pope Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 Here's a link to an article with which a member of the editorial staff of R&I seems to disagree. Seems right on to me: Clean Up Your Act Quote
EWolfe Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 Climbing and even ORV pales in comparison to what the LAWP has done to the area.. This guy 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. Quote
pope Posted January 12, 2004 Author Posted January 12, 2004 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? Quote
EWolfe Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 How many "low-impact" recreational uses are there? Further, what defines "high impact" ? Â 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. Â Historical perspectives of areas are valid considerations when discussing impact. Those that forget history are destined to repeat it... Â 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. Quote
Jim Posted January 12, 2004 Posted January 12, 2004 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. Â 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. Quote
Norsky Posted January 14, 2004 Posted January 14, 2004 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? Quote
JayB Posted January 14, 2004 Posted January 14, 2004 Nothing a well-thought out network of trails wouldn't fix. Quote
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.