Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
pope

Yellow Journalism?

Recommended Posts

Climbing and even ORV pales in comparison to what the LAWP has done to the area.. This guy

mullholland.jpg

started damage to that area and it's people that was unprecedented. Just go into the Owens River Gorge for a taste of real destruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, should I infer that high-impact recreational use is acceptable provided that we can find an example of even greater negative impact? Will that be how Pete Rose makes it into the Hall of Fame? It's OK 'casue everybody's doing it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many "low-impact" recreational uses are there?

Further, what defines "high impact" ?

 

And, no. I wasn't saying that it is acceptable. It's not that black and white, unfortunately. I was suggesting that there is relative impact that should be considered before getting one's panties in a bunch about some chalk and pathways through a delicate environment.

 

Historical perspectives of areas are valid considerations when discussing impact. Those that forget history are destined to repeat it...

 

In the Bishop area, the activities of climbers are a relatively small area of gorges, boulders, cliffsides and depressions.

Relatively nominal when considering the vastness of the surrounding area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have to say that the mentality that the rocks are just an extension of the gym playground is more pervasive than it was 30 years ago. I guess it just may have something to do with the numbers of people now involved. It's not a fringe activity like it used to be.

 

From my observations in Bishop it's not just a few paths to the rocks - looks more like a herd of elephants goes through regularly. Likely BLM will just have to acknowledge that this area will get trompped and do the best they can to limit impacts - AND keep climbers out of the areas that still have some integrity now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like the major impact of concern is vegetation and other organisms. The trails criss cross every which way. With some work a good trail system would have one trail reaching each climbing boulder that is connected to an arterial trail. I recall at the Peabodys there is at least one trail connecting each boulder with the neighboring boulder. This means each boulder has 3 to 4 trails instead of one. Just a thought, but what do I know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×