in the quest to expand markets and public appeal and the marquee locales are just the beginning. Well done everyone.

Completely genuine question here, what is the worst case scenario if they don’t put up a gate and charge people $20 a day to enter? Calico is 99% rock and sand, with some very sporadic crypto soil and sparse desert vegetation sprinkled beside trails. What is this “destruction” we’re supposedly saving calico from by monetizing it? The bolts will stay, the chains will stay, the chalk will stay, people will continue to drop cliff bar wrappers, but I honest to god don’t understand how people think they are going to completely destroy a literal rock pile that has been around for a million years? This is 100% a money grab after they realized how much money they can make from charging people to use their own public land. If you see trash, pick it up, if you see a bag of dog shit, pick it up, if you see someone not doing that, call them out and clean up after them. This “I love the outdoors so much that I want to fence it at all and charge people to look at it!!” Mentality is a new level of a savior complex that has floored me. I’ve bragged for years how inclusive climbing is, “all you need is a rope harness draws and shoes then it’s free!!” And this is a direct step in the opposite direction. You want to make the outdoors less Inclusive? Fence off everything and make people pay $25 a day through their phone to enter. 

"Completely genuine question here, what is the worst case scenario if they don’t put up a gate and charge people $20 a day to enter? Calico is 99% rock and sand, with some very sporadic crypto soil and sparse desert vegetation sprinkled beside trails. What is this “destruction” we’re supposedly saving calico from by monetizing it? "

anyone familiar with the junk show that is Calico during spring break, esp. the Kraft Boulders parking scene, knows that this was inevitable. The local residents have probably been harassing the BLM for at least a decade about this. Covid just turned up the heat even more.

It's a done deal.

Peter Beal wrote:

Even if we disregard the oddly low numbers pre-2015, 240K to basically 740K in 5 years is an eye-popping increase. We're seeing the same thing on the Front Range and no the Access Fund or the AAC is not going to be able to resolve the issues raised by this ridiculous increase in visitors. Outdoor rec has pretty much screwed itself in the quest to expand markets and public appeal and the marquee locales are just the beginning. Well done everyone.

This is a good point--the outdoor rec industry has basically screwed over public land.  Some people in the industry made a lot of money, a few more got to "live their dream" of being pro climbers or influencers, and everybody else and the environment is getting screwed.  This already happened.  Now, in my opinion, the issue is that the people and groups who caused the growth are silent over the access issues they caused.  

The BLM says they are trying to improve recreational experiences in Red Rock:

“This will be done by formally identifying allowed trail uses; identifying rock climbing zones; improving signage and visitor information; and providing a long-term, sustainable funding program for the basin.”

Part of the issue here is that the BLM is underfunded and understaffed. Those numbers are likely a permanent increase in visitation, but the BLM does not have the law enforcement or interpretive staff to address the issues crowding creates.  Climbing gyms owners, the outdoor industry, and pro climbers have profited, sometimes immensely, from the existence of public lands. In my opinion, they have an ethical responsibility to financially contribute to the management of those lands now.  Many are willing to do so because it gives them positive press.  

The BLM does however, have the resources to build a fence and a ticket booth, and pay somebody $12 an hour for 6 months a year to sit in it.  The Access Fund can't decrease those visitation numbers, but they can demand a better solution.

$20/person certainly suggests the BLM is not interested in the access fee being reasonable/affordable.  I'm wondering on what basis of management rationale or public input was this amount decided?

Of course as a climber this is yet another example of the frustrating changes we are seeing that impact the way we are used to using an area.

But what bothers me even more about this is that every time I have been there, the picnic area and the surrounding trails have been in use by what seems like local families.  Of course it's impossible to say just based on "looks" but these folks don't look like they are in the wealthy class.  This fee I would guess will be a real barrier.  I live in CA, but if I lived in town, I would contact the Parks and Rec Dept of Clark County, City of Las Vegas, and City of North Las Vegas or even the Clark County Board of Supervisors and see if there is anyone there sympathetic to a resource being taken away from the local "underprivileged".  There would be far more power coming from that direction if someone took offense at the fee and changes than any climber organization could ever muster.

$20 fee for calico would make it part of the same fee system as the loop road.  If you have a yearly pass then you are already covered.  (plus possible future reserv. system)

"The proposed amenity fees would complement those for the Scenic Drive; with a receipt from the Calico Basin, visitors would also be able to access the Scenic Drive and vice versa. However, visitor management tools like the Scenic Drive Reservation System may be used in the future and will require visitors to know what tools have been implemented before they arrive. Revenue generated at this site would be reinvested into the area through increased resource protection, law enforcement patrols, additional programming, increased signage, and renovated facilities."

see page 2-18 +     eplanning.blm.gov/eplanning…