Do Environmentalists Oppose Climbing?

[mattp]

Fairweather keeps interjecting in other threads his view that wilderness groups and conservation organizations like the Sierra Club want to close off access and prevent us from climbing. It is certainly true that some of these groups have come out in favor of reducing the network of roads in Washington's Cascades, but are they really so "extreme" in their position that, if they had their way, we wouldn't be able to enjoy Washington's Wilderness?

[HRoark]

My understanding (though admittedly limited) is that many of these groups (especially the more extreme ones) view any human impact as bad. I believe it was Al Gore in "Earth in the Balance" who put forth the idea to close off a region of the United States from Canada to Mexico and remove all human contact. I think this plan started inside the U.N.

[Rodchester]

It is true that many environmental groups do want to radically reduce or even eliminate access (though certainly not all).

 

That is why sooooo many people hesitate to call themselves environmentalists. The brush of the radicals unfortunately paints the rest.

 

I think if you looked to those people that have environmental concerns and love the wilderness and mother earth, blah, blah, blah, but are realistic, most have no problem with climbing or climbers' access.

 

 

2 cents

[minx]

yes...environmentalist oppose climbing, breathing, and frankly the fact that humans exist

 

i think it depends on which group you're refering to.

 

and yes, it makes it difficult to call yourself an environmentalists when the whole concept is characterized by extremists. same reason more women don't call themselves femminists

[catbirdseat]

There are those who would have you believe that any restriction on access by climbers is a slippery slope leading to a complete ban on all access. I'm not one of them. I think we have to accept occasional restrictions, provided there are good reasons for them.

[HRoark]

There are those who would have you believe that any restriction on access by climbers is a slippery slope leading to a complete ban on all access. I'm not one of them. I think we have to accept occasional restrictions, provided there are good reasons for them.

 

That is a myopic view, cbs. You have to look at the core of what some of these groups want: a total ban on human traffic in the wilderness. Viewed that way, any ban/restriction IS a slippery slope because you have allowed them one step closer to their goal and they will keep pushing. How many times will you keep backing up before they push you over the cliff? You know how to boil a frog don't you?

[mattp]

Take the Sierra Club, for example. As long as I can remember, they have supported the preservation of wild lands and opposed government subsidy of private extractive industry. They have occasionally come out in support of closing a road that I like to use, but their overall stance has supported and even promoted my enjoyment of the kinds of wilderness activities that I pursue. I certainly don't see them as systemically opposed to climbing. After running a short google search, and without actually reading all the links, I find the following:

 

The Sierra Club publicly states they would like to see the vast network of logging roads cut back, as they did in this recent policy statement released in celebration of Lewis and Clark: web page

 

Closer at hand, they have come out in support of preservation of the lower reaches of the Snoqualmie Valley and supported trail development in the Middle Fork, though I am not sure if they have directly come out in favor of closing the Middle Fork Road (I certainly wouldn't put it past them).

web page

web page

 

They are certainly against what they brand as unstainable logging practices, and they frequently oppose such things as increased helicopter overflights in National Parks and wilderness areas in Hawaii, or the paving of a hiking trail in Texas.

web page

web page

 

They generally don't like mechanized off-road vehicles, and they are against further development in Yosemite National Park.

web page

web page

web page

 

But on the other hand, the do and always have actively been involved in wilderness outings and climbing, and their minimum impact policies certainly don't seem to imply that they want to keep humans out of the woods.

web page

web page

 

They say one important purpose of public lands is to maintain opportunities for hunting, hiking and fishing.

web page

 

They are against fee demo, and they say that leases of public lands to private business should not interfere with public access or recreation.

web page

web page

 

Am I a wacko environmentalist? I pretty much agree with all of these positions. (I may not agree with them if they actively supported the Middle Fork road closure, and I might give slightly wider access than they would to mountain bikes.)

[Rodchester]

No, you are not one of the wackos.

[chucK]

I am very interested in how (and if) Fairweather will respond in a factual discussion of this issue. It is easy to hijack other threads and snipe. Much more tough to make a cogent case.

 

I am also interested in documentation supporting HRoark's claim that some environmentalists support complete ban of humans. I don't doubt that he can find some wacko's webpage out there calling for all humans to kill themselves, but I do doubt that he'll be able to find anything that supports the belief that mainstream environmental movements are so anti-human.

 

As for whether I feel Environmentalists oppose climbing, I think it would be safe to say that environmentalists do not oppose "climbing". Some environmental groups do oppose alteration of the landscape by humans for any purpose, even recreation. Thus some environmentalists oppose fixed anchors as well as the complete trashing of a scenic area in the name of climbing as has been done at Smith Rock. I wouldn't call this opposition to climbing per se, but an opposition to unnecessary human impact on the environment.

[dberdinka]

In B'ham there is a very successful enviromental organization that has openly expressed the desire to shut off large sections of the North Cascades to human access.

 

One of their big projects is to "protect" the habitat of large mammals in cross-border areas. Protecting includes shutting humans out.

 

It seems that many modern enviromentalists (at least one's holding the purse strings) tend to be content appreciating wilderness from a distance vs experiencing it. Those of us out there using and enjoying it tend not to consider ourselves real enviromentalists.

[mattp]

I think you hint at an imporant distinction there, Darin. There are environmentalists and environmental groups whose members generally don't visit the wilderness and who see wilderness areas as preserves where the impact of human visitation should be minimal or none, and some of these are well-funded or, if not, some of them make a lot of noise. They certainly provide a lot of fodder for right wingers to banter about how "environmentalists hate people." However, I believe most mainstream environmental groups do not hold such an extreme position that they would support closing off the North Cascades to human visitation, and I don't even think most such organizations support widespread further limits on the number of hikers alowed to enter the North Cascades wilderness. People who actually visit wilderness areas such as backpackers, river rafters, and even climbers are very strong backers and major consituencies in most mainstream environmental groups, I bet, and I think many of these groups realize this and rely upon it.

 

When it comes to road closures or issues like "fixed anchors," there are more situations where our interests as climbers will come in direct conflict with various environmental group agendas but, even here, I have never thought that I as a climber am threatened by any large coalition of environmental groups -- indeed, I worry much more about what industry groups and government land managers are trying to do with respect to climbing access issues than I do about what ALPS or the Sierra Club have to say on these issues.

[Dru]

the idea to close off a region of the United States from Canada to Mexico and remove all human contact. I think this plan started inside the U.N.

 

And once there are no humans inside "the Zone" there will be no one to witness the alien motherships landing, discarging freshly fabricated black helicopters and taking on cattle rectums and internal organs as payment!

[catbirdseat]

I can think of an example in which federal wildlife biologist have tried to cut off human access. A few years ago, the Pacific Northwest Trail organization wanted to route the trail up Swift Creek near Baker Lake to reach Artist's Point. There is a rough existing trail that follows the creek, however the lack of a bridge at the crossing makes it very dangerous to cross except at low water.

 

PNT asked the Forest Service to build a bridge. FS asked a wildlife biologist to review the plan. He put a big circle around the area saying it was "grizzly habitat". He didn't mean there were actually grizzlies there, just that due to it's relative isolation, it would make good habitat. On the basis of that summary judgment, the FS decided not to build the bridge, and the PNW was forced to reroute to a less desireable alternative.

[iain]

Often it seems the umbrella of "environmentalism" covers other motivations. Putting warm fuzzy bears aside, perhaps I don't want bridges put in because it makes the area that much more wild and exclusive to get into, making it a special place that is perhaps visited rarely. Sort of along the lines of Edward Abbey's proposal to move the Grand Canyon Vistor Center way back from the canyon's edge. The animals and habitat are often used as symbols around which people can rally to protect areas from development.

[chucK]

Sorry CBS, I put your example in the category of restricting alteration the environment. I would not call it banning all humans from the region, and I would definitely not call it opposing climbing.

[catbirdseat]

My recollection is that the request was to replace a previously existing bridge on an existing route. This I'm not confident that I remember that correctly though.

[Bug]

I consider myself an environmentalist but that does not make me an extremist any more than being a republican makes someone a hard core, right wing, christian fundamentalist, war mongerer. Gross generalities are shallow and polarizing by nature. I like seeing roads closed off simply for the sake of increasing habitat. Valley bottoms are where 90% of the food is and unfortunately, where a lot of roads go. I have hiked many long trails to get to long climbs in the Bitterroot. Now that I am older and trying to be more careful with my joints, I would consider having a packer haul my gear in. It does not close an area off. It just makes it more wild and conducive to a healthy ecosystem that can support a broad genepool of all species.

[Fairweather]

I don't see anything in this thread that changes my position. MattP, you're correct that my position regarding the Sierra Club is likely extreme. They do, in fact, serve to balance the equation against corporate interests. I am forced to take the opposite extreme when it comes to groups like The Wilderness Society. (I am curious to hear what Iain thinks about their attempts to limit climbers at Mount Hood a couple of years ago.)

The 'environmentalists' of the 1970's and early 80's did do a lot of good things. But their heirs have taken some extreme positions that range from eliminating summit registers, to burning public shelters, to filing lawsuits to close existing access.

 

When it comes to fighting new encroachments, I support (mainstream) environmental groups. For example, I support Winter's fight to keep new development from the north side of Mount Hood. But when these groups fight to limit my existing access, and want to turn a family-friendly weekend hiking area into an multi-day-only exclusive country club for the very fit, I have to take a stand. And I don't care much about 'collateral damage'.

[mattp]

OK - so maybe the Sierra Club isn't all bad. How about the Natural Resources Defense Council, or the Audubon Society? I don't believe they are actively trying to keep you from going climbing either, are they? Yes, I am sure they have come down in support of a road closure at some point, but these groups recognize that a large portion of their constituency are parents who want to take thier kids outdoors, or people who just like to go to the mountains themselves - and I don't think they are "extremists" on access issues. If I am right, I've just named what are probably the three most recognizable names in environmental organizations. You acknowledge that your problem lies with "extreme environmentalists," not mainstream ones, but even here I fear that your wartime rhetoric shows how maybe you've gotten a little too into the fight (you don't care about collateral damage?). Again, I will point out that the things you seem most worried about (like road closures) are most often management decisions made by the Forest Service or BLM or somebody for reasons that most often have little or nothing to do with environmental concerns. I believe that in the North Cascades, it was the rangers who started eliminating summit registers. Throughout the American West for at least the last 30 years, the Forest Service has been actively engaged in a program to burn down public shelters with, as far as I can tell, little regard for whether environmentalists want them to do so or not. Yes, the Wilderness Society may have filed lawsuits to close existing access — that is the only real tool they have to promote their agenda. Where appropriate, we as climbers should be filing our own lawsuits or intervening as an opposing party, to preserve our access.

[Winter]

Aw shit!!! FW just called me mainstream. What the hell have I been doing on this site for the last two years?

 

 

 

BTW, I can think of very few times that environmental groups have caused serious problems for climbers. The concept that limiting ANY access is bad because it will lead to LOTS of closures is untenable. That's MORE extreme than the green position.

 

It also wasn't the Wilderness Society that advocated for limiting access to Mt. Hood but Wilderness Watch. The distinction is important, because the WS is a large, national and mainstream group with thousands of memebers, whereas WW is a small group out of Eugene that does not speak for the nearly the same number of people. Watch for the Mt. Hood National Forest to reignite this debate in the near future.

[maryk]

Just some info, no opinions...b/c I know better than to get involved in this mess.

 

The Sierra Club has formal national policies on loads of things. (Still, the Club has over 750,000 members and they are all individuals just like you with inidividual opinions). When the Club has a national policy agreed to by the Board of Directors, all Club entities (state chapters, etc) must abide by it whether they agree or not. The Club's only formal policy on climbing is within the context of legislated wilderness. Feel free to read it at http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/wilderness.asp (scroll down for climbing stuff).

[catbirdseat]

Fixed Anchors in Wilderness

 

(1) Preserving and protecting wilderness values for future generations is the primary purpose of wilderness. All other uses are subject to this primary purpose. All management actions should enhance, rather than degrade, wilderness values as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964.

 

(2) Climbing, including the use of fixed anchors, is an historic and can be an appropriate use of wilderness, consistent with the purposes of the Wilderness Act. However, fixed anchors that cannot be placed or removed without altering the environment were not specifically addressed during the passage of the Wilderness Act.

 

These should be regulated as installations in wilderness; their use in wilderness may be authorized under Section 4© of the Wilderness Act, which provides that installations can be allowed where "necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act." Within designated wilderness areas, or areas otherwise protected for their wilderness values, climbing, including the use of fixed anchors, should be subject to the same standards as all other activities that are consistent with the preservation of the wilderness character of these lands.

 

(3) Climbing, including the use of fixed anchors, should be addressed in wilderness management plans, subject to public review, and managed as necessary to protect wilderness resources. The full range of management options, including but not limited to resource monitoring, voluntary use limits, restrictions, permitting, area-specific prohibitions, and the establishment of Limits of Acceptable Change criteria for specific areas, should be considered and implemented as necessary to protect wilderness character when regulating climbing and the use of fixed anchors. Where climbing occurs, all relevant management plans, informational signs and wilderness permits should address guidelines for climbing and the use of fixed anchors.

 

(4) Site-specific wilderness management plans should include certain minimum requirements for climbing. Climbing should not occur where fragile, rare, threatened, or endangered plant or animal species may be impacted, where human presence may interfere with essential wildlife behavioral patterns, where recreational activities may interfere with religious or cultural values, or where it would compromise the scenic resource. Fixed anchors should not be used where there is a removable equipment alternative.

 

To minimize visual impacts, slings and other removable equipment should be removed whenever and wherever possible. The use of power drills is prohibited in wilderness areas. Any alteration of rock should be prohibited, except as minimally necessary for the placement of fixed anchors. Impacts from climbing on vegetation should be subject to Wilderness regulations and the removal of vegetation should be prohibited

 

Adopted by the Board of Directors, May 9-10, 1998; amended November 17, 2000.