Oversite Committees at Climbing Areas?

[mattp]

Daler wrote:

I must be honest a say I did not read every single post in this forum. But I do think something has to be done about the overbolting issue.

I recently moved to boulder colorado but still hold the northwest true to my heart and spend alot of time climbing ther in the summers.

I think the northwesties should take a real look at forming a committee that will oversee new route and retro activity.

Since climbing in Eldorodo canyon I have much respect for such a group. All new routes and retro activity have to go through the ACE committee. It is comprised of 30 year trad climbers, 10 year sport geeks and new sport gym climbers.

New routes are allowed and some old routes are allowed to have bolts added if they truely dangerous. Eldo is a great example because many new routes would go in if a free for all were allowed. But new route activity is slow and careful consideration is used to preserve the rock for posterity.

There are way to many bolts in the northwest and it is only getting worse. Places like leavenworth are so pathetic now that I won't even go there.

 

I love sport climbing and will continue to clip bolts!! But don't overuse them. Routes should be bolted to be led not toproped! A bolt every 4 feet is not Ok. Close to ground Yes but up High one must lead.

 

Get a grip and fix the epidemic!!

 

my 2 cents

 

Dale Remsberg

[mattp]

JayB wrote:

I also think that what the committee has achieved in Eldo is impressive and would be worth considering in areas with an established climbing history, such as Index, Leavenworth, and even Vantage. Speaking of Eldo, if I am not mistaken Derek Hersey's "To RP or Not to Be" just saw its second and third free ascents after all of these years. Bolting that particular line would have been unthinkable, but replacing old fixed hardware with reliable modern gear and allowing the development of selected new bolted lines is not. Any management plan that provides for the preservation of rated X death routes, classic gear climbs, and for the development of bolted moderates in the same area, without any impinging upon the other - seems like a model worth considering. Seems like the FCCC is already in place in Vantage and cold possibly be a springboard for such a thing, a partnership or at least a dialogue between local activists and the land managers in the Tieton might not be a bad idea, and I'm sure that some such group would be easy enough to put together for places like Index. If nothing else perhaps groups like the FCCC and the Access fund could draw up proposals for what is and is not acceptable in terms of new route development in each particular area that would set some sort of a standard to guide the practice in each area that takes into account the ethics and idiosyncracies of each place.

 

I don't think the model would work especially well in a new area, in that the pool of climbers with firsthand knowledge of the area would necessarily be limited to a rather small cadre, and secondly I doubt that very many people would be willing to endure both the hard work required to establish new routes and the ordeal of vetting their ideas before a committee.

--------------------

-Jay

 

 

[JayB]

I also think that any oversight committee would have to concern itself with mitigating climber impact on the landscape as one of its primary missions, as that, not bolting next to cracks, etc, is their primary concern.

 

I would also be in favor of having this thread intensely moderated to keep superfluous commentary to a minimum....

Edited September 15, 2003 by JayB

[dberdinka]

It seems important to point out that Eldorado Canyon is a State Park where government employees/officials are actively involved in the enforcement of bolting regulations. I can only assume that this particular government agency is climber friendly whether you agree or disagree with their "minimal new bolts" ethic. I would think this fact goes a long way towards the success of the oversite committee for that area. (Compare it to Boulder Canyon in the same region)

 

In the PNW it seems a vast majority of our cragging takes place on forest service land (well Darrington and Leavenworth at least). I can't imagine a scenario where they would be interested in regulating the development of new routes outside of banning them completely. This leaves you with some sort of unoffical oversite committee that operates on peer pressure to enforce it's decisions. Good luck!

[dberdinka]

More thoughts.

 

Of the major areas this leaves Index which is primarily owned by the state park system. Are they interested in getting involved in the management of the resource? For budgetary reasons alone I doubt it. Again, Eldo has an entrance fee that I assume indirectly helps support the enforcement of the oversite committees decisions. Would you be willing to pay an entrance fee to Index if thats what it took to manage the area? Again, I think everyone would be screaming.

[Cpt.Caveman]

From the impression I get in this forum the only people allowed to be on the committees are the ones wielding drills or the ones that just want more bolts.

[freeclimb9]

Oversite Committees are a waking nightmare. The only implementations I've witnessed that work (kind of) are at the City of Rocks and a couple privately owned climbing areas in southern Utah and central Arizona. The basic problem is establishing authority. If your committee doesn't have it, you get no respect. And even if your committee does, big egos will still mess with you.

my $.02

 

[JayB]

I think their effectiveness will vary from place to place depending on the degree of engagement with land managers, climbing organizations, and dedicated locals.

 

I think that engagement with land managers is critical for attaining the authority you speak of, and having representatives from climbing organizations serving on the committee would restrict direct involvement to those persons who are able to articulate their member's viewpoints and concerns in a reasonable manner.

 

Even if all they did was draft a set of voluntary guidelines for new route development in an area, articulate climber's concerns to the land managers, and help them mitigate climber impact on the ground I think that these measures would be a step in the right direction.

 

 

[DCramer]

Committees seem like a bad solution to a semi-problem. The number of people actually bolting routes is quite small. Those bolting cracks still smaller. Before committees are even considered I would say get involved on a personal level. Perhaps if cc.com was a more congenial place to report FAs they would be reported and put up in the cc.com way. I’ll leave Index aside and simply ask the question: What areas have problems? How old are those badly bolted routes in Leavenworth? Has FA behavior changed? I say let’s worry about getting a dialogue going rather than trying to set up committees.

[mattp]

There is no doubt that, for the most part, participating in these types of committees has been a nightmare. However, even if you attended and were angered by what took place at, say, a Frenchmen's Coulee Climber's Coalition meeting, you will never know what might have happened had there not been such meetings. The question "can these committees succeed" is a slightly different one from the question as to whether, on balance, these committees do more good than harm.

 

I really don't have much direct experience with any group like this but, for example, how many people know that there is such a committee for North Bend? Has it helped at all?

[DCramer]

I think Gunstone was on that committee. Since most of those putting up FAs were on the committee in practice they would approve there own creations!

[mattp]

DCramer said:

I think Gunstone was on that committee. Since most of those putting up FAs were on the committee in practice they would approve there own creations!

 

That would tend to skew the process a little, wouldn't it? Of course, I doubt that David or anybody else on that committee would have approved putting so many bolts so close together on the Nevermind Wall that you can't tell one route from another without the topo, and then squeezing another one inbetween it all - or did they? I don't want to start a debate over that particular wall, but my guess is that this is a clear example of how the committee did not or could not control that particular event, but I would guess that there were other proposals that they did in fact successfully control. Does anybody know? And does anybody know if the existence or actions of that committee had any positive or negative effect on any management decision made by the State?

[glassgowkiss]

mattp said:

Daler wrote:

I must be honest a say I did not read every single post in this forum. But I do think something has to be done about the overbolting issue.

I recently moved to boulder colorado but still hold the northwest true to my heart and spend alot of time climbing ther in the summers.

I think the northwesties should take a real look at forming a committee that will oversee new route and retro activity.

Since climbing in Eldorodo canyon I have much respect for such a group. All new routes and retro activity have to go through the ACE committee. It is comprised of 30 year trad climbers, 10 year sport geeks and new sport gym climbers.

New routes are allowed and some old routes are allowed to have bolts added if they truely dangerous. Eldo is a great example because many new routes would go in if a free for all were allowed. But new route activity is slow and careful consideration is used to preserve the rock for posterity.

There are way to many bolts in the northwest and it is only getting worse. Places like leavenworth are so pathetic now that I won't even go there.

 

I love sport climbing and will continue to clip bolts!! But don't overuse them. Routes should be bolted to be led not toproped! A bolt every 4 feet is not Ok. Close to ground Yes but up High one must lead.

 

Get a grip and fix the epidemic!!

 

my 2 cents

 

Dale Remsberg

now that's an idea- NOT. stupid, stupid, stupid. WTF is this with people have problem with bolting. can put natural pro, use natural pro. if you can't bolt. Where is a problem? I don't need some wanna be fachkomision (term used in DDR sandstones) to tell me what to do. people get over yourself. there is plenty of rock, for both.

By the way, it's hardly any forum for this sort of thing. This site is used 99% for spray only, so your post should be considered as such. hands up how many people on this bb put up a new route in the past year? And how many new routes in washington were there period?

Now, since the answers to my 2 questions are rather obvious, don't get your panties all bunched up, go climbing, enjoy yourself, spray if you need to ( after all you live in spray central now), but don't come up with stupid ideas about regulating climbing.

Edited September 15, 2003 by glassgowkiss

[glassgowkiss]

since you live in boulder what do you care about here? second- who the fuck is anybody to tell me what to do?

[Cpt.Caveman]

DCramer said:

I think Gunstone was on that committee. Since most of those putting up FAs were on the committee in practice they would approve there own creations!

 

Exactly what I am saying above.

[daler]

Bob,

 

Your posts are always so helpful for my understanding of climbing. thank you.

I'm concerned because I still climb and work in the northwest, And some of the areas in WA are on state park land and as climbing grows access will be an issue.

 

And as to the amount of spray in boulder. Ha Ha. Way worse in the northwest!!! I was worried at first but surprised how little it is an issue here.

 

May Your ice be good and your picks stick!!!!

 

cheers

 

Dale

[daler]

I forgot to mention i have no problem with bolting. Just overbolting!!!

 

dale