Wilderness Study Area (WSA) Climbing Rules?

J Ewrote:

 . . . boats and ATVs and roads and buildings and horse camps . . . This is how the land managers have been interpreting the wilderness act for decades . . . supremely hypocritical position . . . 

. . . Misleading . . . False . . . Absurdly hyperbolic . . . 

No point in shadow boxing with an anonymous shill. I have a better idea. Starting now, for each fresh deposit of disinformation that J E drops on these forums, I will contribute ten more dollars to the Armando Menocal Climbing Advocacy Fund, up to a total additional contribution of $250. Please join me if you can.

30 bucks for that last post. Keep 'em coming, J E.

Andy Wiesnerwrote:

. . . Misleading . . . False . . . Absurdly hyperbolic . . . 

No point in shadow boxing with an anonymous shill. I have a better idea. Starting now, for each fresh deposit of disinformation that J E drops on these forums, I will contribute ten more dollars to the Armando Menocal Climbing Advocacy Fund, up to a total additional contribution of $250. Please join me if you can.

30 bucks for that last post. Keep 'em coming, J E.

Excellent!

Works for me, climbing advocacy is great. Just because I think the Access fund took a stupid position in the case of this wilderness POLICY doesn't mean I think climbers shouldn't have an advocacy organization. 

We should probably apologize to the original poster for derailing his thread. 

Maybe at some point climbers will start actually paying money to support wild places, the way hunters/shooters and fisherpeople do. (Licenses and taxes via the Pittman Robertson Act and the Dingle Johnson act, if you're unfamiliar, similar taxes on outdoor gear are fought tooth and nail by gear companies).  

1. J Ewrote:

...Just because I think the Access fund took a stupid position in the case of this wilderness POLICY...

Then this

Maybe at some point climbers will start actually paying money to support wild places, the way hunters/shooters and fisherpeople do. (Licenses and taxes via the Pittman Robertson Act and the Dingle Johnson act, if you're unfamiliar, similar taxes on outdoor gear are fought tooth and nail by gear companies).  

Does this mean climbers can actually take a bit of the wilderness resource home with them? 

Or perhaps, with each license you can drill five bolts. And, if you don't place any, you can sell your right to first ascensionists who need them... 

Just think, we can let the free market open exchange were bolt placement credits can be bought and sold, just like Carbon Emissions. 

I'm a little confused though about a tax on climbing equipment. Would there be restrictions to specified climbing seasons when a Cam could be placed? 

Alternatively, a climbing license might have a "bag limit," where you can only take home 150 grams of rock per day. Or would that fall under the Mining Act of 1872?

Hikers shouldn't be left out of the fun. Take only pictures and leave only footprints might need to be revised however.

Thank you for the laughs. Oops, forgot it is April Fools Day. My bad.

J Ewrote:

Maybe at some point climbers will start actually paying money to support wild places, the way hunters/shooters and fisherpeople do. (Licenses and taxes via the Pittman Robertson Act and the Dingle Johnson act, if you're unfamiliar, similar taxes on outdoor gear are fought tooth and nail by gear companies).  

This method of funding game and fish has turned out to be very exclusionary for non hunters/fishers to have any say on how public wildlife is managed.  Hunters and fishers fight tooth and nail to prevent other groups to pay into those taxes and have a say on policy.  Also these taxes don't pay for nearly as much of wildlife management as you might imagine.

Because of these taxes emphasis on hunters and fishers interests the management of wildlife is all about the harvest not the health of the ecosystem. 

  Basically a completely messed up system.

Randywrote:

Then this

Does this mean climbers can actually take a bit of the wilderness resource home with them? 

Or perhaps, with each license you can drill five bolts. And, if you don't place any, you can sell your right to first ascensionists who need them... 

Just think, we can let the free market open exchange were bolt placement credits can be bought and sold, just like Carbon Emissions. 

I'm a little confused though about a tax on climbing equipment. Would there be restrictions to specified climbing seasons when a Cam could be placed? 

Alternatively, a climbing license might have a "bag limit," where you can only take home 150 grams of rock per day. Or would that fall under the Mining Act of 1872?

Hikers shouldn't be left out of the fun. Take only pictures and leave only footprints might need to be revised however.

Thank you for the laughs. Oops, forgot it is April Fools Day. My bad.

Nah, you just tax climbing ropes, cams, or whatever outdoor gear and put it into funds to fix trailheads, parking lots, campgrounds, etc that get hammered by climbers. It's not complicated. It already happens to hunting and fishing gear. 

climber patwrote:

This method of funding game and fish has turned out to be very exclusionary for non hunters/fishers to have any say on how public wildlife is managed.  Hunters and fishers fight tooth and nail to prevent other groups to pay into those taxes and have a say on policy.  Also these taxes don't pay for nearly as much of wildlife management as you might imagine.

Because of these taxes emphasis on hunters and fishers interests the management of wildlife is all about the harvest not the health of the ecosystem. 

  Basically a completely messed up system.

No other groups pay into those taxes, besides non-hunting shooters. 

As someone who has enjoyed the benefits of many excise tax funded projects, i'd argue that they pay for a lot.

I think you may have bias views towards hunters, which is pretty common for a lot of people, and is a bummer. 

Again, lots of bias against other user groups on public lands. 

J Ewrote:

No other groups pay into those taxes, besides non-hunting shooters. 

As someone who has enjoyed the benefits of many excise tax funded projects, i'd argue that they pay for a lot.

I think you may have bias views towards hunters, which is pretty common for a lot of people, and is a bummer. 

Again, lots of bias against other user groups on public lands. 

Other groups have been lobbying for general public land users to pay into these taxes so they can have a say how wildlife is managed but the hunting/fishing lobbies along with game and fish departments are fighting allowing more voices.    Groups that have an interested include general environmentalist, photographers, birders, hikers who would like to see more and more diverse wildlife.   How wildlife is managed effect lots of other things than just what and how much game is available for the hunters; others should have a voice in how it is managed.

climber patwrote:

Other groups have been lobbying for general public land users to pay into these taxes so they can have a say how wildlife is managed but the hunting/fishing lobbies along with game and fish departments are fighting allowing more voices.    Groups that have an interested include general environmentalist, photographers, birders, hikers who would like to see more and more diverse wildlife.   How wildlife is managed effect lots of other things than just what and how much game is available for the hunters; others should have a voice in how it is managed.

We're completely off the rails now, but I've never heard of any group wanting to pay into new excise taxes, they just want to spend hunter/fisher money in ways they see fit. 

The idea that hunters are only interested in maximum game numbers and not ecosystem health is just not true. Generally people who believe that assume, with no background, that maximum predator numbers are a healthy and natural ecosystem, while ignoring how much people have effected ecosystems. Most scientists in the field of wildlife management agree that predators must be managed by either hunting or state funded killing, which is why California pays a ton of money to kill mountain lions every year after they banned hunting them.