URGENT - Infinite Bliss access meeting TODAY

[EWolfe]

Infinite

 

Thanks for the correction, Peter.

[DCramer]

I went to the meeting last night and I do not think that there was any attempt to exclude anyone from this site. Mister E, DavidW, Das Bull, Mattp me and several other posters were there.

 

My understanding is that today’s meeting isn’t really an appropriate forum for a large group of climbers. A small group was going to meet share concerns and go on a site visit to Mt. Garfield. Nothing is being decided at this point.

 

As far as bolting, I find myself stuck in the middle somewhere having developed many routes across the state I want no restrictions however, over the years I have seen the term “route developer “come into use and realize that there is a lot of baggage that comes with such a designation. Long term the issues are much broader than Mt Garfield, hopefully the WCC will not only be a useful tool in working with land managers and climbing “issues” but keep the issues from appearing in the first place.

 

DC

 

EDIT: I did not help organize the meeting and I had a few beers so remember the above is just one man's understanding.

Edited May 27, 2004 by DCramer

[dberdinka]

I do not think that there was any attempt to exclude anyone from this site.

 

Clearly there was no desire to notify the climbing public at large that such a meeting was taking place. If there was an interest in doing so this website would be an obvious place to post such a message.

 

Rather, it would appear, a small group of individuals chose to limit knowledge that such a meeting was taking place and, with all probability, tried to pass of their objectives and opinions as the of climbers as a whole.

 

Thats pretty friggin weak!

 

Some of the people who apparently attended are pretty adament about insisting that all climbers get more involved with land management. Yet when the oppurtunity arised they kept mum in an attempt to control the dialog.

 

Thats actually really friggin weak!

[Alpinfox]

 

My motivation behind making this thread was not for people to get in a debate about whether I.B. is a good route or not. My goal was to try to get climbers of all sorts to contact land managers and let them know that you care about access to climbing on public land. If lots of people do this, they will realize that we are a significant user group and will pay more attention to issues important to us when other groups (like the ALPS) make complaints or when new land use policies are being formed.

 

If the WCC is ever going to have any bargaining power with land managers, the land managers need to believe that the WCC represents LOTS of people.

[DCramer]

I do not think that there was any attempt to exclude anyone from this site.

 

Clearly there was no desire to notify the climbing public at large that such a meeting was taking place. If there was an interest in doing so this website would be an obvious place to post such a message.

 

Rather, it would appear, a small group of individuals chose to limit knowledge that such a meeting was taking place and, with all probability, tried to pass of their objectives and opinions as the of climbers as a whole.

 

Thats pretty friggin weak!

 

Some of the people who apparently attended are pretty adament about insisting that all climbers get more involved with land management. Yet when the oppurtunity arised they kept mum in an attempt to control the dialog.

 

Thats actually really friggin weak!

 

When first informed of the meeting I too was irritated that it appeared as if discussions over serious issues had been ongoing. After going to the meeting it became clear to me that that was not the case. The meeting was a heads up to many people developing new routes across the state and the initial attempt at developing a broader coalition. Everyone agreed that greater participation was needed. Any attempt at creating a long lasting group must necessarily begin with a small group.

 

No one claimed to speak for Washington climbers and there was no attempt to develop a climber’s position on any issue whatsoever. Virtually the entire meeting was dedicated to discussing the need for a state level climber’s group and how to get one started.

[dberdinka]

So apparently there were two meetings? Climbers getting together last night to organize? Then a meeting today with DNR?

 

My apologizes I assumed there were two meetings with DNR.

 

No one claimed to speak for Washington climbers and there was no attempt to develop a climber’s position on any issue whatsoever.

 

Sounds more like the WRDC then the WCC, Washington Route Developers Coalition.

[willstrickland]

Edited May 27, 2004 by willstrickland

[chris]

I've always thought that "DNR" means Department of Natural Resources, a state agency. If so, Static Point has plenty of bolts placed on it as well, so why would a "DNR" designation cause conflict?

 

The rumor I've heard is that the NFS is most disturbed about the trail that the FA team constructed to the base (largely through brush cutting). As a policy, the NPS and the NFS are against private individuals cutting trail or even improving existing trail without supervision. I wish a procedure for authorizing the establishment of climber's trails and the maintenance of existing trails on a case by case basis by the responsible land agency would be created. As it stands if a climber wanted to improve a climber's trail to Forbidden (NPS land) or Cutthroat (NFS land), then they are actually violating regulations. For Infinite Bliss, the trail was built (as I understand it) in order to prevent multiple "social" trails forming by wandering climbers searching for the base of the walls.

 

Infinite Bliss could not have existed without placing bolts - which is what bolts are used for, to protect a compelling climb. It is not overbolted, in fact just the opposite, and I plan on taking a small rack as well. If climbers erroneously assume that 23 run-out pitches are easy to climb, they are no less guilty then by assuming that climbing the Dissapointment Cleaver is without life-threatening objective hazard!

[Alpinfox]

 

It is my understanding that land under the management of DNR can have various designations and each of those designations allow different uses. This PDF file lists some of those designations and explains what they mean.

 

 

It also seems to be the case that different districts of the same land manager (national forest for example) can have different policies toward a particular use.

[matt_warfield]

For Infinite Bliss, the trail was built (as I understand it) in order to prevent multiple "social" trails forming by wandering climbers searching for the base of the walls.

 

It's sort of ironic that the FA team, in an attempt to minimize the impact of access through trail construction, has perhaps compromised access through attracting the ire of a group whose primary concern is the trail and not the route.

 

Is The Access Fund involved in this or will they be?

[DCramer]

From AF's first post.

 

There is going to be a meeting today (Thursday, 5/26/04) involving the newly formed "Washington Climbers Coalition" (WCC), the Access Fund, the National Forest Service, and the Alpine Lakes Protection Society regarding the climbing route "Infinite Bliss" on the west peak of Mt. Garfield.

 

I believe that the WCC was actually formed under the encouragement of the Access Fund.

[DCramer]

The DNR has nothing to do directly with Mt Garfield.

[matt_warfield]

From AF's first post.

 

There is going to be a meeting today (Thursday, 5/26/04) involving the newly formed "Washington Climbers Coalition" (WCC), the Access Fund, the National Forest Service, and the Alpine Lakes Protection Society regarding the climbing route "Infinite Bliss" on the west peak of Mt. Garfield.

 

I believe that the WCC was actually formed under the encouragement of the Access Fund.

 

Thanks, I didn't read the first part carefully. I'm glad the AF is involved as they have a lot of experience in these matters. Whatever happens to Infinite Bliss, "alpine sport routes" are not unique to Mt. Garfield and are being developed (Alberta, Leavenworth, Mazama, etc.) and the relevant issues need to be addressed as they often become quite popular despite some climbers objections.

[Crackbolter]

For those who attended the meeting last night, cheers for caring about our access. I can understand how a meeting of such nature would need to be limited to those who are in the interest of each area currently being scrutenized for publicizing new routes and new trail development. I only wish I could have attended but I already had my hands full with another issue at hand. I hope to hear more about the result of last night's meeting soon.

 

-T

[catbirdseat]

This is what people mean when they talk about the proverbial waste substance hitting rapidly rotating metal blades.

[dberdinka]

Infinite Bliss could not have existed without placing bolts -

 

In another post MattP refers to an ascent of the same face about 20 years ago by David Whitelaw and partner. We can presume they took a less direct line and might have even placed some bolts, but big routes on big faces can be established without having to rap bolt them first.

 

Of course they were inconvienced by a round-about and difficult descent......thank goodness that's no longer an issue.

[Mark_Husbands]

DNR = Department of Natural Resources

Exactly. DNR lands are not federal, they are state lands that have evolved from the original Washington state land grant to generate revenue for the support of schools, universities, hospitals, and prisons. DNR is (state) constitutionally bound to serve the public interest; this was originally interpreted as maximizing revenue from leases and timber extraction, but is now more broadly interpreted to include preservation of natural features and ecosystem function and so on. However the state still logs on many of these lands. In eastern washington they have lots of little chunks, in the original land grant configution, that they lease to farmers for agricultural purposes.

 

http://www.dnr.wa.gov/base/programs.html

[Mark_Husbands]

One more thing...

its the National Park Service (NPS)

and the United States Forest Service (USFS)

National Forests are managed by the USFS

[richard_noggin]

Infinite Bliss could not have existed without placing bolts -

 

In another post MattP refers to an ascent of the same face about 20 years ago by David Whitelaw and partner. We can presume they took a less direct line and might have even placed some bolts, but big routes on big faces can be established without having to rap bolt them first.

 

Of course they were inconvienced by a round-about and difficult descent......thank goodness that's no longer an issue.

 

Yo dude it's not about the bolts, as with most access issues it's about people.

Let's all dress up like goats or better yet like those Grizzly mofos, nobody phuks wit dem

Nice day for a hike to the base of Garfield

DICK

[willstrickland]

One more thing...

its the National Park Service (NPS)

and the United States Forest Service (USFS)

National Forests are managed by the USFS

 

Who, for clarity, are under two different Departments: USFS is Dept of Agriculture, NPS is Dept of Interior.

[richard_noggin]

Yo ....I also wanted to make it clear the alps want to stop access to preserve the area for future generations, so they can also be denied access.

Lets all stay at home and get fat ...climbing MT Garfield is toooo much work anyway.

Big FAT DICK

[pope]

That hill has seen countless ascents by a variety of routes. I really don't car about the route in question, whether it survives this controversy. It would be a shame, however, if access to Garfield in general were in anyway restricted because of somebody's "vision" for an alpine sport climb. Probably the ALPS group understands that when you beat all of the adventure out of a mountain, anybody and everybody can and will take a turn. You're probably right, Dick Nog Man, that bolts aren't the issue. I'm sure it's the increased traffic (practically a corollary to low-adventure climbing) that is alarming ALPS members. But I'm just speculating.

[AlpineK]

I really don't think that ALPS gives a rats ass about beating adventure out of anything. From my understanding they are one of those groups that want to restrict all access to the wilderness.

 

Like Dick said they want all of us to stay home.

[jon]

Groups like the ALPS has it's place, even if their ideas are a bit more "radical" than we would like (I must admit I know nothing about them except hearsay) because they are fighting to protect wilderness. Just remember there are other groups at the other end of the spectrum trying to dip their dirtly little paws in it and extract everything they can out of it.

 

The problem is, if you continue to restrict access to a number of places the people just go somewhere else, and it creates problems at other areas. I don't think there are many areas in Washington that go unmanaged so this is problematic.

[richard_noggin]

This is just a taste of coming restrictions by land managers .... trails to climbs in the alpine lakes wilderness...think about it SnowCreek Wall.

freedom to enjoy any outdoor activity will have to be fought for, wake up this is not about bolts this about accessing climbing routes, alps have political push we don't , where do you think this going?

Thanks for the backup Alpine K

Pope this route is 23 pitches long and is not a sport route it was given that title by a climbing mag, your beating a dead horse here dude