Mountain Project Logo

JeffCo DRAFT Climbing Management Guidelines Released

Original Post
Monomaniac · · Morrison, CO · Joined Oct 2006 · Points: 17,295

I don't know when this was posted, but JeffCo's Climbing website now has a draft "Climbing Management Guidelines" posted.

The announcement says they are accepting public comment until 7 Dec 2015, and then the draft will become final on 1 Jan 2016. Please review the draft and share your thoughts. Comments should be sent to: climbing@jeffco.us

Highlights of the draft include:

  • No placing, re-placing, or removal of fixed hardware without a permit
  • Permit required to fix draws for up to 30 days; perma-draws are prohibited
  • Professional photographers require a permit
  • Mark Dixon special: Lowering from anchors is banned (rappelling is mandatory)


Draft JeffCo Climbing Management Guidelines P1

Draft JeffCo Climbing Management Guidelines P2

Draft JeffCo Climbing Management Guidelines P3

Draft JeffCo Climbing Management Guidelines P4

Draft JeffCo Climbing Management Guidelines P5
Frank Stein · · Albuquerque, NM · Joined Feb 2012 · Points: 205

Wait, is this a joke? Who came up with this? Mandatory rapelling off of all routes, and all permas banned? Was this written by someone who does not understand sport climbing and that not all techniques apply to all routes? Basically, no lowering and no permas would mean that all really steep routes are essentially closed, unless you toprope at the end of each session to clean it.

ton · · Salt Lake City · Joined Aug 2014 · Points: 0
the schmuck wrote:Wait, is this a joke? Who came up with this? Mandatory rapelling off of all routes, and all permas banned? Was this written by someone who does not understand sport climbing and that not all techniques apply to all routes? Basically, no lowering and no permas would mean that all really steep routes are essentially closed, unless you toprope at the end of each session to clean it.
well, that'll do away with all the "someone stole my draws, can i have them back for beer?" threads.
reboot · · . · Joined Jul 2006 · Points: 125
Monomaniac wrote:*Mark Dixon special: Lowering from anchors is banned (rappelling is mandatory)
To be fair, this falls under guideline. But yeah, how does one politely respond to this complete non-sense?
Mark E Dixon · · Possunt, nec posse videntur · Joined Nov 2007 · Points: 974
Monomaniac wrote:Mark Dixon special: Lowering from anchors is banned (rappelling is mandatory)
Be an interesting rappel from Sonic Youth. Or Primo. Or Wall of Justice.

Glad Jeffco is making me safer.

What a total disaster.
ton · · Salt Lake City · Joined Aug 2014 · Points: 0
reboot wrote: To be fair, this falls under guideline. But yeah, how does one politely respond to this complete non-sense?
the purpose of a public comment period is to solicit public comment. write a well reasoned, neutral toned letter to the correct authorities.
reboot · · . · Joined Jul 2006 · Points: 125
Mark E Dixon wrote: Or Primo.
Glad that's NOT in JeffCo & I've already done sonic youth.
David B · · Denver, CO · Joined Apr 2011 · Points: 205

Pretty clear they have been misguided by someone who doesn't climb difficult sport routes. The rappelling thing is a joke...at least they didn't specify a fine for that. (edit. jk, they did. nice.)

The perma-draw ban would destroy the entire New River wall and many other areas. I don't see how their presence is any more of an eyesore than the huge new bike path running the length of the canyon.

I do like permits being required for groups of 10 or more. I think that number could be a little lower, though...

Mark E Dixon · · Possunt, nec posse videntur · Joined Nov 2007 · Points: 974
reboot wrote: Glad that's NOT in JeffCo
Finally some good news for me today!
J. Albers · · Colorado · Joined Jul 2008 · Points: 1,926
David Barbour wrote: The rappelling thing is a joke...at least they didn't specify a fine for that.
Don't be so sure. Under the rappelling statement they cite C.17, which, if you follow to the end of the document, states that violation of this code carries a $125 fine. That document is so misguided that it is hard to know where to begin. I agree with others that posted in the last few days that this essentially amounts to a halt in route development. No offense to Monty or any of the other FHRC folks, but getting their permission to put up a route is completely antithesis to my -- and almost certainly others -- sense of what it means to do route development.

As far as I am concerned, if this document goes through it is an unmitigated disaster for the climbing community because of the implications for setting precedent. It was one thing when it was just Boulder because nobody in the sane outside world would use Boulder as an example for how to run a ship (e.g. I don't see the rest of the world trying to demand that everyone ride their bike and recycle their car). But now we have Staunton SP and CC? My worry is that this will set a precedent for other agencies to follow, which really eats sh*t. Sigh.
reboot · · . · Joined Jul 2006 · Points: 125
ton wrote: the purpose of a public comment period is to solicit public comment. write a well reasoned, neutral toned letter to the correct authorities.
That usually requires something reasonable & logical to work with. For instance, you'd have to be Jesus to response with a well-reasoned, neutral tone to the crap Donald Trump has been spewing around.
David B · · Denver, CO · Joined Apr 2011 · Points: 205
J. Albers wrote: Don't be so sure. Under the rappelling statement they cite C.17, which, if you follow to the end of the document, states that violation of this code carries a $125 fine. That document is so misguided that it is hard to know where to begin.
Whoops, yeah, that's insane.
ton · · Salt Lake City · Joined Aug 2014 · Points: 0
reboot wrote: That usually requires something reasonable & logical to work with. For instance, you'd have to be Jesus to response with a well-reasoned, neutral tone to the crap Donald Trump has been spewing around.
come one now, there's no need to approach Godwin's law in this instance.

i actually agree with some of the stuff in the draft. (i would imagine you could find some stuff you'd compromise on, too.) and it wouldn't be hard to set out pros and cons to each of the major points. it is logical. you just don't agree with it because you come from a different point of view.

got any attorney friends? they tend to be pretty good at seeing both sides and might help draft a letter.
reboot · · . · Joined Jul 2006 · Points: 125
ton wrote: i actually agree with some of the stuff in the draft. (i would imagine you could find some stuff you'd compromise on, too.)
And I (personally) actually would rather see NOTHING in the guideline implemented (I'm sure I'm not alone). I can see how some of the guidelines could improve the experience of some of the climbers, but that's besides the point.
David B · · Denver, CO · Joined Apr 2011 · Points: 205

I can't make the meeting tonight so I sent an email with some of my concerns. Here's what I got back:

"Thanks so much for your input, it is much appreciated.

To make it clear, there is no ban on lowering. That is meant to be a piece of educational material, however, after reading that line again with this in mind, it does come across as being an official guideline (perhaps because we put it under “guidelines”). I will bring this up and reword to make it more clear.

For perma-draws, to make it clear, we will not be removing established routes, including gear at the new river wall. The only exception to this would be substantial safety concerns and possibly hardware that is located in areas that are permanently closed to the public. We are most concerned with folks leaving synthetic draws out for long periods of time where they may be subject to strength degradation. As more and more climbers are coming straight out of the gym where it is assumed that gear is inspected, they may not have the knowledge as of what to look for in bad gear.

Within the application process, we are asking that the route-setter states any hardware that they plan to use. Areas where chains of adequate strength are required for safety and issues such as rope drag exist, will be considered. Again, I will bring this up and consider revising to make that more clear.

Thank you so much again; all feedback is much appreciated. If anything else comes to mind, don’t hesitate to contact us.

Have a great day!"

curt86iroc · · Lakewood, CO · Joined Dec 2014 · Points: 274

I also sent an email with some feedback, as I cannot attend the meeting tonight. Im probably going to catch crap for this, but i like the pet policy. Im tired of seeing abandoned dogs at the base of multi-pitch routes...

also, the permitting for groups of 10 or more seems reasonable...but i wonder if it would give way to groups rolling up to CCC and trying to push other climbers off routes "because they have a group permit"

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Colorado
Post a Reply to "JeffCo DRAFT Climbing Management Guidelines Rel…"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.