Is this the future of climbing?

I'm curious how many people have reached out to AF directly with any of their concerns/opinions.  There are eloquently stated view points in this thread (WOW!!! MP Forum).  I wouldn't be shocked if someone from AF is reading this thread, but sending direct feedback could be worthwhile...?  If you can repeatedly respond to this thread why not send an e-mail to AF also.

don'tchuffonmewrote:

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.

So you’re telling me if we had less/restrict access that there will be less crowds? Makes sense.

Their mission and vision statement literally say nothing about educating people so I’m not sure why you keep harping about that either. In my opinion that should be done by LCO’s and gyms, but that’s an entirely different discussion. I also get that you clearly don’t support them, which I really do understand, yet say they shouldn’t be written off and that we still need *an* access fund…whatever that means.

What exactly do you want the access fund to do that they are not doing? Aside from restricting access

Certainly nobody wants to donate their money to an organization that perpetuates the very problem they claim to be solving, but does the AF actually do that? I can't find anything on their web page to suggest that they are, purposely or accidentally, increasing the number of people in climbing. IMO, the crowding fault falls mostly on the for-profit sector of climbing... gyms and the producers of major media content (TNF, I'm looking at you). Insta/youtube climbing evangelist types don't help either. The AF is just running around trying to clean up the mess caused by these groups, who market beyond already existing climbers. At this point I think we (climbers who only climb for climbing's sake) have lost control of the ship to those who wish to exploit it. This has been going on for some time now, but like climate change, the effects are largely delayed. 

Not Not MP Adminwrote:

So you’re telling me if we had less/restrict access that there will be less crowds? Makes sense.

Their mission and vision statement literally say nothing about educating people so I’m not sure why you keep harping about that either.

The reason is because a few years ago, the "Climber's Pact" which they used as a push for more membership, thus more donations, was all about educating climbers.  I'm aware that education isn't specifically mentioned in their mission statement.  But education is the key to changing any behavior, and as I mentioned, that program that's still up on their site attempts to do just that:

I get your meaning here, but it seems like splitting hairs. I think it's safe to assume that if they're listing things out like this, then the AF believes that people don't know these things, and thus need to be educated, hence the existence of the list. Educating people on the items of this list directly affects impact, which in turn directly affects access in a LOT of places. Take a look at that first picture again in the OP. How many items can you spot on this list that are being completely ignored? I would bet another $500 confidently that if one were in person at that crag on that day, almost every item in that list would be in violation there. And repeat this occurrence at every single pitch sport crag with low-difficulty entry-level bolted routes. Clearly their boost in membership from the JOIN US AND COMMIT TO THE CLIMBER'S PACT and the donation dollars that came from those new memberships haven't done much good, which is made obvious by their latest campaign. Otherwise, it wouldn't be such a serious issue. This is how it all relates, and is inextricably tied to their mission statement.

 In my opinion that should be done by LCO’s and gyms, but that’s an entirely different discussion.

Perhaps, but I agree with you.  I'm currently advocating at my gym with the club director to get a program started that teaches not only the differences in applied knowledge and techniques between gym climbing and outdoor climbing in a single pitch sport (cleaning properly and safely, belaying when there are father falls and greater distances, communication, etc.) or bouldering setting (can't really venture too much outside those two for brevity and possibly liability issues) but also to cover best practices for resource sharing, preserving the environment, etc. They're related, but it would create quite a lengthy discussion so I'm in agreement with you here as well.

 I also get that you clearly don’t support them, which I really do understand, yet say they shouldn’t be written off and that we still need *an* access fund…whatever that means.

It means that they've ventured off the route that they have had so much success with in the past.  I don't believe that my donation dollars or anyone else's can help what we see in that picture other than limiting access.  READ:  I'M NOT INTERESTED IN LIMITING ACCESS, my point is that to control the fuckery that we see in this picture across the country, no other means have been effective.  No other AF AAC or other entity that have attempted to address this issue and the symptoms of this issue have been effective. If they had, we would not be having this discussion.  This much, to me, seems obvious and pointlessly futile in debating.  It's just a fact.  A fact that's made painfully obvious by this:

That linked banner leads here:

No mention of how they're going to accomplish the lofty goal of "saving our sport" or by what means or programs your donation dollars will be expended toward this end goal. Just give us your money.

What exactly do you want the access fund to do that they are not doing? Aside from restricting access

First, I'd like to see them relegate their programs to just access. No political shit, no implication that climbing is systemically and historically racist by means of whatever can loosely be linked via income disparity etc etc etc as if no one ever made bad choices and as if there are not inherently different cultural tendencies toward different types of recreation.  But we both know that's not going to happen.

So, instead, to get my donation dollars they would have to:

Clearly outline programs and the actions and goals of those programs that are different from the failed "Climber's Pact" that everyone seems to want to agree to do, but not adhere to at all in practice.  Clearly that venture hasn't worked out which hopefully by now I've made clear as to why I have that opinion.

Clearly outline a plan of follow up for all of those that have placed our trust in them over the years, only to see this issue get worse and worse.  I have crags and entire areas that house mulitple walls with hundreds of routes that I won't go near anymore because every time I've been there in the last 6 or 7 years, it's been a shit show like what's shown in that picture.  It's way worse in person when you can put sound to the nonsense.  

I don't think they can do either of those things.  They gave it a valiant effort and I was happy to be a member and donate for years, but we've tried education.  We've tried LCO pressure in many places.  The only thing that can and will lessen crowds is restricted/limited access.  Again, I'm not advocating or endorsing that.  I'm simply saying that most if not all other avenues have been attempted and this is now what we're left with.  Slice it any way you want, but land managers are going to start restricting- it's already begun in lots of places and is on the table in other places.

In other words my donation dollars have done nothing in the past with regard to putting a dent in the overcrowding problem.  My donation dollars have done lots of good in the past in the realm of securing new access to new crags, and restoring access to crags that used to be open and were closed.

In short, I just want them to be honest.  This latest campaign looks like a cash grab with no plan at all.  Probably because it is.  I don't want to see the AF go away completely because they do a lot of good in their specialty.  Educating climbers that come straight out of the gym and treat the sport as casually as they would a game of drunken back yard volleyball is not.

I hope this sufficiently answers your questions, and I appreciate your reply JT.

don'tchuffonmewrote:

In other words my donation dollars have done nothing in the past with regard to putting a dent in the overcrowding problem.  My donation dollars have done lots of good in the past in the realm of securing new access to new crags, and restoring access to crags that used to be open and were closed.

I can certainly relate to this but from the opposite side of things. While I wholeheartedly hate crowds, my main concern is the later and would rather my money go towards securing new crags and hardware replacement.

FWIW, I completely understand your frustration when you lay it out like this though, so thanks for helping me understand your side even if I disagree with some parts of it

Not Not MP Adminwrote:

I can certainly relate to this but from the opposite side of things. While I wholeheartedly hate crowds, my main concern is the later and would rather my money go towards securing new crags and hardware replacement.

FWIW, I completely understand your frustration when you lay it out like this though, so thanks for helping me understand your side even if I disagree with some parts of it

The only adds for hardware replacement I’ve seen in past couple of years are from my LCO and ASCA. AF and AAC adds lately are mainly political pandering, crag classics or galas to rise moneys.

don'tchuffonmewrote:

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.

All of your analysis has been spot-on, even the political commentary that will lead some narrow-minded users to dismiss your entire line of reasoning. I wanted to highlight this gem specifically, above.

It's also telling that this campaign is occurring in December, when nonprofits get competitive for end-of-year donations. It's like oh, did they just now become aware of this crisis when much of the country's climbing is going out of season?

I was arguing this topic on local level with someone who thought he would be a hero and add to MP a word-of-mouth crag that's been offline for twenty years, in an area that suffers from contentious access issues to boot. Wouldn't return my PM.

Oh, and while I'm inarticulately bitching about dumb shit, how much good are those Creek crag stewards actually doing? Sure, I'm salty that my donations are paying people to bask in the desert sun. I'm sure they're perfectly nice people. I'm just curious as to how many deleterious behaviors they prevented this fall, and how much education went on.

Kevin Worrallwrote:

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.

climbing cliff areas are unique environments, a small percentage of wild land and cliff areas will have unique habitat; hence the need for an eir before development. To develop a new cliff is development.  Sport climbing has almost no risk so it has become a social gathering for many more people than before sport climbing.  These areas become a social gathering spot and usually without a bathroom facility. It is like opening a small park without facilities. Not a good idea. If new areas are developed do it in a responsible way.

I think a lot of the AF’s big donors are players in the climbing industry, and more climbers means more profits for that industry. I don’t see that as being corrupt, but it’s the way things work.

As to impacts climbers make on the environment, parking and approach trails are the first. There is a dilemma btw land managers and climbers here - land managers have all sorts of burdensome guidelines where both are concerned, and climbers by nature will park and walk where your average user won’t. It seems the AF and the LCO’s should be cooperating with land managers to have parking and trail design be well thought out, with climbers’ input, especially for popular areas. Maybe that happens elsewhere, I know it doesn’t in San Diego County.

I have made miles of carefully surveyed trail to new areas, for the benefit of myself and ultimately all climbers, but very, very few climbers are willing to take even a few minutes out of their climbing day to do trail work, let alone spend full days doing it as I have. There should be some “official” incentive to cooperate and harness the boundless climbing energy out there and use a portion of it as voluntary labor to make well planned, aesthetic, and environmentally friendly approach trails. 

I don’t know how all the disparate factors involved would work, but after parking, approach is the first impact challenge at any climbing area on public land, and some sort of standard understanding and plan btw land managers and climbers seems in order. Existing recreational trails rarely serve the climber, and climbers’ approach trails should maybe be officially allowed to be built and maintained at different standards of width and grade, for example, than the current strict, extensive, and conservative USFS trail requirements. The terrain around climbing areas typically is not harmonious with existing official trail building standards, and climbers are a unique user group where steep terrain is involved.

The common alternative is rogue trail building, or destructive trail braiding, and land managers point to it, sometimes justifiably, as a destructive environmental impact of climbers. 

Negotiations on just the approach trail aspect alone of climbers’ impact could be quite complicated, and only possible through an organization like the AF. If that is already happening on a nationwide scale, I’m unaware of it.

Can you find the overcrowding and the environmental impact created by climbers at this destination crag?  

What percentage of the environment does the bases of climbable rock represent nationwide?  .000000000001? 

Kevin Worrallwrote:

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.

^^^^ This!

Fehim Hasecicwrote:

The only adds for hardware replacement I’ve seen in past couple of years are from my LCO and ASCA. AF and AAC adds lately are mainly political pandering, crag classics or galas to rise moneys.

Often times AF will fund the replacement via LCO‘s. That is what I was referring to. I would guess the ASCA does far more though. 

Edit to add: Clearly I’ve also missed all the political “pandering” that the AF has put out. There have been multiple people referencing this. Can someone provide an example or two of this? Genuinely asking as I don’t actually subscribe to AF emails or seen their involvement in politics first hand. 

Not Not MP Adminwrote:

Often times AF will fund the replacement via LCO‘s. That is what I was referring to. I would guess the ASCA does far more though.

Yeah but like I said up thread I know I have outspent the AF in my area at least in the last few years and I think most developers have outspent them in their respective areas. With that said I appreciate what they do, I just wouldn’t give them too to much credit. Their fund breakdown is actually far more reassuring they are not just wasting money.

Edit to add: Clearly I’ve also missed all the political “pandering” that the AF has put out. There have been multiple people referencing this. Can someone provide an example or two of this? Genuinely asking as I don’t actually subscribe to AF emails or seen their involvement in politics first hand. 

I think the climbing united, gender identity stuff, equity initiatives and climate advocacy makes them seem left leaning. I don’t really care these things cost almost no money to do; except climate change which I think is a total waste of money. We don’t need Tommy Caldwell or Sasha to go speak to congress (I guess they move 0 minds). We either need a billion honnold foundations or we need corporate accountability.

Brian Stevens wrote:

When donating to the Access Fund, is there a way to specify where your money goes to?  For example, can I tell them I only want my money going to hardware replacement and/or access of climbing areas?  From a quick glance it looks like that is not possible.

I don't think it is, and I wish it were an option.

Brian Stevens wrote:

When donating to the Access Fund, is there a way to specify where your money goes to?  For example, can I tell them I only want my money going to hardware replacement and/or access of climbing areas?  From a quick glance it looks like that is not possible.

That seems like a gimmick they should probably look into. It wouldn't actually chance anything. Instead of donor A and donor B each giving $5 to projects 1 and 2, donor A can give all $10 to project 1 and donor B gives $10 to project 2. But folks love pretend choices. If people want to be indignant about infringement of their "right" to be casually racist, they can do so while still funding access issues. Seems like a good, and unfortunately necessary, workaround. 

Access Fund:

Be nice to direct funds. Many non-profits do this; but, they still need to pay the bills. Not saying it couldn't be better managed or that people wouldn't choose to support operational costs but seems less likely for most small donors.

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/943131165

They had 3 million hanging around at one point and over 1 million in compensation (near 1.5 million last filing online).

Excellent comments here!  

The access fund has done a tremendous amount of good in the past.  In the last couple of years they have lost their way. They are more focused on broader political agendas and in maintaining themselves as an organization (job protection). Unfortunately, they may fail at that due to their failure at their original mission. For now, the AF is the best we have, but an opportunity exists for the rise of a more mission focused organization.  An organization that will put political pressure on the USFS to treat climbing as an important user group across the country. The AF has for far too long let the USFS bureaucrats ignore them.  

The access fund is failing to:

1. Keep access acquisition and continuance as the #1 priority.

2. Stay politically agnostic to focus on job #1!  

For example: I don’t like Mitch McConnell but if he is the one who can get the USFS to be responsive in ensuring access to climbing, then that is who we need to work with. Don’t you think Mitch would do that since one of the largest treasure troves of future climbing on USFS land is in some of the poorest areas of KY? But the access fund is not mission focused! If they were, this is an easy win.

We can all address our personal political views by supporting other organizations and with our own votes. The AF is not the vehicle. I have supported the AF solely to expand and protect CLIMBING access.  They need to refocus on that!  

@Brian_Stevens - Yes, you can give a restricted gift to a non-profit. Typically, this is done with larger gifts. If it fits within their current efforts and accounting they will likely accept it. If not, they might convince you to give to their general fund or decline your donation. 

If you care about climbing the simple option is to donate to groups that support your goals. The longer road is to get involved after you post on MP or click to make your donation.

Policy is complex. When you begin speaking with folks beyond your normal circle you quickly realize that your opinion is just that, the opinion of one person. The work of understanding multiple points of view and building consensus is delicate and time consuming. Policy is not perfection, it's a work in progress.

Go to meetings with local groups, call non-profits and land managers, read environmental laws and policy. It's not really that fun, but if you partner with folks at established groups you can shape the agenda. Actively collaborating with people is so different than posting on social or web forums. These digital spaces are essentially miniature soap boxes where we give our speeches, which is kinda fun. Policy makers read these posts but they know that anyone who self selects to share their opinion in these spaces does not speak for the common citizen. Everyone posting here is one voice in a small special interest user group. The NGOs mentioned in these threads are slightly louder voices for that small special interest user group.

Climbers on public lands are a tiny slice of the overall visitation to public lands. And the number of people who visit public lands is only a fraction of the general population. Your opinion is a rain drop in the ocean, but it still counts.

So yeah, go to your local climbing club meetings and remember you can't scroll past the stuff you don't want to hear. That's why volunteer meetings suck and no one goes to them. Instead, we donate money and wring our hands.