Pine Creek Canyon "Landscaping" WTF?


Original Post
Max Supertramp · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Mar 2008 · Points: 15

Pine Creek Canyon at the V apex of the first fork in the canyon. Handsaw and pruning shear destruction of a massive mountain mohogany and other shrubs at the base of the biggest boulder on the terrace. Boulder-bros? This is the shit that gives us a bad name.

A super mountain mahogany tree destroyed at the base of a massive boulder. Coincidence?

first fork boulder, Pine Creek

yucca bacatta

Max Supertramp · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Mar 2008 · Points: 15

so, in the absence of interest here, I suppose I will just go ahead and pass the pics onto the relevant land management agency.

J. Albers · · Colorado · Joined Jul 2008 · Points: 1,228
Max Supertramp wrote:so, in the absence of interest here, I suppose I will just go ahead and pass the pics onto the relevant land management agency.
The pictures certainly show behavior that is totally unacceptable and clearly committed by asshats, but don't be stupid and forward it on to management agencies because that is not helpful and probably detrimental to the community as a whole. Public shaming is one thing, helping to guarantee a black eye for all other non-asshat climbers is counterproductive
Mike Byrnes · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Nov 2016 · Points: 0

Tattling on people is never the right answer. Yeah it's wrong but get over it and strive to provide a better example for your local community so it doesn't continue to happen. You'll just be hurting access even more by shoving it in the land managers face

Owen Witesman · · Springville, UT · Joined Feb 2014 · Points: 53

Our community does not deserve access if this is what we do to public resources. Better for concerned climbers to report bad behavior by other climbers than for the land managers to find out that we've been hiding our dirty laundry.

R. Moran · · Moab , UT · Joined Mar 2009 · Points: 0

Any chalk on the rock or obvious cleaning of the Boulder itself? I get why you are mad but lots of ass hats destroy stuff, not just boulder bros! Also check for beanie lint or roaches.

Rob Gordon · · Hollywood, CA · Joined Feb 2009 · Points: 80

Is this lame? Yes. The tattling threat is even lamer.

Bill Lawry · · New Mexico · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 1,402

Letting the land managers know does not necessarily mean access will be cut off. There are many other options including greater public education and greater vigilance.

In the end, land managers are wilderness advocates as much as anyone. We should be working together on stuff like this.

(no saint myself)

Pnelson · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jan 2015 · Points: 60
Bill Lawry wrote: In the end, land managers are wilderness advocates as much as anyone. We should be working together on stuff like this.
Yes, and plenty of wilderness advocates are not necessarily friends to climbing.

It's not uncommon for climbers– especially from the vegetation-heavy East– to be heavy-handed about clearing out plants around projects in the desert, without knowing how bad this is (Joe Kinder and that old-growth tree, for example). But as Moran said, it would be easy to confirm bouldering development nearby to see if this was actually the work of climbers.
Bill Lawry · · New Mexico · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 1,402
Pnelson wrote: Yes, and plenty of wilderness advocates are not necessarily friends to climbing.
To be clear, I don't think of climbing as an "end all" to the wilderness.

I suspect many with a background of other wilderness use - such as glacier travel, backpacking - or with a clearer understanding of the overall issues would agree.
Benjamin Chapman · · Small Town, USA · Joined Jan 2007 · Points: 12,867

Chalk, beanie lint, roaches next to a large boulder...are you suggesting that Pad People were responsible, R. Moran? As for the tattling threat...Max, give Jim Rhodes, the developer, a call. I'm sure he'd love to add this to his bag of tricks.

Warrior · · Rock City, GA · Joined Sep 2015 · Points: 15
Mike Byrnes wrote:Tattling on people is never the right answer. Yeah it's wrong but get over it and strive to provide a better example for your local community so it doesn't continue to happen. You'll just be hurting access even more by shoving it in the land managers face
Mike, I agree with you and a few others here. IMO, already has shoved been in their face...it's not like they don't patrol forums...nothing like CARC's to "help" matters along...
Dustin Stotser · · Springfield, MO · Joined May 2014 · Points: 353

It's hard to guess the potential responses of people you've never met. If we assume land managers are browsing these forums, it begs a certain question... Would they be happier with receiving direct communication from concerned climbers regarding potentially climber related abuses, or with the climbing community downplaying and remaining silent on such issues. I understand the question is a bit loaded, but it is pertinent nonetheless.

Warrior · · Rock City, GA · Joined Sep 2015 · Points: 15
Dustin Stotser wrote:It's hard to guess the potential responses of people you've never met. If we assume land managers are browsing these forums, it begs a certain question... Would they be happier with receiving direct communication regarding potentially climber related abuses, or with the climbing community downplaying and remaining silent on such issues. I understand the question is a bit loaded, but it is pertinent nonetheless.
Dustin, I don't think there's much assumption, a partner of mine from NV who is a big wig for BLM fire has told me that forum patrol is regular practice on the mgmt. side

...you posit an interesting question though. I'd rather it be dealt with internally, but I also grew up climbing at areas that have been shut down, so you could call me "biased"...maybe even adding to the post count here is a bad idea---in any case Pnelson has painted an accurate picture imo...
Dustin Stotser · · Springfield, MO · Joined May 2014 · Points: 353
Warrior wrote: Dustin, I don't think there's much assumption, a partner of mine from NV who is a big wig for BLM fire has told me that forum patrol is regular practice on the mgmt. side ...you posit an interesting question though. I'd rather it be dealt with internally, but I also grew up climbing at areas that have been shut down, so you could call me "biased"...maybe even adding to the post count here is a bad idea---in any case Pnelson has painted an accurate picture imo...
I agree the ideal situation would be to deal with this internally, if it is possible to do so effectively. I feel it would be wise to make such efforts visible on the forum so the land managers see something from our community aside from attempts to obfuscate the issue.

Since I am not local and can not help in such efforts, this will be my last post for reasons mentioned above. Good luck with this, guys!
Healyje · · PDX · Joined Jan 2006 · Points: 100
Pnelson wrote: Yes, and plenty of wilderness advocates are not necessarily friends to climbing.
Yes and plenty of climbing advocates are not necessarily friends to wilderness.
Bill Lawry · · New Mexico · Joined Apr 2006 · Points: 1,402
Dustin Stotser wrote:Would they be happier with receiving direct communication from concerned climbers regarding potentially climber related abuses, or with the climbing community downplaying and remaining silent on such issues.
Just as a tiny counter to the "fear the man" syndrome, I've had a few positive related experiences with the BLM and USFS both in NV and NM.

Indeed, in one community-reported case, the BLM discreetly provided a written explanation (email) to a third party regarding why general climbers should not cross a line which a named individual provably had. And rather than "The Man" coming down on the individual, the written explanation was forwarded to the individual. Point was made. Nothing further was needed. This only concerned violating gated access.

Had a similar low-key response to spray-painting on rock showing the way to Bridge Mountain in Red Rock.

In a very public case concerning bon-a-fide power drilling in a Wilderness, I believe the USFS demonstrated considerable restraint - and really worked towards self education by the climbing community with input from local climbing organization, guides, and the Access Fund ... all sans direct input by the USFS (no doubt they were closely watching). I think it had a lasting positive impact on the community.

Edit to add: In short, I think direct communication is much preferred and gives the greatest opportunity for something mutually beneficial as opposed to loss of access (e.g., altogether banning any bolting).
Fat Dad · · Los Angeles, CA · Joined Nov 2007 · Points: 5
Healyje wrote: Yes and plenty of climbing advocates are not necessarily friends to wilderness.
True that unfortunately. Some climbers are little more than destructive dumb asses.

I agree that ratting out others to land managers is a poor idea. I suspect the lack the ability or interest in distinguishing between one group of climbers vs. another. They'd probably just file this in the 'all climbers bad' folder.
Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Post a Reply

Log In to Reply