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

M M wrote:

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?

Save Red Rock does not advocate for climbers at all.  They were founded as a bicycling organization, which is totally fine, its just not specifically for "us."

The management of the local BLM office is a big problem for climbers and hikers here in Las Vegas. There has been a continuing downward spiral with access problems as the reservation system was instituted without public comment and now, toll booths proliferate. 

However, I am increasingly concerned with the lack of support or interest in addressing these issues by the local climbing organization. The Access Fund uses Red Rock solely as a revenue generator, with its fundraisers and festivals, and they return nothing in terms of advocacy. Their local affiliate, the SNCC, is not responding in any credible way to our loss of access in Red Rock. I have serious questions about Leici's post above regarding Save Red Rock's proposal to put a gate on either side of Nevada State Highway 159.

Leici is on the board of Southern Nevada Climber’s Coalition. She was the president last year and is the vice president this year. Everything she wrote in her post was wrong, from start to finish. I don’t know what her motive was for writing out this false information here on the Mountain Project. Her incorrect narrative has also made it into posts by the SNCC on Facebook and Instagram. She may have just been mistaken, which is okay, we all mess up once in a while, but a supposed failure to do the research still casts doubt on the caliber of who is running the show over there at the SNCC.

Another possibility is that she is intentionally spreading misinformation as an apologist for Save Red Rock’s malignant, surreal proposal to build gates on Highway 159, using deception to cover up the truth. If that is correct, the next time SNCC members are given a chance to select their leaders, they should select someone that will actually fight to protect climber’s access rather than someone that merely polishes the turds of those that will diminish our access and lock us off our land.

It’s time to shine a light on what these people really want to do rather than sweep it under the rug with cheap diversionary tactics.

Also, it’s obvious the SNCC is following this thread because they used excerpts yesterday to churn out content for social media. Yet they allow their Vice President’s false assertions to remain in this thread for 2 days without correction. The SNCC needs to be held to account; they need to actively correct the falsehoods propagated by their board member.

Every sentence below by the SNCC Vice President  is FALSE. I have done a complete take-down of these false statements above. There has yet to be any correction or retraction. 

Leici wrote: 

The Red Rock Scenic Byway is NOT the same thing as 159...According to Save Red Rock, they want entrance gates for RRNCA and the scenic loop at both spots...I imagine they're advocating for two gates to help with the congestion, as they mention above....There's no proposal, no actual plan, and NVDOT is just looking for comments...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...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. 

Sometimes the folks holding positions on boards are new to the community and are just going with the flow after they were suckered into their volunteer position cause nobody else wanted to do it. Maybe this thread will be educational to them?

It's time you started your own grass roots organization, John. You can see that Access Fund is really only interested in fending for itself. 

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Of course Isaiah's post is a troll, making fun of Alex Honnald and the gated community lifestyle he has obtained for himself in Calico Basin, with a tax-payer funded toll-booth that will serve to keep us low-lifes out, while people on his guest list just waltz right on in.

I took to the road this evening to put together an accurate picture of Save Red Rock's proposal to place toll gates on Nevada State Highway 159, blocking free access to key portions of Red Rock.

To quote Save Red Rock's recent email: "Park Entrance Stations on both ends of 159... If park entrance stations bookended the Red Rock Scenic Byway..."

Followed by SNCC Vice President, Leici, as she lied or misspoke (she has not cleared this up): "The Red Rock Scenic Byway is NOT the same thing as 159."

Well, according to the Nevada Department of Transportation, Leici is wrong. The Red Rock Scenic Byway is an 8.8 mile section of Highway 159 and it is signposted clearly on the ground. I simply drove out there and documented the signs, which are plainly visible and are accurately placed 8.8 road miles apart.

The Highway 159 Red Rock Scenic Byway begins on the north side or the Summerlin side, literally right at the location of the big sandstone Red Rock sign, next to the shooting range, where the tourists like to take their selfies.

Zoomed in view below of the location of the Highway 159 Red Rock Scenic Byway sign. This is at the same location as the large sandstone Red Rock sign, also visible in the photo.

A photo below of the Scenic Byway sign at the north end, next to the sandstone sign. Located at 36.14881, -115.37503 

Meanwhile, the south side boundary of the Highway 159 Red Rock Scenic Byway is about 2200 feet south of the Bonnie Springs turn-off, just north of the Oliver Ranch turn-off, depicted below.

A photo below of the Red Rock Highway 159 Scenic Byway sign on the south end. Located at: 36.06168, -115.42982 

So one can assume these locations are where these toll booths would be constructed if Save Red Rock gets their way. Personally, I suspect the residents of Blue Diamond will try to get themselves included within the gated section of the highway somehow, but the gypsum mine owners would likely argue against that.

An overall view of the 8.8 mile length of the Red Rock Scenic Byway, that Save Red Rock wants to have gated-off with a toll booth:

It is nice to actually have some actual facts about this issue and it wasn't hard for me to find this stuff out. It's funny to me, to think that Leici has probably driven by these scenic route signs at least a hundred times yet she could make such a mistake or think she could just distort the truth, I don't know what her game is.

If you think it's unlikely that these people will get away with such an "absurd" plan as Leici calls it, I remember it wasn't too long ago that operating hours signs appeared at First Creek and South Oak Creek trailheads along Highway 159. We may have to get used to this, thanks to zero support from our advocacy groups. Imagine cruxing out at First Creek or on Horseshoe Wall, all the time worrying about being back to your car by 5pm or else face a large fine.

Here's a photo below from September, 2020, of one of the BLM signs along Highway 159, this one was posted at South Oak Creek. Since these areas are outside the Loop Road, no provision was made for any sort of late exit permit. The fines for violating these closing times are steep.

I have reached out to the board of the SNCC. They are aware that I have pointed out how their Vice President, Leici, is distributing false information about a crucial access issue. No attempts have been made to respond to me, nor to correct Leici's disinformation. The comment period with the Nevada Department of Transportation ends tomorrow, April 27. You can let the state of Nevada know what you think about closing off this state highway at this website:

https://www.ndotsr160.com/

Tim suggested I start my own climbers coalition. I'm not quite ready to do that. But I do note that at least one person resigned from the board of the SNCC yesterday so apparently there is an opening. I'm not interested in joining this group based on all have seen, but I don't even think I can apply though because I think you need to pay $60 a year to the Access Fund to be a member of the SNCC and I guarantee that they will never get another penny from me.

Tradiban wrote:

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.

I could be wrong but is my understanding that FOI inquiry was initiated by the Access Fund and the SNCC... and the reservation system was a side-swipe for everyone - no communication at all, which violated pubic requirements. Keep in mind many "legal" conversations happen in the background that no one ever sees or hears about unless they go to court. The Access Fund has a team of experienced lawyers that provide guidance to local climbing organizations, like the SNCC, who do not have the financial resources or legal knowledge to step into these types of legal scenarios. (FYI, the SNCC does contribute to our community by purchasing and distributing thousands of wag bags per year across RR , doing bolt/anchor replacements - over 500 in the past 2 years in RR, Charleston, and another local areas, and trail/graffiti clean-up... They meet regularly with the BLM to advocate for climbing issues - and some things never get seen and near-misses never get counted... or it can takes years for certain results to be seen...)

I can't believe I haven't noticed those parking signs though, I think I just ignore those things - haha! That is definitely an issue that should be passed along to the SNCC to raise to the BLM (if they haven't done so already - IDK.) But I think the best way to help our climbing community is to raise issues and concerns to SNCC members. SNCC may or may not be able to have influence over certain issues, but I don't think that negates all of the positive things they have done and do. BTW, I think you can join directly without also being a member of the Access Fund.

But back to this issue, the NV DOT are seeking input into creative solutions and ideas right now (and I think that comment period ends on April 27). How about putting forth some ideas we can get behind? I think a lot of us climbers would actually like to have a 2-way loop with booths at each end (not toll booths on HWY 159). There are lots of ways that would improve safety... I have no idea if the NV DOT even has any say about the loop, but why not provide comments to the NV DOT arguing for this and other productive ideas - like maybe putting in some traffic lights at specific points along the HWY? Then add in your opinion about toll booths on HWY 159...

Here is the link to comment:

https://www.ndotsr160.com/copy-of-project-schedule 

With regards to what NVDOT and BLM are trying to "fix" with crowding or whatever, sometimes the solution is to do nothing.  There is no true thing as a solution, only trade-offs.  One could argue that many of the problems currently experienced in Calico and Red Rocks proper are actually the BLM's fault, so them "fixing" their own caused problems with a new "solution" is circular logic at best.

As much as we may despise crowding, crowding isn't illegal.  (Graffiti, vandalism, and illegal parking are.)  Having people walk on public land behind your property line isn't illegal.  Unsafe is not necessarily illegal.  But it appears as if the BLM is more interested in making more people criminals rather than fix the existing illegal behavior already.

Maybe the "solution" or trade-off is: do nothing and accept the crowding.  Eventually people like me will go someplace else on their own simply due to that.  Not every problem needs a government "solution".

Charlie S wrote:

With regards to what NVDOT and BLM are trying to "fix" with crowding or whatever, sometimes the solution is to do nothing.  There is no true thing as a solution, only trade-offs.  One could argue that many of the problems currently experienced in Calico and Red Rocks proper are actually the BLM's fault, so them "fixing" their own caused problems with a new "solution" is circular logic at best.

As much as we may despise crowding, crowding isn't illegal.  (Graffiti, vandalism, and illegal parking are.)  Having people walk on public land behind your property line isn't illegal.  Unsafe is not necessarily illegal.  But it appears as if the BLM is more interested in making more people criminals rather than fix the existing illegal behavior already.

Maybe the "solution" or trade-off is: do nothing and accept the crowding.  Eventually people like me will go someplace else on their own simply due to that.  Not every problem needs a government "solution".

Agreed, many times nothing is better than something... that can be said too... but when there are other voices pushing for things that essentially "privatize" public access, that needs to be countered and, better yet, countered with alternative suggestions to "aid their thinking." "Aiding their thinking" is public voice - especially if it actually gets implemented by the Govt. When government "solutions" only hear elites that is a problem - and in some cases approaches corruption. If we become negative and completely disengaged with the process, that is what some people count on... then only their voice is heard. But this is a generalized discussion - I think I saw earlier in this thread you did send a comment to NV DOT, so awesome. 

Was out in calico this past sunday, beautiful day, not crowded at all, and no rangers in sight, as usual. How often is red rock crowded, really? Do we need these extreme solutions for what, like 6 nonconsecutive weeks a year where it gets crowded? 

Maybe it's just me, but it has seemed way less crowded out there this year. 

Charlie S wrote:

sometimes the solution is to do nothing.  

That's hardly a solution when the problem is how to justify increasing the bureau's budget.

inshallah there is only one solution youtu.be/kqooIX4E0sM

Trad Man wrote:

That's hardly a solution when the problem is how to justify increasing the bureau's budget.

What percentage of the BLM budget comes from recreational fees versus say oil and gas exploration? Do you think the BLM is trying to bolster their budget with recreation fees after the oil and gas leases were put under a moratorium? 

Stefani wrote:

I could be wrong but is my understanding that FOI inquiry was initiated by the Access Fund and the SNCC... and the reservation system was a side-swipe for everyone - no communication at all, which violated pubic requirements. Keep in mind many "legal" conversations happen in the background that no one ever sees or hears about unless they go to court. The Access Fund has a team of experienced lawyers that provide guidance to local climbing organizations, like the SNCC, who do not have the financial resources or legal knowledge to step into these types of legal scenarios. (FYI, the SNCC does contribute to our community by purchasing and distributing thousands of wag bags per year across RR , doing bolt/anchor replacements - over 500 in the past 2 years in RR, Charleston, and another local areas, and trail/graffiti clean-up... They meet regularly with the BLM to advocate for climbing issues - and some things never get seen and near-misses never get counted... or it can takes years for certain results to be seen...)

I can't believe I haven't noticed those parking signs though, I think I just ignore those things - haha! That is definitely an issue that should be passed along to the SNCC to raise to the BLM (if they haven't done so already - IDK.) But I think the best way to help our climbing community is to raise issues and concerns to SNCC members. SNCC may or may not be able to have influence over certain issues, but I don't think that negates all of the positive things they have done and do. BTW, I think you can join directly without also being a member of the Access Fund.

But back to this issue, the NV DOT are seeking input into creative solutions and ideas right now (and I think that comment period ends on April 27). How about putting forth some ideas we can get behind? I think a lot of us climbers would actually like to have a 2-way loop with booths at each end (not toll booths on HWY 159). There are lots of ways that would improve safety... I have no idea if the NV DOT even has any say about the loop, but why not provide comments to the NV DOT arguing for this and other productive ideas - like maybe putting in some traffic lights at specific points along the HWY? Then add in your opinion about toll booths on HWY 159...

Here is the link to comment:

https://www.ndotsr160.com/copy-of-project-schedule 

Did you selectively quote John and put my name on it to infer that his antics in this thread are akin to my antics in general? 

Bravo!

1. I'd guess Leici assumed John misunderstood the tollbooth suggestion, because it's so ridiculous.  I'd also assume he had jumped to the wrong conclusion if he didn't source it so well.

2. She should probably say that. 

3. I don't think starting conversations at this moment about things like a 2 way loop is a good idea until these more pressing things get sorted. Then we can start dreaming about 10 year long plans like a 2 way loop. For now it seems like a distraction.

4. I think the best point John makes is that the SNCCs best avenue for preventing harm to access is pressure on the Access Fund. This should probably look like the Save Red Rock campaign. 

5. The SNCC is great. The amount of work done by very few people will never be understood by anyone but the person pawning it off on the next board member. If you think you're frustrated about access, the SNCC board has the same frustrations backed with more effort. 

6. The local BLM is run by people. Working with people is fucking hard. I avoid it as much as possible. I pity all involved. 

Hi all! I am the new SNCC President and I guess I'll join this conversation as well. I think we need to make two things clear. How I understand it is that NDOT is conducting a corridor study that spans not only the Red Rock area but Charleston all the way to The Strip and Blue Diamond and all the way to Parhump. 

Take time to view the entirety of the study here.

Also, this is only the first phase of the study focusing on the current road conditions of this corridor.

There will be more time to voice your opinion on the matter in the months to come. I highly suggest everyone plan to attend the second public meeting. I am sure will learn much more about what a wide variety of people want to see. This pertains to a much larger area than the RR area.

If you have suggestions on how to improve safety on these roads, I am sure NDOT would love to hear them. To the best of my knowledge, NDOT is not suggesting toll booths at this time. They are looking for public comments about roadway improvements.

As for the Save Red Rock email which I have not yet independently verified, it is not the SNCC's position to determine the stance a separate non-profit organization should take on any particular issue. If you are unhappy with the position SRR has taken, please reach out to them independently and address your concerns. I have already reached out to SRR for a copy of their email and I hope they are open to discussion on the issue.

Also, it is not the SNCC's position to tell individuals how to feel about any particular issue. We have a wide membership base that represents climbers with a wide variety of views. Please do your own due diligence and research the topic at hand. I hope we can all make informed and intelligent comments about how to improve safety on these roads.

And finally, one of the goals of this study is to determine how to cut down on the number of deaths that happen on these roadways. It's easy to make this all about ourselves and how we as climbers feel. We should also consider there are real hazards on these roads and real people dying because we have failing and unsafe infrastructure.

Please let's keep things civil. We are better working together on these issues than fighting and bad-mouthing each other on the internet. 

I have a hard time that Vegas of all places is all that concerned about road safety considering it's common in Vegas for drivers to full on plow into houses. If the issue is really road safety, nothing short of keeping locals off the roads and only allowing visitors will help.

I don't speed, I don't drive and TXT, I don't drink & drive, I pay attention to crazy locals with a sense of paranoia and impending doom, etc. Anything else?

Ah yes makes sense...this is all about safety. How can anyone argue against that? This is nothing about wealthy landowners trying to keep dirtbags away

Bryan Friesen wrote:

Hi all! I am the new SNCC President and I guess I'll join this conversation as well. I think we need to make two things clear. How I understand it is that NDOT is conducting a corridor study that spans not only the Red Rock area but Charleston all the way to The Strip and Blue Diamond and all the way to Parhump. 

Take time to view the entirety of the study here.

Also, this is only the first phase of the study focusing on the current road conditions of this corridor.

There will be more time to voice your opinion on the matter in the months to come. I highly suggest everyone plan to attend the second public meeting. I am sure will learn much more about what a wide variety of people want to see. This pertains to a much larger area than the RR area.

If you have suggestions on how to improve safety on these roads, I am sure NDOT would love to hear them. To the best of my knowledge, NDOT is not suggesting toll booths at this time. They are looking for public comments about roadway improvements.

As for the Save Red Rock email which I have not yet independently verified, it is not the SNCC's position to determine the stance a separate non-profit organization should take on any particular issue. If you are unhappy with the position SRR has taken, please reach out to them independently and address your concerns. I have already reached out to SRR for a copy of their email and I hope they are open to discussion on the issue.

Also, it is not the SNCC's position to tell individuals how to feel about any particular issue. We have a wide membership base that represents climbers with a wide variety of views. Please do your own due diligence and research the topic at hand. I hope we can all make informed and intelligent comments about how to improve safety on these roads.

And finally, one of the goals of this study is to determine how to cut down on the number of deaths that happen on these roadways. It's easy to make this all about ourselves and how we as climbers feel. We should also consider there are real hazards on these roads and real people dying because we have failing and unsafe infrastructure.

Please let's keep things civil. We are better working together on these issues than fighting and bad-mouthing each other on the internet. 

Brian, I am excited to see what new directions you take the SNCC. You have the opportunity to represent the entire climbing community. I have been discouraged about the way SNCC has operated over the past several years and you just might be the best person for the job to get things back on the right track.

The problem is that the SNCC Vice President came on to Mountain Project with many erroneous statements about the State DOT survey and Save Red Rock's survey submission. You claim that you have yet to "independently verify" the bulk email from SRR last week. Just go to their website, it's there for all to see. It's no mystery.

https://saveredrock.com/safety/ndot-corridor-study-for-red-rock-canyon-seeks-public-comment/

Where they refer to “Park Entrance Stations on both ends of 159” and “If park entrance stations bookended the Red Rock Scenic Byway…” it’s not difficult to determine what they are talking about. I could repeat all my research listed up-thread for you, it’s pretty clear, but I’m getting tired of trying to spell it out. This is a fact: Save Red Rock wants to gate Highway 159.

The SNCC Vice President, Leici Hendrix, says the information presented here on MP is far from accurate when it was she who had it all wrong. The SNCC has allowed its Vice President's false statements to stand here, uncorrected. The comment period with the Nevada DOT expires today and not only has Leici misled the community with her falsehoods here, but the SNCC has kept its membership in the dark by distracting them with irrelevant information in its posts on Instagram and Facebook.

Leici contends this NV DOT survey is the place to push for a second loop road entrance and a two-way loop road. She's wrong, those are BLM, ie. Federal, issues that have nothing to do with this survey. Then, on the SNCC social media accounts, her false narrative propagated. The key information, that Highway 159 may be closed-off, was omitted and your membership did not get information that would have helped them speak up and protect themselves from SRR’s proposal.

You said, Brian, that the SNCC does not tell individuals how to feel about any issue, but how does this correlate with the SNCC Vice President who has disseminated false statements here on MP, telling people “There's no reason to freak out about this.” Can you explain the statements of your board Vice President? Was she trying to divert people's attention? As a tax-exempt organization, SNCC is supposed to act in good faith and demonstrate accountability with the public. Will her errors be corrected?

This is not semantics or some obscure point. Many people feel strongly about not having our free access to a state highway taken away. I understand this is only a proposal by Save Red Rock. Of course you cannot tell SRR what to say or do. But will the SNCC actually ever take a position for themselves? Or will you rather just say "We have a wide membership base that represents climbers with a wide variety of views" and throw in the towel on any access issues?

With that said, I’m interested to see how you approach your new leadership position with the SNCC, Brian and I am certain your intentions are good. But if you are not transparent about the views of your organization and the common climber folk continue to send you money in what may be a fruitless attempt to fund those that would fight for our access, then that’s a problem.

If you could just simply say that the SNCC does not believe that gates and toll booths should be installed on Highway 159 or Calico Basin Road and that you will fight for that position, then I would stand back and wish you well. But it seems that for some reason you cannot say those words and I am beginning to sense that maybe the SNCC seeks to protect the interests of the wealthy elite and that maybe the SNCC will leave the rest of us empty-handed.

If the SNCC does not respond to your well thought out and conscientious post, it will speak volumes. I'm not holding my breath.