Jens Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 Anyone? I'd like to hear some other opinions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenderfour Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 Neutral? I've volunteered a few times and they really appreciate having climbers in the work parties. I didn't get any negative vibe at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary_Yngve Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 They supported the plan to gate Middle Fork Snoq at Dingford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary_Yngve Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 I don't like their focus. They take a good trail and make it almost wheelchair accessible. I'd consider volunteering for them if they'd brush out an overgrown trail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 Neutral? I've volunteered a few times and they really appreciate having climbers in the work parties. I didn't get any negative vibe at all. if you volunteer, do they make you pick a "trail name?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenderfour Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 I'm the stinky guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 WTA: Overall, we could find fault with this or that stance the WTA has taken, and it may be true that they tend to concentrate their efforts fairly close to the trailhead and on trails that are already in fairly good shape. Is that true? I'm not sure. However, I think the WTA has been a real player in working with the Forest Service toward a reduced emphasis on resource management driven by logging activity and a greater emphasis on recreational access as part of a more balanced land management orientation. Middle Fork: There is plenty of room for disappointment over "the plan" in the Middle Fork, but at the heart of it I think that climbers have only ourselves to blame for any poor outcome that we may find there. There was an extensive public discussion that took place for ten years and the rangers and conservation group people I have talked to said that climbers were more or less absent from the process. The climbers I know who were on the mailing lists and invited to participate have said that they were too busy with other matters and didn't perceive an urgent need to get involved. Even if you were not the recipient of any targeted mailing there was plenty of opportunity to get involved. The kayak groups participated in the process and they have had their traditional put in spots protected. Horse riders and mountain bikers were active as well, and they are being provided for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 I know very few climbers who participate in trail projects. They all have other more important things to do. As a result they have very little influence on the projects that get done and how they are done. By getting involved with the Everett Mountaineers Trails group I was able to persuade them to take on the Three O'clock Rock trail last year. The entire crew of 75 spent the entire day and improved the trail from the trailhead all the way to the rock. Matt and Mark were there too. I'm going to try to get the Mountaineers to devote two crews of ten again this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 With the support of the North Face and the Access Fund, the WTA did several work projects on that trail, too. The trail really needs to be moved out of the eroded trailbed, but the rangers don't want us to do it because they'd have to undertake environmental review. Thus, frequent trailwork is needed and it remains an ankle breaker. With our expressed interest, though, the Eight Mile Creek trail has bumped up a bit on their list of priorities and the Forest Service even sent their own trail contractor up there two years ago. This and a telephone campaign a few years back has kept the Darrington area open to climbers. The trail and the road serving it would have been "let go" without the efforts of climbers who decided to get involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpark42 Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 I have done trail work with the WTA for about 2 years and generally they are pretty neutral as far as climbing access is concerned. With this being said they have worked on climbing trails to help reduce climber impact on an area. The best example I can think of is Peshastin Pinicules where the improved a trail that provides climbing access. Another example is the snow creek wall trail which I am assuming they will do some work at some point during the summer, trust me it needs it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 WTA: Middle Fork: There is plenty of room for disappointment over "the plan" in the Middle Fork, but at the heart of it I think that climbers have only ourselves to blame for any poor outcome that we may find there. There was an extensive public discussion that took place for ten years and the rangers and conservation group people I have talked to said that climbers were more or less absent from the process. The climbers I know who were on the mailing lists and invited to participate have said that they were too busy with other matters and didn't perceive an urgent need to get involved. Even if you were not the recipient of any targeted mailing there was plenty of opportunity to get involved. The kayak groups participated in the process and they have had their traditional put in spots protected. Horse riders and mountain bikers were active as well, and they are being provided for. I attended the early meetings in North Bend - and I even behaved! Despite my best efforts, I was never placed on the USFS mailing list re this issue. Strange, eh? I believe the outcome was decided by Lord Harvey long before last November. You're right though; the meetings were loaded with MidForc supporters and greens who had their shit together. And dumbasses who regularly shot up the (lower) valley, dumped derelict cars, TV sets, and garbage gave the road-closer cadre all the ammo they needed. Sad. But opening the Middle Fork trail to mountain bikes was a good call. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 I have done trail work with the WTA for about 2 years and generally they are pretty neutral as far as climbing access is concerned. With this being said they have worked on climbing trails to help reduce climber impact on an area. The best example I can think of is Peshastin Pinicules where the improved a trail that provides climbing access. Another example is the snow creek wall trail which I am assuming they will do some work at some point during the summer, trust me it needs it Oh we know it does. It's been bad for how long? Since the fire in 1994, was it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted May 15, 2007 Share Posted May 15, 2007 Anyone? I'd like to hear some other opinions. Foes. Unless you climb only Cougar, Tiger, Si, Bandera, Mailbox, and, just maybe, Granite Mountain. Also, hikes to Lake 22 are da shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.