Mountain Project Logo

Coming soon: MORE CLIMBING ACCESS?


Original Post
JKeller · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jun 2016 · Points: 5

Sec. of Interior Zinke recently signed orders to expand recreational opportunities on public lands.  

https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/signed_so_3366.pdf

I think it’s important for the climbing community to be a part of this conversation now at the ground stages.  If DOI wants more developed recreation on public lands, certainly our input is valuable as different bureaus prepare recommendations.

So, how do climbers interpret this?
 

Cron · · Kittery, ME · Joined Oct 2009 · Points: 55

This is interesting. The thing about climbing is that you don’t really require much infrastructure, camping and bathrooms can be good, but the feds are not the ones establishing routes. Access is an issue of course, so long as climbing is permitted on these lands then that’s a good thing. That document seems to highlight recreational tourism, as in “hey it would be great to make some money on this land”. What i would not want to see is a wilderness area get developed to the extent that Yosemite currently is.

The part that worries me specifically is: “improve the contracting process for recreation specific concessions”. 

Matt Himmelstein · · Orange, California · Joined Jun 2014 · Points: 135

I am not optomistic about the scope of this order.  Look forward to expanded off road vehicle access and more paid guides in your local federal wilderness area.

the schmuck · · Albuquerque, NM · Joined Feb 2012 · Points: 110

Improving the contracting process for concessions is generally no bueno when it comes to the outdoors. 

eli poss · · Durango, Co · Joined May 2014 · Points: 507

I hear good and bad. Obviously the expansion of infrastructure and tourism, guiding, etc. may not be so great for climbers (except perhaps climbing guides). However, it sounds like the field of outdoor recreation is getting more of a voice in general, and I think climbs can potentially gain from that. However, I would like to have seen climbing specifically listed as a recreation opportunity under section 4a(1).

Section 4a(4) also could be good for us and other user populations depending on how the land managers end up putting this into practices:

"identification and recommendations for grant and/ or cooperative
agreement opportunities
that may be made available for improving recreational opportunities;"

This kind of makes me think about all the old rotting bolts in need of replacement in wilderness areas. If land managers and climbers could work together on this issue, and others like it, I think it could be very good for all involved.

Jeffrey K · · Seattle, WA · Joined Apr 2018 · Points: 0

If you think anything this aggressively anti-environment government is doing is intended to benefit sustainable, healthy nature activities I have an island to sell you.

These orders are intended to benefit a select demographic and it's not us.

JKeller · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jun 2016 · Points: 5
Jeffrey K wrote: If you think anything this aggressively anti-environment government is doing is intended to benefit sustainable, healthy nature activities I have an island to sell you.

These orders are intended to benefit a select demographic and it's not us.

You’re absolutely right.  Guess we should just give up then.  It’s easier to complain about how unfair it is anyway.

Jeffrey K · · Seattle, WA · Joined Apr 2018 · Points: 0
JKeller wrote:

You’re absolutely right.  Guess we should just give up then.  It’s easier to complain about how unfair it is anyway.

I was more indicating a stance against these orders may be better than supporting them. Wasn't that the conversation?

I never said anything about complaining or giving up. I'd just be very skeptical the intention here is anything but greedy by our DOI.
Jeffrey Constine · · Los Angeles, CA · Joined May 2009 · Points: 588

Best thing to do is put up your own areas to climb, and not post it up on MP or make a guidebook.

JKeller · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jun 2016 · Points: 5
Jeffrey K wrote:

I was more indicating a stance against these orders may be better than supporting them. Wasn't that the conversation?

I never said anything about complaining or giving up. I'd just be very skeptical the intention here is anything but greedy by our DOI.

Gotcha.  Didn’t mean you were complaining.  Seems like that’s what most people do when taking a ‘stance’ against new policy. 

I am also very skeptical of the intentions of the DOI.  However, policies have been implemented that will remain in place after Zinke moves on.  I see it as a good chance to offer input in the inevitable expansion of recreation.  Constructive input is often better received than staunch opposition.

So how do we productively oppose more development without being written off as unreasonable conservationists?  
David S · · Daly City · Joined Nov 2017 · Points: 10
Zinke's pretty evil, ya know?  He's not going to enter any dialog in good faith.  Bears Ears, anyone?

Our kleptocracy is starting to notice that the revenue from the outdoor business is bigger than porn, so it's not surprising there comes an order to add more private outdoor business to our public national park system.  More private business is more private revenue ("shareholder value").  More private revenue means the government will spend even less on the parks -- or, in Zinke's doublespeak, "CAN ONLY" result in "reduced maintenance backlogs".  Uh, sure it will.  Just as soon as they're done peeling off off all that revenue for tax cuts and the military-industrial complex and then telling us, "Whoops, still no money for maintenance!  Gotta raise entrance fees!".  

As Jeffrey K says, oppose this order!  No one wants another ice skating rink.  Our park system should be supported by the government, not capitalist interests and end users.
Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

General Climbing
Post a Reply to "Coming soon: MORE CLIMBING ACCESS?"

Log In to Reply