Further climbing bans at Dyurrite/Mt Arapiles. "Punks In The Gym" to be chopped, "The Pines" campground closed.

Summary from ACA NSW

Summary from Save Grampians Climbing

This is the big one. The existential one. All the other stuff you heard about with bans in Australian climbing, was leading up to this. Of course they dropped it the night before the Melbourne cup and the night before the US election.

I've previously defended the process, donated to Gariwerd Wimmera Reconciliation Network, and encouraged international climbers that there's still great climbing to be done on a visit to Dyurrite/Mt Arapiles. Not anymore.

A lot of the 5 stages of grief still to process, but I'll say this. Don't compromise on access. Fight for every route and every installation. I know a lot of Americans have complicated feelings about the federal Wilderness areas and bolting ethics and all that. Know that the slippery slope is real. Authorities will use well-meaning and sympathetic climbers to split the community and pick and choose who they listen to. And they will boil you slowly.

Edit: further quick political note - in Australia this is currently a State issue not a Federal one. This does not impact other climbing areas eg the Blue Mountains, Moonarie, Tasmania, except as far as other State governments following each other's examples in legislation.

This is absolutely horrible, but not at all surprising, news. Between much of the Grampians and now Arapiles, some of the world's most iconic and important climbing areas will now be off-limits.
US and Canadian climbers shouldn't be at all complacent that such significant closures won't be occurring here. We are already seeing the first steps---Cave Rock and Massacre Rocks are two obvious examples--these won't be the last---it is far from impossible that we will someday see climbing closures in Yosemite similar to those now occurring in Australia.

No!!

The best crag on the planet. No exaggeration. 

This is coming to America.  

Every crag in North America is on land that is "sacred" to somebody.  It's just a matter of time until we start losing access.  

This is why I stopped supporting the Access Fund.

When the organization that is supposed to be promoting climber access starts advocating for climbing closures on public lands because of the "sensitivities" of ethnic groups, they no longer are advocates for climbing access.  

I only wish that there were an Access Fund alternative that does not compromise on access issues.  

Sam Mwrote:

Summary from ACA NSW

Summary from Save Grampians Climbing

This is the big one. The existential one. All the other stuff you heard about with bans in Australian climbing, was leading up to this. Of course they dropped it the night before the Melbourne cup and the night before the US election.

I've previously defended the process, donated to Gariwerd Wimmera Reconciliation Network, and encouraged international climbers that there's still great climbing to be done on a visit to Dyurrite/Mt Arapiles. Not anymore.

A lot of the 5 stages of grief still to process, but I'll say this. Don't compromise on access. Fight for every route and every installation. I know a lot of Americans have complicated feelings about the federal Wilderness areas and bolting ethics and all that. Know that the slippery slope is real. Authorities will use well-meaning and sympathetic climbers to split the community and pick and choose who they listen to. And they will boil you slowly.

Edit: further quick political note - in Australia this is currently a State issue not a Federal one. This does not impact other climbing areas eg the Blue Mountains, Moonarie, Tasmania, except as far as other State governments following each other's examples in legislation.

Just climb there anyway. 

Kai Larsonwrote:

I only wish that there were an Access Fund alternative that does not compromise on access issues.  

Unfortunately, that might make your problems worse. In Australia, the schisms went full "People's Front Of Judea".

I'm gunna number these climbing organisations because you're going to need to keep them straight.

In Victoria Australia, they started with the Australian Climbing Association Victoria (#1) which was supposed to be the political representative body and inspired by the USA Access Fund, and the Victorian Climbing Club, which although a social club, had traditionally taken on some political roles, meetings with Parks staff, organised workings bees and stuff. They pulled out of the political stuff after a bunch of infighting so they don't get a number.

The ACAV (#1) underwent a schism between hardliners and compromisers. The Gariwerd Wimmera Reconciliation Network (#2) was formed from locals who wanted to get in close with other political bodies by being open to more prohibitions for environmental archeological and cultural reasons. The GWRN (#2) had representatives on the ground while government and tribal surveyors were doing assements, and showed them all the climbs an stuff. And some of the GWRN people are really serious and notable climbers and local residents, don't get the idea they were inner city gumbies.

Then the government pulled an impressive move and said, "Hey! Now it's unclear which organisation truly represents climbers, and none of the existing ones include commercial guiding organisations or sporting bodies (the IFSC subsidiary and comp side). You guys need to form a peak representative body that includes all the existing ones, and we'll only consult with them!"

So after a bunch of wrangling and years of banging heads and herding cats was formed Climbing Victoria (CV #3) which was supposed to be an umbrella organisation and include the access organisations, VCC, competition climbers, guiding organisations, outdoor education and school groups etc, even the LGBTQ+ climber's club, the bloody lot.

And then they blatantly ignored Climbing Victoria #3 anyway and used the confidential GWRN #2 report to inform the bans. At this point the original hardline organisation ACAV #1 had gone a little bit cooker/conspiracy theory and is posting boomer rants on Facebook.

So this brings us to today where our multiple access fund organisations have to respond to the new bans.

1. ACAV is openly saying "Climb in the banned areas all day everyday, take the plates off your car and get a fake ID"
2. GWRN is dead quiet. I imagine they'll come out and say their work was really a success! Because the alternative was the complete closure of the park.
3. Climbing Victoria has given a bland professional press statement about how they are very disappointed to not be consulted and the new management plan is very disappointing.
   
   

Jonah Swrote:

Just climb there anyway. 

I'm not on the ground, but from what I hear, that's started already.

It's going to be real icy out there. Parks rangers don't have guns here. And I don't reckon the local town police are especially on their side - I've been pulled over for a traffic stop in Natimuk, they see a lot of interstate licenses, they're well aware interstate and international climbing tourism sustains the town.

Hi, where is the information that says The Pines campground will be closed? I can't find that.  It IS positive that 80 areas will remain open for climbing, either from now or when ground actions are completed.  

Oh man this is so disheartening! I have been climbing for 26 years and have wanted to visit Australia specifically to climb at Araps and the Gramps. It looks like I blew it and missed my chance. I’ve met some great Aussies on climbing trips around the world and they all spoke fondly of the friendly atmosphere and camping scene at Araps. RIP

Sam Mwrote:

Summary from ACA NSW

Summary from Save Grampians Climbing

This is the big one. The existential one. All the other stuff you heard about with bans in Australian climbing, was leading up to this. Of course they dropped it the night before the Melbourne cup and the night before the US election.

I've previously defended the process, donated to Gariwerd Wimmera Reconciliation Network, and encouraged international climbers that there's still great climbing to be done on a visit to Dyurrite/Mt Arapiles. Not anymore.

A lot of the 5 stages of grief still to process, but I'll say this. Don't compromise on access. Fight for every route and every installation. I know a lot of Americans have complicated feelings about the federal Wilderness areas and bolting ethics and all that. Know that the slippery slope is real. Authorities will use well-meaning and sympathetic climbers to split the community and pick and choose who they listen to. And they will boil you slowly.

Edit: further quick political note - in Australia this is currently a State issue not a Federal one. This does not impact other climbing areas eg the Blue Mountains, Moonarie, Tasmania, except as far as other State governments following each other's examples in legislation.

Very sorry to hear this. Bad faith actors that betray large scale trust should be torn down.

Ben B wrote:

I've been saying this for YEARS regarding the slippery slope of timed entry reservations, climbing permits, and the proliferation of rec.gov in the USA. The access fund has done nothing about it because there's a democrat in the white house. They simply do not seem to care anymore 

The rise in public rec during COVID didn’t help. Larger government leads to more regulation. What is tricky is the issue of necessary regulation for environmental reasons vs over-regulation for additional reasons, whatever they may be. Parts of Canada have had access issues for years, and the current stuff in JTree is hopefully not a harbinger of things to come. 

I too am dismayed at the threats to access. But regarding the criticism of the Access Fund, my sense is that they aren't taking as hard a line as they could because they realize, correctly, that climbing access is a very nuanced issue. As much as I love climbing, climbing access is not a civil right in the same way that, say, voting is, or health care should be. It's a hobby, not a necessary component of civil society. Pushing too hard on access - and outright flouting of climbing bans as some sort of civil disobedience - as suggested in some of the above posts will just serve to make climbers seem entitled. 

Surely we can agree that there are legitimate limits to access. I can't speak in an informed way to the Australian case but my impression is that the bans were instituted to protect indigenous heritage, which seems like a legitimate reason. Here in our country we consider private property to be sacred, and few people advocate for ignoring the strictures of private property, which is a concept that many traditional cultures would find baffling and is no more "rational" an approach to the land than seeing it as inhabited by gods and spirits. Whether or not the indigenous communities in Australia feel strongly about climbing or whether this is just an excuse for more government control I don't know. 

Similarly with environmental protection, I think most of us agree that part of the government's job is to protect natural resources, and that climbing impacts those resources. What bothers me - and I imagine many others - about the proposed wilderness anchor ban is that it appears to be more concerned with the letter of the law (no trace of human activity in wilderness areas) rather than the spirit (very few people other than climbers notice or care about that impact). Not to mention that the impact of fixed anchors in wilderness areas is laughably negligible when compared to other human impacts (entire glaciers disappearing, forests burning down). 

Carl Schneiderwrote:

Hi, where is the information that says The Pines campground will be closed? I can't find that.  It IS positive that 80 areas will remain open for climbing, either from now or when ground actions are completed.  

From this page scroll to the very bottom for a link to the pdf download for "Dyurrite Management Plan Amendment". In section 8.4 "Visitor Facilities" on page 30 under "Camping", noting that "Centenary Park" is the official name for the Pines.

"A new camping area with basic facilities will be developed on the 2.5 ha area of cleared land previously held under grazing licence located in the north-east corner of the Unit adjacent to Centenary Park following revegetation of the area. Centenary Park camping area will be phased out as the replacement camping area is developed."

While looking, also check page under section 8.1.1 "Rock Climbing Activities" on page 28: "Fixed protection points will be removed from areas where climbing is not allowed". This is understood to mean that bolts will be chopped (as happened in the Grampians/Gariwerd) and "Punks In The Gym" will now be in an area where climbing is not allowed. Hence the thread title.

Access Fund has repeatedly demonstrated they are not interested in protecting climbing access. If it was up to them Devil's Tower would be closed. 

grug gwrote:

Access Fund has repeatedly demonstrated they are not interested in protecting climbing access. If it was up to them Devil's Tower would be closed. 

Given the (overly) detailed account of infighting and splitting among Australian climbing organisations I detailed above.

I would strongly encourage American climbers to try and change the Access Fund's stance from within, rather than rallying to a rival organisation. I know that sounds a lot more frustrating, if not impossible.

grug gwrote:

Access Fund has repeatedly demonstrated they are not interested in protecting climbing access. If it was up to them Devil's Tower would be closed. 

Since 1990, Access Fund has assisted with 93 acquisitions  through the Access Fund Climbing Preservation Grant Program and the  Access Fund Climbing Conservation Loan Program, helping to preserve more than  19,106 acres of land for climbing. 

https://www.accessfund.org/capabilities/acquisition-history

https://www.accessfund.org/impact-map

Regardless of your perspective on the nuances of one particular climbing area that is also culturally sensitive, the Access Fund has demonstrated a long history of advocacy and action with regard to climbing areas across the country.  It's silly to suggest that they "are not interested in protecting climbing areas" based on your politically-motivated disagreement about their stance on one climbing area.

Hopefully this will send a needed message to the Access Fund to toughen their stance. Completely caving on the Massacre Rocks was pathetic. At least go down fighting instead celebrating your wokeness. It is also important to learn from the mistakes of our friends down under and to not get wrapped up in internal infighting like we did in years passed - sport vs trad. Literally every piece of public land in America could be considered to have some cultural or archaeological significance if the extreme position found in Australia were taken here. 

cubist Awrote:

I too am dismayed at the threats to access. But regarding the criticism of the Access Fund, my sense is that they aren't taking as hard a line as they could because they realize, correctly, that climbing access is a very nuanced issue. As much as I love climbing, climbing access is not a civil right in the same way that, say, voting is, or health care should be. It's a hobby, not a necessary component of civil society. Pushing too hard on access - and outright flouting of climbing bans as some sort of civil disobedience - as suggested in some of the above posts will just serve to make climbers seem entitled. 

Surely we can agree that there are legitimate limits to access. I can't speak in an informed way to the Australian case but my impression is that the bans were instituted to protect indigenous heritage, which seems like a legitimate reason. Here in our country we consider private property to be sacred, and few people advocate for ignoring the strictures of private property, which is a concept that many traditional cultures would find baffling and is no more "rational" an approach to the land than seeing it as inhabited by gods and spirits. Whether or not the indigenous communities in Australia feel strongly about climbing or whether this is just an excuse for more government control I don't know. 

Similarly with environmental protection, I think most of us agree that part of the government's job is to protect natural resources, and that climbing impacts those resources. What bothers me - and I imagine many others - about the proposed wilderness anchor ban is that it appears to be more concerned with the letter of the law (no trace of human activity in wilderness areas) rather than the spirit (very few people other than climbers notice or care about that impact). Not to mention that the impact of fixed anchors in wilderness areas is laughably negligible when compared to other human impacts (entire glaciers disappearing, forests burning down). 

Good points, well said.

Unfortunately the place that mosts resembles Victoria is British Columbia, where the re-elected hard-left NDP are eager to pass veto rights and management responsibility over all public land (95% of the land area) to indigenous claimants (less than 5% of the population). Climbing areas like Squamish are potentially very vulnerable to closures. But most local climbers are more interested in whining about inappropriate route names and accessibility to minority groups (the latter in reality a non-issue) rather than awkward issues like this which challenge their woke beliefs.

Kyle Tarrywrote:

Regardless of your perspective on the nuances of one particular climbing area that is also culturally sensitive, the Access Fund has demonstrated a long history of advocacy and action with regard to climbing areas across the country.  It's silly to suggest that they "are not interested in protecting climbing areas" based on your politically-motivated disagreement about their stance on one climbing area.

0 political motivation. The current Access Fund has good intentions but poor leadership and direction. 

With Love to Another

By Carl

I sat in The Pines on a lovely day,

An insignificant dot on time’s infinite way,

As I waited for friends to climb and to play,

To climb and to play in a respectful way.

I looked at the majesty,

And felt weak and small,

Everything was big,

Big, mighty and tall.

I worried about falling,

My spirt would wane,

I worried about falling,

Depressed; sad I became.

But I looked at the sky,

And I spoke to my god,

And I looked at the majesty,

Of beautiful rock.

And I said,

You don’t need to be bold,

You’re old, you’re not young,

If you connect you’ll find wisdom,

And the answers be told.

So I went for a walk,

I stepped barefoot on land,

Told the birds that I loved them,

I was nature boy,

I was grand.

And back at camp I looked again at the sky,

And the grass and the trees for a very long while,

and they said connect,

If you connect you’ll be high.

And I saw a flat stone,

It spoke in my hand,

It said connect and you’ll be free,

Connect and you’ll feel grand.

And I took up another stone to scribe,

The lesson I’d been given,

On that flat stone I’d found,

I felt very more than alive.

And I wrote ‘connect’,

And it came out like written in ink,

With a double fine line,

As if written in ink.

Later at the washpoint,

While washing my dishes,

I left my ‘connect’ message stone for another,

With love from me,

With love to another.