Impact in climbing areas

[glen]

A friend and I were discussing the increasing impact at climbing areas, especially the increase in impact in the last few years. The impact is mostly loss of vegetation at the base of cliffs, noise, and trash. The topic came out of the apparently changing ethics of climbers from the 1950s-1980s versus the 1990's to today. There have been a number of major changes in the climbing world in the last 15 years, namely the huge increase in number of climbers and the accompanying growth of gym-rats and sport climibing. Notably all aspects of climbing have seen increases in usage, but the greatest impact seems to be associated with cragging. Possibly a tangent, but the amont of 'scene' at climbing areas seems to have changed and increased with time also.

 

I am just curious if any of the folks who have been around longer than my scant 12 years of climbing could comment on this, and maybe some general comments on what the differences in the climbing population are. Is the increase in impact in climbing areas a result of simply having more people or is there a population-scale shift in treatment of the natural environment?

 

Just curions what people think; not putting forward any specific opinions (people will do enough of that on their own).

 

G

[Figger_Eight]

yes - both.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

DFA would say that, along with the fantastic increase in numbers of climbers at the crags, there has been a proportional increase in attention being paid to impact issues. Back when there were a lot fewer climbers there was no one around to scrutinize if you cut a couple switchbacks or left your used wads of tape under a boulder. But now, it's not just a few people out there, and so cutting a switchback or chucking small trash turns into huge erosion and messy crags in short order. So on the one hand, bigger numbers add up to bigger impacts, but the bigger impacts attract a lot of attention and get dealt with much more handily.

 

Look at Smith Rock. Freakishly high number of users, but the park is very well taken care of. Very well-defined trails, built-up terracing at belay areas, etc. You'll see very few people doing stupid shit out there (at least, very few climbers) like cutting their own trails, etc. Plus, with the Access Fund making a big presence and keeping awareness high with magazine adds and sponsorship of most climbing events, as well as crag cleanups and events like the Spring Thing, there is a sense of ownership among people, and it encourages folks to spread the word and encourage others to mitigate their impact on climbing areas as well.

[Lambone]

I have heard old schoolers say that the base of El Capitan was once a trash heap. Someone was conmplaining about garbage they had seen recently...and another guy responded ...man you should have seen it back in the '80s.

 

So there may be more climbers, but I think people are generaly becoming more sensitive to the environment.

[mattp]

Lammy, I disagree. When I started climbing, lots of rock climbers were also backpackers and there was much more of a "no trace" ethic. The old Chouinard catalog, linked on this site this week, is an example of an impashioned plea for conservation that I do not believe would happen today.

 

Climbers are much more into performance than they used to, be, and the drive to train and to perform means that they run out after work to get a quick workout - not to go climbing but to get a workout or to "work" their line - and this was rarely if ever done in the days of yore, and I think it leads climbers to want to have quick ready access to the crag with nothing in their way - and that this means they accept or even want a more modified climbing environment. Climbers today are learing to climb in gyms where they become used to an artificial environment and this, too, increases their acceptance of a modified climbing environment. This is part of the reason why we rip up rocks and rebuild the base of the cliffs at most sport climbing crags and some "trad" areas these days. In addition, there is in the gyms a big social scene (not that there wasn't one at climbing areas of yore, but the scene itself is now more a part of the experience, I think). When they go to Smith Rock, many of today's climbers actually ENJOY having a big scene with a hundred climbers milling about at the base of the dihedrals, and they expect to have flat areas all bordered by landscape timbers. This kind of thing was absolutely unheard of in the past. Bolts, too, are becoming much more widely used and most climbers are a lot less likely to view a bolt as an intrusion upon the rock environment than they used to. There is no question in my mind that today's climbers focuss less on preserving the crag environment than climbers of 25 years ago, and much more on enhancing it.

 

When I climbed in Yosemite in the '70,s the base of the walls were littered with lunch bags containing turds, true, so that situation has probably improved somewhat. However, I don't think there is any less trash at the base of the cliff in Index or Leavenworth than there ever was.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Matt, your view of things like constructing belay platforms and "corrals" (OK, so they do look like corrals) seems somewhat overly cynical.

 

You can look at it as tearing up the base of the cliff, or decorative timbers for the sake of convenience or something, but all those things have been put in place by people who care about the Park (speaking, for the sake of example, of Smith in this instance). If a place that sees as heavy usage as Smith does did not have overbuilt belay areas, steps, and fencing, it would be an ugly mess. All those platforms are preventing a huge amount of erosion, as evidenced by areas that don't get attention at Spring Thing (a quick hike up to Shipwreck Wall will bring this into sharp focus as you stumble over loose talus, as compared to the base of Morning Glory around 5-Gallon Buckets, where there's lots of dirt staying where it should). The fencing/corrals, while imparting a somewhat unfortunate 'Bonanza' aesthetic on the Park, do a great job of keeping people off the fragile vegetated areas that get so hammered when they get tromped on. Perhaps it's unfortunate that so much construction is necessary to preserve the area, but erosion is unavoidable at a place like that, even when folks are being conscientious, and it needs to be prevented.

[Bug]

Expect the days when handicapped access will be required for all major climbing walls.

[Off_White]

I think DFA's pretty spot on about Smith. In a way, it reminds me of the work that has been done in Squamish and at the Owens River Gorge, the kind of organization that will allow for the heavy use and at the same time limit the impact on the surrounding area.

 

People weren't all that tidy in the "good old days," there were just fewer of them. Wads of tape and cigarette butts were not uncommon, and I wouldn't say most folks were all that obssessed with low impact visitation. The move towards nuts from pitons succeeded not so much out of concern for the environment, but because it was easier and safer.

[texplorer]

I have not been climbing for all that long but I have seen the number of climbers grow at Smith for example. The increased number dictate the "timbers" and trails at Smith to minimize the damage. I am saddened somewhat by this but I am also a cause of this development.

 

In addition, I have participated in two clean-up days under the base of el cap and each time I go back there is still more shitbags and trash. Maybe we aren't more clean than in the 80's but we have more of these clean-up days. It is simply a fact that more people climb now and so we must deal with the trash that everyone leaves behind as I doubt people are miraculously going to become cleaner on their own.

[mattp]

Flash, you misunderstand me. I have participated in several work projects at five or six different climbing areas, and I am not critical of the landscaping done at the bottom of climbs such as that undertaken at Smith. It DOES constitute a serious modification of the cliffside environment, though, and the whole management approach behind it rests on the assumption that there are and should be lots of climbers concentrating in that particular spot.

 

I think Smith is a great park. In my view it is a better rock climbing area than any we have in Washington and I think a big part of the attraction of the area lies specifically in the fact that it has been so heavily modified for climbing. I just don't think you can describe trampling the place and then rebuilding it, installing several hundred sport climbs, and hanging out in groups of a hundred as "low impact" techniques or signs of any great push toward environmental preservation. I like being able to climb at highly developed climbing areas, but I sure wouldn't want to see every potential rock climbing area developed that way.

[catbirdseat]

Sounds like semantics doesn't it?

[babnik]

and the whole management approach behind it rests on the assumption that there are and should be lots of climbers concentrating in that particular spot.

 

but the fact remains... there are many climbers. are you suggesting that you just hope that letting the cliffside erode will detter many climbers leaving climbing just to the diehards? the people are there... if you wish to abade erosion, you have to 'modify' the cliffside.

 

[mattp]

Catbird,

It may be a question of "semantics," I suppose, when DFA read's my comment about "ripping up" the ground and assumes that I am critical of the erosion containment measures taken at a place like Smith. Or maybe the distinction between controlling or reducing impact and mitigation may be a question of semantics. But my point is that we need to realize that we are a high impact user group and we need to deal directly with that fact rather than to pat our selves on the back for being "environmentally sensitive" or trying to hold ourselves out to the land managers or other conservation groups as some enlightened or harmless lovers of wild lands

[catbirdseat]

It seems logical that man made improvements should be made when impact and numbers reach some critical threshold. People are going to disagree on what that that point is.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Sorry for misunderstanding your statement there, Mattso-san.

 

Your point here about dealing directly with our high-impactness as a user group is interesting. How would you propose doing that in an area as popular as Smith Rock? It seems that the only way to reduce the impact of so many people is to resort to some kind of permit system that only allows so many people into the park, or into any given area of the park, at a time. Just doing the basics like staying on the trails only goes so far with so many people tromping up and down them all the time; eventually, the trails and belay areas need help, which is another sort of visual impact.

 

The Doctor's not trying to nitpick you or cause some type of argument, just trying to hear what you have to say or what ideas you have on the matter. 'Cause it's an important issue that unavoidably impacts every climbing area, and hey, discussions are fun.

[mattp]

Flash, I don't support closing areas or trying to limit the number of visitors. I advocate trying to organize climbers as a user group and working directly with land-managers or property owners as much as possible -- just as has been done at Smith. Where we are causing some kind of impact, whether it be that our dogs tied up at the base of the crag are scaring hikers who come by with little kids or that our large numbers are eroding some talus gully or whatever, we have to try to take some responsibility for the matter or we are likely to be shut down. My major point here is that I think we will be more able to address any problems that may arise if we do not harbor some illusion that we are the "good" users and it is all those other people (motorcycle riders or loggers or horespackers or whatever) who are ruining the place. I hear lots of climbers ranting and raving about their right to have access to our public lands without showing any apparent appreciation for the fact that their exercise of this "right" imposes some very real and long-term effects on the areas where they climb and upon other user groups.