Is this the future of climbing?

Eric Moss wrote:

My question is what's up with this guys knees?

Physical appearance shaming? Heck yeah, ignorance is bliss. This thread is getting wheels.

Gumby King wrote:

My thoughts are similarly aligned in that regard.  Would rather my money go to Friends of Jtree or Yosemite Climbing Association.

But AF makes some sweet shirts... and the AF really helped Lover Leap, CA.

I always would rather give my money to my local coalition or a coalitiom of an area I climb frequently as well…but I also wouldnt try to talk someone out of making a donation to something like the AF or ensinuate that they don’t help access issues like some people on here have. 

Princess Puppy Lovr wrote:

Im not allowed to comment in the other thread? 

This is total BS. The access fund is operating like some political propaganda machine when they do stuff like this. They deliberately create an unclear message, allowing the viewer to imply what they mean. 

They must be sending a deliberately clear message in this case; one that would allow the user to infer where the BS is actually coming from. 

Go Back to Super Topo wrote:

I completely agree with being critical of their marketing. I think that is in large part why there’s so much shade being thrown there way. May I ask why you are more skeptical recently though?

It is mostly the over marketing of red rocks access (past website title page articles). I think it is a bit disingenuous to say access is really that threatened in red rocks. Currently two of the three main articles on their homepage include this red rocks bit. I don't really understand how the AF can spend that much on red rocks, since their recommendation mostly seems to be that a better consultant should be used. 

I may also add that they are in no way a “charity” And I don’t think they’ve ever marketed themselves as such (I could be wrong though as far as them marketing themselves as that). 

I guess non profit? I don't quite know how to describe them.

I understand skepticism to a certain level but I have personally seen the tremendous amount of hardware donated by the AF be put to amazing use, preventing potential disasters, all over larger out west and in southeastern crags. I have also reaped the benefits of climbing on land that was secured with help and support of the AF throughout the US. 

My guess is that a lot of people criticizing the AF either don’t realize many of the bolts, anchors, and land they climb on were purchased in large part by the support of the AF. That or they simply deem these things as unnecessary. Either way, I think the AF does far more to increase access to climbing than to deter it. To each their own I suppose. 

I think there is definitely some understatement about the bolting the AF supports but at the same time local organizations seem to be the people doing the labor. However, I personally have outspent many of the grants myself on bolting/cleaning/scrubbing.

Hopefully there is a bathroom near by.

This is the future of climbing because most of those people were introduced to climbing in a crowded indoor gym. The social scene is what they like about climbing, it is an integral part of their climbing experience, it is what drew them back over and over, it IS climbing to a lot of “climbers”. Car nearby, doggies waggin, music playing, cute girls, lots of safe, well worn bolted moderates. Perfect, right?!

Classic climbing, adventure climbing, real climbing, is still out there, and the base is wild and rugged, just like the wall above it.

Those people don’t want that, to each their own, every one in that crowd is someone that isn’t out there.

Crowds are a beautiful thing.

Roadside was shut down because of climbers not following rules of the land owner, as it's on private land. It was not shut down because of "overcrowding" or "over use". The land owner has always had a permit process, even before the shutdown, so this is a horrible example, regardless if the owner did let their land get "over used".

Bruise Brothers is also on private land. It's essentially a small business at this point, and it seems really odd to use it as an example as well. No one has the right to tell Muir Valley how many people they can allow in a year. 

As far as overcrowding in general... the more areas opened up to climbing, the less impact any particular area will see. So, if the AF really wants to minimize impact, they should be lobbying every state, and the federal government to allow recreational climbing, sport/trad/bouldering development on all public lands. This would have direct impact on the existing areas that see too much traffic by thinning out traffic generally.

Matthew Jaggers wrote:

Roadside was shut down because of climbers not following rules of the land owner, as it's on private land. It was not shut down because of "overcrowding" or "over use". The land owner has always had a permit process, even before the shutdown, so this is a horrible example, regardless if the owner did let their land get "over used".

Bruise Brothers is also on private land. It's essentially a small business at this point, and it seems really odd to use it as an example as well. No one has the right to tell Muir Valley how many people they can allow in a year. 

As far as overcrowding in general... the more areas opened up to climbing, the less impact any particular area will see. So, if the AF really wants to minimize impact, they should be lobbying every state, and the federal government to allow recreational climbing, sport/trad/bouldering development on all public lands. This would have direct impact on the existing areas that see too much traffic by thinning out traffic generally.

Roadside has not always had a permit process lol. Prior to the first shutdown, circa 2011 or 2012, there were no permits required. Once they started the process of reopening and closing and reopening they implemented the permit system. Regardless, prior to the closure you cannot argue that Roadside looked similar to the photo of orange oswald and consequently suffered severe erosion issues due to crowds. Same with the Gallery, a crag which the AF and RRGCC have spent time building platforms and trying to slow erosion down. (Plate) Tectonic wall is another example as the first bolt of most of those 5.10’s is now 3-5ft higher because crowds have worn the base down. Muir Valley as a whole is a great example of how overcrowding (and an influx of new climbers) has lead to restrictions….as well as profit. Muir Valley at one point was totally free and you could even walk Rick and Liz’s  property on the way to numerous crags. It wasn’t until crowds, parking space, injuries/accidents, and overusage came into the picture that they started first by limiting the parking followed by charging to climb there.

By the way Miller Fork was purchased in part with the AF. PMRP also secured via help from the AF. The Lode and Chocolate Factory, same thing. So while I’m not sure lobbying in every state is necessarily warranted they have done more than their fair share of expanding climbing, this thinning out traffic. The problem is the number of climbers is expanding faster than the expansion of climbing areas/route development.   

Not Not MP Admin wrote:

By the way Miller Fork was purchased in part with the AF. PMRP also secured via help from the AF. The Lode and Chocolate Factory, same thing. So while I’m not sure lobbying in every state is necessarily warranted they have done more than their fair share of expanding climbing, this thinning out traffic. The problem is the number of climbers is expanding faster than the expansion of climbing areas/route development.   

Roadside and Muir Valley are shitshows, but it's the land owner's decision to allow that. That was my point. If a private land owner doesn't mind their easy walls getting overrun day in and day out, knowing it'll take a lot of work to maintain such activity, then that's their decision. Again, the point was that using private crags as an example of anything is a bad example, because they're private.

The problem isn't that climbers are expanding faster than new development, it's that our legislators are 30 years behind the times, and places that have been developed for decades are sitting, waiting, undisclosed until climbing is brought into the fold of legitimate tourism, where it actually belongs. When these secret areas are no longer in danger of being shut down because bureaucrats don't understand climbing, or why climbing is important to get people active and out in nature, then hundreds, if not thousands of areas would be newly available overnight. 

The AF has done a lot of good for the Red, but they also aren't pushing governments to accept climbing as a legitimate form of recreation, across the board, including sport climbing, which ironically is going to be a staple in global sports going forward.

An example of a government who understands that climbing brings international tourism, and with it, big bucks, is China. They are actively developing climbing areas in their country. The government! The same entity we're fighting over here to get with the program.

Matthew Jaggers wrote:

Roadside and Muir Valley are shitshows, but it's the land owner's decision to allow that. That was my point. If a private land owner doesn't mind their easy walls getting overrun day in and day out, knowing it'll take a lot of work to maintain such activity, then that's their decision. Again, the point was that using private crags as an example of anything is a bad example, because they're private.

I disagree. Muir Valley is the perfect example of how crowds lead to restrictions and lesser access. My point is that crowds inevitably lead to restrictions or at least discussion about accessibility…regardless of whether it’s on public or private land.

The problem isn't that climbers are expanding faster than new development, it's that our legislators are 30 years behind the times, and places that have been developed for decades are sitting, waiting, undisclosed until climbing is brought into the fold of legitimate tourism, where it actually belongs. When these secret areas are no longer in danger of being shut down because bureaucrats don't understand climbing, or why climbing is important to get people active and out in nature, then hundreds, if not thousands of areas would be newly available overnight. 

Tomato, tomato. I do think that crowds are still going to form where crowds are currently and these “secret crags” won’t change that unless someone is hiding a RRG or Hueco in their backyard.

MJ wrote:When these secret areas are no longer in danger of being shut down because bureaucrats don't understand climbing, or why climbing is important to get people active and out in nature, then hundreds, if not thousands of areas would be newly available overnight. 

Inudating new pristine cliff areas with sport climbers is a bad idea. Between route development and climbers I can't see how it would not be significantly damaging to the environment and local habitat.  If you want to develop a new area  you need to do an EIR to determine the long term impact you will have on the habitat.   So you don't end up with a gym scene in an area with habitat that has existed there for 100's if not 1000's of years.

If you want to develop a new area  you need to do an EIR to determine the long term impact you will have on the habitat.   So you don't end up with a gym scene in an area with habitat that has existed there for 100's if not 1000's of years.

The percentage of wild land that is sacrificed for a climbing area amounts to a grain of sand on the beaches of wilderness around the world. An approach trail, bolt holes, chalk marks, and the trampled area at the base and cliff edge are inconsequential to the environment IMO, especially compared to the overall changes humans have made to the planet.

Land managers and environmental extremists want to discourage climbers for different and equally unfair reasons. Land managers basically want as few people as possible on public land because no people means no problems. Environmental extremists don’t want to acknowledge that humans by nature alter the environment to thrive, and seem to pick on user groups like climbers because they’re not well organized and funded compared to developers, mining and oil companies for example. Virtue signaling to a large extent - imo.

Sorry, but doing an EIR before developing a cliff, in my opinion, is absurd, given the kinds of major environmental impacts the human race makes worldwide otherwise without one.

The problem is not climbers agreeing or disagreeing with these ads. The ads fall into the hands of environmental activists, and idiotic land managers who use this content to point at and say “see? This is climbing! We must act”. Small local areas then get fucked over. We are seeing it here in Montana. Literally. There needs to be more nuance to these conversations and this content is lacking, powerful, and troublesome. 

Cole Lawrence wrote:

The problem is not climbers agreeing or disagreeing with these ads. The ads fall into the hands of environmental activists, and idiotic land managers who use this content to point at and say “see? This is climbing! We must act”. Small local areas then get fucked over. We are seeing it here in Montana. Literally. There needs to be more nuance to these conversations and this content is lacking, powerful, and troublesome. 

The trouble with emotionally salient content is that it doesn't actually make an argument, just a feeling. Does that feeling mean we should ban climbing, or increase access, or be scared of folks with double-jointed knees? Who knows! Any of those are equally valid since they forgot to include a thought with the big feels.

I can't blame the AF for that; they need money and people respond to feels. Let the viewer "imply" what this image means. But after the NRA becoming what the NRA has become, it's hard not to balk at recreational interest group taking a more emotional and less reasoned tack. I think Trevor had it right: concerning they're going that way.

Cole Lawrence wrote:

The problem is not climbers agreeing or disagreeing with these ads. The ads fall into the hands of environmental activists, and idiotic land managers who use this content to point at and say “see? This is climbing! We must act”. Small local areas then get fucked over. We are seeing it here in Montana. Literally. There needs to be more nuance to these conversations and this content is lacking, powerful, and troublesome. 

I'll go even further.  What we see in the OP's picture is the result of marketing.  Marketing by gear companies, marketing in the form of Honnold and Caldwell being on every morning show in America for six months straight. Marketing by gyms, and yes, marketing by the Access Fund.

The major issue in this picture is the sheer number of people at a relatively small crag.  There are crags like this everywhere, but they're concentrated at single pitch sport climbing walls where there are a multitude of options from the 5.7 to 5.10.  You can see this at any wall that can accurately be described like that from coast to coast.  Those of us that were climbing before ~10 years ago can attest to the fact that it's always been the case that areas chock full of routes like that have always been more frequented, but only in the last 7 years to decade have they become truly "mobbed".

The fact that the popularity of climbing has increased can't be attributed to anything whimsical or random or star alignment or anything of that nature.  There has been a very concerted effort by the aforementioned entities to bring climbing into the mainstream.  Just do a quick google search on the phrase "climbing grow the sport" and you'll find such marketing campaigns by any variety of companies and climbers that represent companies by whom they are sponsored/paid.

In fact, the Access Fund is actively trying to bring more people into climbing by pushing JEDI.  While i'm not a fan of this campaign because (and they allude to this) it is nothing more than glossed over tokenization (and one might justifiably wonder why only in 2020 did these types of campaigns start if it has been a "long-standing" and "systemic" issue- but I digress- that can be handled in the woke forum) read: IT'S PERFORMATIVE NONSENSE BY PEOPLE TRYING TO MAKE THEMSELVES FEEL GOOD AND LOOK RIGHTEOUS- it's clear that one aim of the campaign is to simply get more people into climbing.  People that wouldn't have found climbing on their own organically, as it were (if a first time indoor gym visit can be described as organic), or otherwise financially inhibited from discovering it (somehow this is tied to race, but remember not to treat all people of color as a monolith because that's racist but we must respect "black" culture for all black people and somehow simultaneously treat them as a monolithic entity but only when the wokies say it's ok to).  I know this is an unpopular political stance in our largely left-leaning community. I don't care, because I also know that a lot of people agree with me and are scared as fuck to publicly state that for fear of ostracization and losing their means to provide for their loved ones.  But again, I digress.

So, if the major issue in this picture is overcrowding (and the sub issues caused from overcrowding- litter, erosion, vegetation damage, human waste and generally folks circumventing the LNT ethic that used to be passed on via mentor/protege relationships and now has all but been eschewed by most- which can be evidenced by visiting these places and seeing micro trash, cigarette butts, dogshit, human shit, macro trash, etc. etc.) and the Access Fund and all other gear companies and *most* LCOs are actively campaigning to get MORE people into climbing, how are my (or anyone's) donation dollars going to help?  

The only thing that can even put a dent in this juggernaut of a problem are permit systems, lottery systems, controlled and monitored access, restricted parking and the like.  That is the only way to have even a sliver of hope of controlling overcrowding.  Otherwise, crag populations will continue to increase correlatively with the popularity of climbing driven by the aforementioned marketing campaigns.

I feel like the entire community is being gaslit by an organization that formerly has a lot of successes in the access procurement realm- and they're more successful in current campaigns because of the good name that their previous successes has garnered for them. But.are they really expecting most climbers to not put 2 and 2 together? They helped create the problem, are actively continuing to recruit more people into climbing (for the record, I don't give a shit what weight, color, or plumbing anyone has or prefers and I couldn't care less if anyone else agrees with that sentiment- I want climbers to be knowledgeable, safe and to practice LNT- and that's it the rest is political noise that we're all better off without) and then want donation $$ to help mitigate the problem by... what means exactly?

They are at least partially responsible for encouraging more people to get into climbing.  The more people get into climbing, the more people are going to be at entry level crags and routes nationwide and the more pictures like the one in the OP can be taken, shared on social media and be used as evidence that WE, THE ACCESS FUND NEED YOUR MONEY..  This trend cannot be reversed, and the only way it can be mitigated or controlled, abated, or whatever verb/synonym you want to use is by somehow discouraging or restricting access in any variety of ways, and they need OUR $$$ TO DO IT.  That's what I glean from this message.  

2020 has led me to end my long-standing memberships with a lot of orgs I used to support.  Near the top of this list is the AF and the AAC.  I'd like for someone to explain (maybe not to me but just in general) how exactly an influx of donation $$ is going to help with the issue that they posted in that pic.  Are education programs of the last five years going to do it?  The kind of "see something, say something" and "be a mentor, not a bystander" programs that they've pushed incessantly have not helped.  If they had, then this picture would not be indicative of so many crags across the country.  So the current programs (which of course NEEDED OUR DONATIONS TO BE "SUCCESSFUL") have not been successful.  So how will future donations translate to programs and actions by this organization to control overcrowding, thus control the other issues that are symptoms of overcrowding?  

I see it as a ploy to get more donations.  I don't think there is any actions or programs that can help with the issue seeing as how A) they helped create the issue and conveniently avoid that inconvenient fact and B) all the programs that they've instituted to "help" with these same issues have fallen flat and seemingly had no effect whatsoever.

The Access Fund cannot reverse this current trend or even slow it with your donations except for to restrict access somehow and they want your $$ to try to do that.  Change my mind.

Its very simple: tragedy of the commons. We ALL built this city. Now its crowded.

Move it out. Change your game. Go somewhere else, Keep it secret. Keep is safe.

@ Chuff- I share some of your dissatisfaction with the Access Fund, although perhaps for different reasons.

I am disappointed in their seeming "go along to get along" approach to negotiations with governmental land managers.

I want a climbing advocacy organization to fight uncompromisingly for climbers. Not worry about what every other user group wants or needs.

But what's your alternative? 

Withholding donations isn't going to slow the influx of climbers into the sport.

LCOs can be great and I encourage folks to contribute time and money to these, but climbers need a voice on the national level and frankly, there's no-one else but the AF.

@DCOM - How about, no more "Gym to Crag" days, only "Couch to Gym" campaigns. Gear companies just want to sell gear, which they can do with gym rats too.

Matthew Jaggers wrote:

@DCOM - How about, no more "Gym to Crag" days, only "Gym to Couch" campaigns.

FTFY

Mark E Dixon wrote:

@ Chuff- I share some of your dissatisfaction with the Access Fund, although perhaps for different reasons.

I am disappointed in their seeming "go along to get along" approach to negotiations with governmental land managers.

I want a climbing advocacy organization to fight uncompromisingly for climbers. Not worry about what every other user group wants or needs.

But what's your alternative? 

Withholding donations isn't going to slow the influx of climbers into the sport.

LCOs can be great and I encourage folks to contribute time and money to these, but climbers need a voice on the national level and frankly, there's no-one else but the AF.

Very fair Mark, and thanks for the civil reply.  I must admit I was expecting the opposite- not from you, but just in general.  I will concede that out of all the entities out there, LCOs do the most good.  This isn't meant to be session to berate them.  I also agree that the AF historically (and currently) has been the national voice of climbers.  I don't think that anyone, looking at the state of crags and the fact that the problem is worsening and not improving can logically, reasonably argue that past campaigns have been a success.  The Access Fund in my opinion shouldn't be written off, if for no other reason than that they have been "that" voice for climbers and they have done a whole hell of a lot of good.  

But I do think their mission has outgrown their capabilities.  They should, you know, focus on ACCESS and not political campaigns.  On its face, it's clear that the issue is overcrowding.  As I not so eloquently mentioned, most of the issues that threaten access these days aren't the same issues that threatened access back in ;the AF's heyday. Things that used to threaten were trespassing by climbers, bolting in areas that shouldn't be, etc. etc.  In other words, they fostered campaigns that educated climbers and worked with problem areas to purchase land and to set up access plans to those areas.  They've also helped reopen areas that were formerly closed.  They are, or at least were, the avid recreational climbers' best friend when it came to these issues.  They worked on both sides of an issue as arbiters- and quite successfully.

That was then though, and this is now.  Those formerly prevalent issues aren't that prevalent anymore, but they haven't gone away.  We do still need *an* Access Fund to help in this capacity.  Most areas that are being threatened now are under scrutiny because of issues that I mentioned.  Erosion, native vegetation and ecosystems being damaged.  Human waste, micro and macro trash.  Avoidable injuries that happen mostly to newer climbers.  There have been a myriad of campaigns designed by and proselytized by the Access Fund and others, yet here we are, being asked for more donations as if no other campaigns along the same lines have been tried before.  As if the $$ asked for to finance those failed campaigns never occurred.  That's what gets me.  I donated to the AAC and AF at way above the minimum for almost a decade straight, only to see matters worsen.  It's clear to me and to many others that those previous campaigns to educated newer climbers and to attempt to foster a sense of mentorship of veteran climbers as a means to help mitigate growing issues have not helped.  This is further evidenced by the fact that they are still asking for more money for essentially the same type of program/venture. 

Seems to me that if they really wanted money and want funding to be crowd-sourced, they'd be open to answering questions about how the $$ will be used.  What programs are on the table that are designed to directly help mitigate the issue that we see in the very picture THEY posted.  It also seems to me that climbing "evangelism" of which they are certainly a part of, has helped create the problem that they themselves state is prevalent and in dire need of addressing.  So it's ironic at best.

I don't think they're directly shady.  I do think they have the best of intentions.  I'm wiling to apply Hanlon's razor here or some variation thereof.  But it's hard for me to not see the inherent contradiction of what they're asking alongside their failed ventures in that very same realm.

The political shit just comes with the territory unfortunately because of the aforementioned left-leaning community.  When dissected, it makes little sense and I pick my battles there, as it's a dangerous venture in and of itself. I've learned to just roll my eyes and shake my head in disappointment more than anything else in that regard and have essentially learned to live with the fact that the means with which I used to use to escape such human maladies has unfortunately been adopted by the purveyors of that outlet.  Cliche, but it is what it is. 

However, the funding for yet another project to "save climbing" or "save our crags" when overcrowding is the root cause of all of it, without explaining how that will occur *without* limiting access somehow (which, ironically is the antithesis of the Access Fund's main mission)

 deserves some scrutiny and I hope this post and my other one accomplish that.  I want people to know that overcrowding is the root cause.  I want people to know that the Access Fund has actively helped increase the popularity of climbing and actively recruited more people into climbing and helped, inadvertently perhaps, exacerbate the problem.  I want people to know that no amount of "education" will help, because all the other attempts at such education campaigns haven't had any effect judging by the urgency of the banner on MP's home page.  I want people to know that the only way to truly "help" this issue, is to somehow restrict access.  And I want the Access Fund to tell me how I'm incorrect, if I am, and explain to me why I should donate to an organization that will restrict access if they hope to improve the situation at all, and how that isn't the opposite of their stated mission.  If they can do that, or if anyone else can convince me, I'll donate $500 instantly and provide proof of doing so right here.