Are land manager issues overblown or reasonable?

T Taylorwrote:

It’s a trap!

Those of you who are retired, you could be volunteering and sharing your wisdom with real people in person, instead of arguing with an insincere stranger online. All you're getting is the extremely diluted and ephemeral dopamine hit of expressing your opinions and "being heard." Seriously, you older climbers have so much value and wisdom, it hurts to see you wasting it on this guy (and others like him) Save your time and energy for the people who contribute more than divisive and manipulative "hot takes."

I agree with some of that, but discourse is more than just being heard.  It’s an exploration and exposure to ideas.  

Hard Truth is a pretty soft troll.  This thread makes me wonder if they are in land management themselves.  They are attempting to reframe land manager as largely powerless.  I can sympathize with that because my father was a park superintendent and his hands were often tied by procedure, law and budget.  

But “land manager” Is a pretty broad description and I think there are many people with major influence under that title.  

For example, the Ralston Buttes is a natural area in Jefferson County (CO) with a long history of climbing.  This area is closed to any recreation and is held by Jeffco as a wildlife habitat area.  At some levels, the desire to preserve habitat may be genuine.  But multiple Jefferson County Commissioners have lived or do live in the affluent and exclusive neighborhood directly adjacent to the Ralston Buttes. The County Commission has repeatedly refused to consider any public access to this area, despite repeated requests from organizations and citizens.

Taylor, Bryan, and Daniel your posts are not rebuttals, so I choose not to respond.

Here’s a rebuttal to my earlier point: Yes, a reasonable framework is subjective. Ideally, it should be based first on communication with the land manager, then on the management plan, and finally on what the community accepts. Only as a last resort should it rely solely on personal experience.

Moving on.

Caleb, I’m not a land manager, but you’re addressing an implied tertiary point I was making. If you are a land manager and someone installs a via ferrata, you could try to fine them and deal with the situation. But what happens if 10 people install via ferratas? Or 100? Or 1,000? At some point, your ability to control the situation becomes limited. And if the public overwhelmingly supports the via ferratas, you essentially become a servant to the users of the land.

I can’t think of a management plan that explicitly supports bolting. I would think the liability of being pro route development or pro bolt would be a liability concern at the very least. Historically, bolting has been a prohibited activity that land managers have largely ignored or tolerated. If you disagree, I’d be interested in seeing multiple examples of management plans that are explicitly pro-bolt.

Don't know how you define "explicitly supports bolting" ( often a problem with your posts). If you mean a plan that gives 'carte blanch' to unlimited bolting, then you would be correct that it is unlikely that there is any such management plan for public lands. However, there are many such plans across the country that do acknowledge and allow bolting, at least to a limited extent ( either/both replacement and for new routes), almost always through some form of permit system. I am traveling so not able to provide you with any list, but just off the top of my head I can mention Rumney and Eldorado Canyon as 2 examples of such plans---there are MANY others.

Alan Rubinwrote:

Don't know how you define "explicitly supports bolting" ( often a problem with your posts). If you mean a plan that gives 'carte blanch' to unlimited bolting, then you would be correct that it is unlikely that there is any such management plan for public lands. However, there are many such plans across the country that do acknowledge and allow bolting, at least to a limited extent ( either/both replacement and for new routes), almost always through some form of permit system. I am traveling so not able to provide you with any list, but just off the top of my head I can mention Rumney and Eldorado Canyon as 2 examples of such plans---there are MANY others.

If I were to draw a comparison to the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate, I’d label someone who advocates for developing new climbs—specifically through bolting—as pro-bolt.

• Pro-bolt (explicitly supports bolting): This stance either allows unrestricted bolting or operates without formal guidelines, often resulting in significant development.
• Anti-bolt: This position supports a complete ban on bolts.
• Bolting with a permit: This falls somewhere in between. If most permit applications are approved, it leans toward pro-bolt. If permits are rarely or never issued, it effectively functions as anti-bolt.

Given that Rumney is your example, looking at the “What’s New” section, it appears that four new climbs have been bolted in the last two years. Most people wouldn’t consider four new sport climbs over two years to reflect a crag that’s actively pro-development. However, considering the passing of the RCA president (a well-respected figure), the limited remaining real estate at Rumney, and the development of nearby—but not within—Rumney crags, I’d categorize it as somewhere in between.

Ultimately, the existence of a permitting process alone doesn’t define a crag as pro- or anti-bolt. It’s the outcomes—how often permits are granted and how much development occurs—that truly shape that classification.

Soft Catches and The Hard Truthwrote:

If I were to draw a comparison to the pro-life vs. pro-choice debate, I’d label someone who advocates for developing new climbs—specifically through bolting—as pro-bolt.

• Pro-bolt (explicitly supports bolting): This stance either allows unrestricted bolting or operates without formal guidelines, often resulting in significant development.
• Anti-bolt: This position supports a complete ban on bolts.
• Bolting with a permit: This falls somewhere in between. If most permit applications are approved, it leans toward pro-bolt. If permits are rarely or never issued, it effectively functions as anti-bolt.

Given that Rumney is your example, looking at the “What’s New” section, it appears that four new climbs have been bolted in the last two years. Most people wouldn’t consider four new sport climbs over two years to reflect a crag that’s actively pro-development. However, considering the passing of the RCA president (a well-respected figure), the limited remaining real estate at Rumney, and the development of nearby—but not within—Rumney crags, I’d categorize it as somewhere in between.

Ultimately, the existence of a permitting process alone doesn’t define a crag as pro- or anti-bolt. It’s the outcomes—how often permits are granted and how much development occurs—that truly shape that classification.

You frame things into irrelevance.  Even the title of the thread is strange wording.  “Overblown or reasonable?”  What are you really trying to say?

Pro-bolt/anti-bolt is vague policy.  “Can we bolt and how much?” is where land management bumps up against climbers.  And even this is not where most of the issues lie.  Climbers and land managers are in conflict over access and impact.  Bolts are a part of impact, but trails, trash and human waste a much more of an issue.  Access is usually threatened by conflict with other users, ie, camping, ranching disruption, extraction priorities and sometimes entry onto public lands (reservations, closed roads etc.)

The realities of issues with land management are not overblown but that doesn’t mean we can’t try to be reasonable.  

Calebwrote:

You frame things into irrelevance.  Even the title of the thread is strange wording.  “Overblown or reasonable?”  What are you really trying to say?

Pro-bolt/anti-bolt is vague policy.  “Can we bolt and how much?” is where land management bumps up against climbers.  And even this is not where most of the issues lie.  Climbers and land managers are in conflict over access and impact.  Bolts are a part of impact, but trails, trash and human waste a much more of an issue.  Access is usually threatened by conflict with other users, ie, camping, ranching disruption, extraction priorities and sometimes entry onto public lands (reservations, closed roads etc.)

The realities of issues with land management are not overblown but that doesn’t mean we can’t try to be reasonable.  

Discussion about whether I frame things into irrelevance is a bit derivative...inherently you start any thread and you have to create a framework for discussion. How could I have worded it better to get better engagement? 

Earlier in the thread, I listed several potential "access issues." Daniel responded by saying that almost everything I mentioned could cause an access issue. That feels inherently vague—if nearly everything can be considered a threat to access, then the logical conclusion is that almost no behavior outside of explicitly approved actions should be acceptable. Daniel then shifted the conversation toward what’s “reasonable.” But we have to actively acknowledge that people can be wrong, and that reasonableness is inherently subjective. For example, if someone drilled 200 pockets into an old marble quarry—can you? I then tried to add context to Daniels example, but apparently the additional context did not warrant Daniel shifting his conclusion. His response seemed to imply that he had enough context and any additional was wrong therefore both of us had reasonable but different conclusions.  

I once hiked up to a crag that had about 30 stumps—it was clearly an old clearcut. Later, someone was accused of cutting down another tree. People got really upset. The accused received angry DMs claiming they were jeopardizing access. Others wrote long manifestos on Mountain Project about how terrible it was to cut down the tree.The crazy part? The tree was still there. I honestly don’t know if the original commenter was trolling, confused about which tree was cut, or thought a tree chopped down 10 years ago was a recent incident.

 But I see this kind of behavior all the time—on Mountain Project, on Instagram. People overreact, and often it seems like the overreaction is a way to virtue signal that they care. There are absolutely reasonable reasons to be concerned about access. There are also reasons that probably won't jeopardize it. I think the context of the situation has to be the first question that is asked. Whether someone is overreacting or not should be a function of what the issue is at hand and the context around it. But apparently many users think a blanket statement about access issues is the correct thinking. 

Caleb I think fundamentally we might agree. I thought Daniel was gonna agree with me, but apparently not?

The only thing that I can add, is that the context for each individuals action, and how each action may or may not cause access issues is what matters to me.Context is what ultimately influences my personal choice as to whether I will comply with access restrictions or whether I’ll be a ninja and climb what I see fit. Here’s another example of more possibilities to consider. Early in my climbing life, I used to frequently climb at an abandoned limestone quarry. It was posted “no trespassing” and routinely patrolled by cops and private security. The owners were pretty adamant that climbing would never be permitted. Living in an area with limited options I and many others decided to climb anyway and let the owners try to enforce it. Obviously, if there were ongoing negotiations about climbing access, I would have refrained form trespassing to not jeopardize the negotiations. So yeah, context was what influenced my decision. 

This same area also had glued and bolted on holds, and even a gear protected .11+ crack that was manufractured using a gas powered saw. I enjoyed climbing on the bolt on holds and saw cut crack and had zero ethical complaints because the entire quarry was a man made feature. If these same tactics were applied to a pristine, natural cliff, located on public land,  I would raise ethical questions about the behavior  and consider whether this behavior could cause access. So, once  again the context of the actions matters in influencing my opinion and behavior. 

A 30 year old photo of a young punk figuring out how to climb and hoping to not be arrested while doing it. 

IN-THT, it seems like your looking for some universal truths that don’t/can’t exist. Climbing is simply too subjective, and comprised of too many individual characters, for a one size fits all conclusion. As far as virtue signalling or MP threads or constant bellyaching, I simply ignore what I’m not interested in. 

Soft Catches and The Hard Truthwrote:

Discussion about whether I frame things into irrelevance is a bit derivative...inherently you start any thread and you have to create a framework for discussion. How could I have worded it better to get better engagement? 

Earlier in the thread, I listed several potential "access issues." Daniel responded by saying that almost everything I mentioned could cause an access issue. That feels inherently vague—if nearly everything can be considered a threat to access, then the logical conclusion is that almost no behavior outside of explicitly approved actions should be acceptable. Daniel then shifted the conversation toward what’s “reasonable.” But we have to actively acknowledge that people can be wrong, and that reasonableness is inherently subjective. For example, if someone drilled 200 pockets into an old marble quarry—can you? I then tried to add context to Daniels example, but apparently the additional context did not warrant Daniel shifting his conclusion. His response seemed to imply that he had enough context and any additional was wrong therefore both of us had reasonable but different conclusions.  

I once hiked up to a crag that had about 30 stumps—it was clearly an old clearcut. Later, someone was accused of cutting down another tree. People got really upset. The accused received angry DMs claiming they were jeopardizing access. Others wrote long manifestos on Mountain Project about how terrible it was to cut down the tree.The crazy part? The tree was still there. I honestly don’t know if the original commenter was trolling, confused about which tree was cut, or thought a tree chopped down 10 years ago was a recent incident.

 But I see this kind of behavior all the time—on Mountain Project, on Instagram. People overreact, and often it seems like the overreaction is a way to virtue signal that they care. There are absolutely reasonable reasons to be concerned about access. There are also reasons that probably won't jeopardize it. I think the context of the situation has to be the first question that is asked. Whether someone is overreacting or not should be a function of what the issue is at hand and the context around it. But apparently many users think a blanket statement about access issues is the correct thinking. 

Caleb I think fundamentally we might agree. I thought Daniel was gonna agree with me, but apparently not?

 

That’s helpful context.  You are genuinely hard to understand sometimes, but so am I.  

It seems like your point with this thread was to say that people exaggerate risks to access based upon their own dislike for a behavior.  I certainly agree with that.  

But there is an underlying level of access threat that can draw land managers in.  If I see people doing things that upset me, I’m more likely to create confrontation and/or involve land managers.  If enough people do this it can threaten access or change regulations related to public lands.  It doesn’t really matter whether there was an existing law (though that is a factor).  It matters when people make a stink.  

Sometimes that’s good, sometimes not.  But there is an implicit threat when people claim a risk to access, even if the land managers aren’t involved from the start.  

I’ve seen some things I don’t like out there.  My closest crag has hundreds of dying leaver draws blowing in the wind and a route with all glued on holds.  It’s lame and the draws are totally dangerous.  But I’m not going to run to the Forest Service about it, nor am I going to chop the bolts on the glued route.  Because all that would do is set up the Forest Service to contemplate bolting bans.

Recently, I’ve been bumping into people camping at trailheads to crags in Indian Creek.  The ranch HATES this and I don’t like it either, but technically it’s just dispersed camping.  The ranch has clout, so this may become a real problem.  I have talked to a few of these campers and they clearly think they are within their rights.  Will this get overblown?  Time will tell.

Calebwrote:

That’s helpful context.  You are genuinely hard to understand sometimes, but so am I.  

It seems like your point with this thread was to say that people exaggerate risks to access based upon their own dislike for a behavior.  I certainly agree with that.  

But there is an underlying level of access threat that can draw land managers in.  If I see people doing things that upset me, I’m more likely to create confrontation and/or involve land managers.  If enough people do this it can threaten access or change regulations related to public lands.  It doesn’t really matter whether there was an existing law (though that is a factor).  It matters when people make a stink.  

Sometimes that’s good, sometimes not.  But there is an implicit threat when people claim a risk to access, even if the land managers aren’t involved from the start.  

I’ve seen some things I don’t like out there.  My closest crag has hundreds of dying leaver draws blowing in the wind and a route with all glued on holds.  It’s lame and the draws are totally dangerous.  But I’m not going to run to the Forest Service about it, nor am I going to chop the bolts on the glued route.  Because all that would do is set up the Forest Service to contemplate bolting bans.

Recently, I’ve been bumping into people camping at trailheads to crags in Indian Creek.  The ranch HATES this and I don’t like it either, but technically it’s just dispersed camping.  The ranch has clout, so this may become a real problem.  I have talked to a few of these campers and they clearly think they are within their rights.  Will this get overblown?  Time will tell.

Caleb, I agree with much of your assessment here, and that’s why I try to keep a low profile and be respectful to the land, and  I have and will continue to politely engage  with climbers behaving in questionable ways. An example of this is asking climbers to consider limiting some activity during the lambing season that I wrote about upthread. As climbers, we don’t have to agree about everything, but basic cooperation about respecting the resource can go a long way to maintaining access.

And I also agree about the sometimes challenging nature of on line conversations. The 3 post per day limit seems to be a real limiting factor in maintaining the flow. I speculate that this limit encourages the urge to “get in the last word” when faced with our last reply of the day. 

Happy Halloween and cheers to everyone committed to reasonable discourse. 

Fair responses! Look people being reasonable on mountain project!