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

I have shared this thread with the Southern Nevada Climber’s Coalition Board - which is all volunteer BTW…

Marc801 C wrote:

Have you contacted/talked to the Access Fund about this issue?
Not challenging you, just curious. I’d like to know their response, if any. 

I have not spoken with anyone at the Access Fund. My assertion that they are disengaged and unwilling to support our fight against the curtailing of access in Red Rock is based on the media campaign the Access Fund ran last November. The public meeting with the BLM to discuss the proposed Calico Basin management plan was on November 18, 2021. Around that same time, Access Fund posted several items on social media such as this, from November 16, 2021:

Get Ready: More Permit and Reservation Systems are Likely Coming

There were several other postings and the gist of what Access Fund was saying is that climbing is over-crowded now and we just have to deal with the consequences. While I have not reached out to the Access Fund, I have had several interactions with their local satellite organization, the Southern Nevada Climber's Coalition. I appreciate the fact that the board members are all volunteers, as Stefani mentions. What I believe should be happening is that the SNCC should be leaning harder on the Access Fund to leverage their paid staff to stand up to the BLM in this fight.

Having a toll booth constructed in Calico Basin is unacceptable. Moving from free, 24-hour access to an expensive, quota-based system, with seriously limited operating hours, is a large burden for the Las Vegas climbing community. This new, whacko proposal from Save Red Rock to gate-off all of Highway 159 is even more obscene. Climber access is becoming seriously curtailed in Red Rock and we need help. The SNCC has had an annual change in its board of directors and I would encourage the new SNCC board reach out to the Access Fund and request more resources. Legal action may be necessary to prevent this limitation of access. 

From Save Red Rocks comment letter, quoted per John Hegyes.

"4-Park Entrance Stations on both ends of 159

They say that this is not done very often on state highways. But it is done for special conditions, like the state highway through the Lake Mead National Recreation Area and the state highway through Zion National Park. We believe that Red Rock Canyon is a special condition.

Red Rock is every bit as popular as those other model areas and even more heavily trafficked and vulnerable, being so close to a major metropolis. If park entrance stations bookended the Red Rock Scenic Byway, accountability could increase and crimes could decrease, such as graffiti, hit-and-run accidents, speeding, and unnecessary shortcut traffic. Also, the BLM could have more resources to manage other areas, not just the scenic loop. Calico Basin, Blue Diamond and First Creek/Oak Creek are a couple of examples of areas outside the scenic loop that also require management."

The Red Rock Scenic Byway is NOT the same thing as 159. Per the map below, it starts at the current fee station (circled in black) and does a 13 mile loop around Red Rock, and ends at the gate in front of Mt Wilson that exits the park (also circled in black). According to Save Red Rock, they want entrance gates for RRNCA and the scenic loop at both spots. Also, the backup and safety issues that occur from having one gate are definitely an issue on 159. I imagine they're advocating for two gates to help with the congestion, as they mention above.

In addition, this is just ONE group's comment. There's no proposal, no actual plan, and NVDOT is just looking for comments. So go and make your voice heard. But know that what's been said so far is far from accurate per Save Red Rock's own comment and that there is NO ACTUAL PLAN to put toll booths on 159/Charleston and 159/Fort Apache (on the BD side). That's absolutely absurd and NVDOT is NOT going to even consider that. Spend your time commenting on the things that will actually make this road safer. Many, many people trying to recreate and get to recreation on this road have died because it is incredibly unsafe due to increased usage. There's no reason to freak out about this. Improving the safety of this road is a good thing and has NOTHING to do with closing off access to rock climbing. 

But these new systems can also improve the climbing experience. We may enjoy less crowding, fewer lines on routes, less sitting in loop road traffic jams, more opportunities to educate users, and less impact on the land—improvements all climbers can support. And in the long term—especially as climbing and outdoor recreation continue to grow with no end in sight—protecting the environment and the recreation experience is paramount.

This is why Access Shunned will never see a penny from me. What a wet diatribe. I bet the first draft ended with kissing a whale on the lips.

Leici Hendrix wrote:

The Red Rock Scenic Byway is NOT the same thing as 159. Per the map below, it starts at the current fee station (circled in black) and does a 13 mile loop around Red Rock, and ends at the gate in front of Mt Wilson that exits the park (also circled in black). According to Save Red Rock, they want entrance gates for RRNCA and the scenic loop at both spots. Also, the backup and safety issues that occur from having one gate are definitely an issue on 159. I imagine they're advocating for two gates to help with the congestion, as they mention above.

In addition, this is just ONE group's comment. There's no proposal, no actual plan, and NVDOT is just looking for comments. So go and make your voice heard. But know that what's been said so far is far from accurate per Save Red Rock's own comment and that there is NO ACTUAL PLAN to put toll booths on 159/Charleston and 159/Fort Apache (on the BD side). That's absolutely absurd and NVDOT is NOT going to even consider that. Spend your time commenting on the things that will actually make this road safer. Many, many people trying to recreate and get to recreation on this road have died because it is incredibly unsafe due to increased usage. There's no reason to freak out about this. Improving the safety of this road is a good thing and has NOTHING to do with closing off access to rock climbing. 

This. Stop freaking out.

Leici Hendrix wrote:

From Save Red Rocks comment letter, quoted per John Hegyes.

"4-Park Entrance Stations on both ends of 159

They say that this is not done very often on state highways. But it is done for special conditions, like the state highway through the Lake Mead National Recreation Area and the state highway through Zion National Park. We believe that Red Rock Canyon is a special condition.

Red Rock is every bit as popular as those other model areas and even more heavily trafficked and vulnerable, being so close to a major metropolis. If park entrance stations bookended the Red Rock Scenic Byway, accountability could increase and crimes could decrease, such as graffiti, hit-and-run accidents, speeding, and unnecessary shortcut traffic. Also, the BLM could have more resources to manage other areas, not just the scenic loop. Calico Basin, Blue Diamond and First Creek/Oak Creek are a couple of examples of areas outside the scenic loop that also require management."

The Red Rock Scenic Byway is NOT the same thing as 159. Per the map below, it starts at the current fee station (circled in black) and does a 13 mile loop around Red Rock, and ends at the gate in front of Mt Wilson that exits the park (also circled in black). According to Save Red Rock, they want entrance gates for RRNCA and the scenic loop at both spots. Also, the backup and safety issues that occur from having one gate are definitely an issue on 159. I imagine they're advocating for two gates to help with the congestion, as they mention above.

In addition, this is just ONE group's comment. There's no proposal, no actual plan, and NVDOT is just looking for comments. So go and make your voice heard. But know that what's been said so far is far from accurate per Save Red Rock's own comment and that there is NO ACTUAL PLAN to put toll booths on 159/Charleston and 159/Fort Apache (on the BD side). That's absolutely absurd and NVDOT is NOT going to even consider that. Spend your time commenting on the things that will actually make this road safer. Many, many people trying to recreate and get to recreation on this road have died because it is incredibly unsafe due to increased usage. There's no reason to freak out about this. Improving the safety of this road is a good thing and has NOTHING to do with closing off access to rock climbing. 

Leici, please refer to these links and reconsider what you wrote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada_State_Route_159

As quoted from the above link: "Approximately 8.8 miles (14.2 km) of SR 159 in Red Rock Canyon was designated a Nevada Scenic Byway on June 30, 1995."

https://www.dot.nv.gov/travel-info/travel-nevada/scenic-byways

The Red Rock Scenic Byway refers to Highway 159 and is separate and distinct from the BLM's 13 mile Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area Scenic Drive which is the one-way road commonly referred to as the Loop Road. 

I would cream my pants if they put a 2 lane road in RR so I don’t have to drive the whole loop every single time. I love red rock, it’s beautiful and will always have my heart, but gas is expensive and I’ve seen it a million fucking times. I don’t want to drive all the way to pine creek when I want to just do some sport at calico 1. The inverse for my big mountain days.

Austin R wrote:

I would cream my pants if they put a 2 lane road in RR so I don’t have to drive the whole loop every single time. I love red rock, it’s beautiful and will always have my heart, but gas is expensive and I’ve seen it a million fucking times. I don’t want to drive all the way to pine creek when I want to just do some sport at calico 1. The inverse for my big mountain days.

I'd cream my pants if they ripped out all the asphalt and returned it into a dirt road!

Austin, a two-way loop road is not going to happen. I haven't put too much thought into that notion, but I do think it has merit, and it would, to some degree, reduce the overall congestion on the Loop Road. Climbers would be far less likely to drive the full 13 miles if they could enter or exit at either end. It makes too much sense, it'll never happen.

Leici's imaginings are not correct. Save Red Rock has been advocating the gating off of Highway 159, a Nevada State Scenic Byway, for ages. Here is an article from 2005 with an interview with Blue Diamond resident, current Save Red Rock staff member, luxury real estate agent and a long-time climber, well-known with the locals, Pauline Van Betten. 

Source:

State Route 159 users at impasse

Excerpt from Las Vegas Sun (September 15, 2005):

Conservationists, members of the small community of Blue Diamond outside the conservation area and bicyclists favor reducing the 60 mph speed limit to at least 45 mph and restricting commercial or commuting traffic with gates at either end of the road.

....

"The best overall thing for the long run is an entry booth," said Blue Diamond resident and real estate agent Pauline van Betten. "Right now that road is so impacted by traffic."

For horses and burros in the conservation area, crossing the two-lane highway has become "a slaughter," van Betten said.

"We have got to stop the slaughter of these burros," she said.

Van Betten said users should pay $5 to use SR 159 unless they are residents or buy a yearly pass.

John Hegyes wrote:

Austin, a two-way loop road is not going to happen. I haven't put too much thought into that notion, but I do think it has merit, and it would, to some degree, reduce the overall congestion on the Loop Road. Climbers would be far less likely to drive the full 13 miles if they could enter or exit at either end. It makes too much sense, it'll never happen.

Leici's imaginings are not correct. Save Red Rock has been advocating the gating off of Highway 159, a Nevada State Scenic Byway, for ages. Here is an article from 2005 with an interview with Blue Diamond resident, current Save Red Rock staff member, luxury real estate agent and a long-time climber, well-known with the locals, Pauline Van Betten. 

Source:

State Route 159 users at impasse

Just an aside, but it seems folks have forgotten that wild burros and horses are not native to the mojave, are invasive, and are incredibly destructive to this environment. It's hilarious to see the extent to which folks have gone to protect them because they're "cute."

Back to the topic at at hand: I have actually heard it directly from Heather herself, that a gate at either end of 159 (at the end of charleston, and right before blue diamond) is very desirable, however, even she believes that it is extremely unlikely. 

b k wrote:

Back to the topic at at hand: I have actually heard it directly from Heather herself, that a gate at either end of 159 (at the end of charleston, and right before blue diamond) is very desirable, however, even she believes that it is extremely unlikely. 

I just cannot stand this idea of locking away access to Red Rock Canyon. I've never, ever seen a BLM ranger patrol the trails; the land just seems to be left to whatever destruction the criminals want to throw at it. There has got to be a better answer than locking it away.

It's not even the money involved in any entrance fee that bothers me so much, it's the having to pull a reservation, being subject to a quota and being chased out of there by 5pm, while the sun is still up. We will lose free, 24 hour access to a lot of great climbing and hiking.

I would not be so sure, D K, that this is all extremely unlikely. With Josh Travers, the BLM agent seemingly in charge of these toll booth "improvements", serving on a Save Red Rock committee, I'd say anything is possible. It simply appears to me that everything is falling in to place with the toll booth being developed at the entrance to Calico Basin. It would just be one more step to put another toll booth at the other end, over by Blue Diamond.

This guy is bad news. Not someone you want advocating for you or your cause, if you're a climber.

b k wrote:

This guy is bad news. Not someone you want advocating for you or your cause, if you're a climber.

Why is that?

M M wrote:

Why is that?

1) He's a smug asshole

2) He is the man behind the reservation system in the scenic loop

3)He is the man who is behind the proposed gating of Calico Basin.

He forgets that he works for us, not the other way around. He was very upset with the freedom of information inquiry that sparked the public comment period and review for calico basin-he would've much rather unilaterally foisted it upon us, just like the Loop road reservation system. He is power hungry and does not like to be questioned.

It is a clear conflict of interest to have him in a position of influence in a local advocacy organization AND a position of power with a government body like the BLM. Kinda how being a board member of Pfizer and an high ranking employee of Reuters is a conflict of interest. 

Oh yeah, and he hates climbers.

b k wrote:

1) He's a smug asshole

2) He is the man behind the reservation system in the scenic loop

3)He is the man who is behind the proposed gating of Calico Basin.

He forgets that he works for us, not the other way around. He was very upset with the freedom of information inquiry that sparked the public comment period and review for calico basin-he would've much rather unilateral foisted it upon us, just like the Loop road reservation system. He is power hungry and does not like to be questioned.

It is a clear conflict of interest to have him in a position of influence on a local advocacy organization AND a position of power with a government body like the BLM. Kinda how being a board member of Pfizer and an high ranking employee of Reuters is a conflict of interest. 

Oh yeah, and he hates climbers.

Well, you're off to great start making diplomatic inroads.

b k wrote:

Are you contributing here other than being a cheerleader? Fuck off.

I'm simply saying that slandering (true or not) a power that be on a public website is not productive for the cause.

RR has alot of pressure from all sides of the debate, take the time to make relationships even if it's with people you don't like. 

Tradiban wrote:

I'm simply saying that slandering (true or not) a power that be on a public website is not productive for the cause.

RR has alot of pressure from all sides of the debate, take the time to make relationships even if it's with people you don't like. 

That has been attempted with this individual. He is not receptive. The time for diplomacy has come and gone. We've had enough of this bullshit. And FYI I think you mean libel. And by saying that, you're implying what Im saying is NOT true. It is.

So I can assume its safe to say that Save Red Rock and the Access Fund are not working together on this. Thanks for the reply, I hate to see someone's name get slammed without an explanation. I know the type. 

So the access changes, the hoardes of touron pebble wrestlers get shut out and the locals figure out other ways of access. Is this a wrong way to look at it?

b k wrote:

That has been attempted with this individual. He is not receptive. The time for diplomacy has come and gone. We've had enough of this bullshit. And FYI I think you mean libel. And by saying that, you're implying what Im saying is NOT true. It is.

So what are you going to do? TP his house? Tie his shoelaces together? Maybe there's a reason people hate climbers in Las Vegas??

This us vs them stuff doesn't work and only makes it worse.