Jump to content

Thanks hero.


Recommended Posts

As I thought I had indicated earler, nobody involved with the Access Fund or the Washington Climbers Coalition has suggested maintaining the status quo at Dishman. Quite to the contrary, we have consistently told Dane that we believe we could get a satisfactory resolution to his concerns if he would stop inflaming the issue. Two weeks ago, we held a conference telephone call involving two staff members from the Access Fund national office, the Washington Coordinator, and two of us from the Washington Climbers Coalition. In that call we repeated the same message and we specifically spoke about working to obtain removal of the offending holds - though we said we could not guarantee a particular result. Dane said he would rather cause the area to be closed than to allow a single offending hold remain.


In my telephone call with Mr. Squibb that Dane reports here, I said we were not at that time ready to make a statement but that if he would tell us what they wanted, the WCC would promote whatever management policy the property owners would request us promote.


We do not support chipping and bolting on holds, but I (for one) fear that Dane may only be making a bad situation worse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Dane said he would rather cause the area to be closed than to allow a single offending hold remain.


We do not support chipping and bolting on holds


I see some ambiguity or contradiction here. To clarify:


It seems that, although you do not support bolted on holds you would rather see Dishman remain open with bolted on holds, than closed. Also you do not address bolted crack climbs and route name graffiti at all in this statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(This is being posted to two threads, responding to Dane’s posts concerning the Access Fund and WCC.)


First, to be clear, as a personal matter I neither agree with nor condone bolted on holds (manufactured or natural), the intentional creation of holds, marking route names on the rock, or—as a general concept—placing bolts in terrain that can be easily protected with removable gear. Given free reign to change the world to suit my tastes, I also would love to erase any number of routes at Exit 38 and Frenchman Coulee that offend my personal aesthetic for route spacing, purity of line, and the general appearance of a natural space.


For most of the past ten years, however, I’ve volunteered my time to work on climbing issues. I was the Access Fund’s regional coordinator for Washington from 1995 until I resigned this summer; I was a member of the Access Fund’s board of directors from 1997-2003; and most recently, I’ve been active in helping to form the Washington Climbers Coalition. In those roles, I’ve largely kept my opinions as a climber to myself. Some might criticize this approach as “weak,” but I’ve always felt that in order to maximize my effectiveness, I needed to maintain an open channel to all climbers. Keeping that channel open hinges, in my mind, on not being perceived as having an “agenda” and on keeping my focus on issues that raise objective access concerns (as opposed to matters more confined to debate among climbers).


In the case of Dishman, I think the practices of bolting on holds, marking route names at the base, and chipping do raise objective access concerns. Having those practices take place at any crag—regardless of how much of a “shit pile” someone might consider it—may very well affect access at other crags. (A real world example: Climber conduct at Fossil Rock in the late 80s/early 90s created access problems at Little Si a few years later.) At a certain point bolting practices may also raise concerns, but the issue of whether a bolt next to a crack is “bad” while a bolt in a blank face may be “OK” is, in my direct experience, a question of that is of true significance to climbers only, unless a land manager or owner is forced into a pissing match between warring climbers.


Of course, just such a pissing match exists here, with the landowner now forced into the conflict. And, in one of life’s ironic twists, I’m sitting in the position of responding to a critical post from Dane when I agree on a personal level with most of his objections, I agree that the issues mentioned above raise objective access concerns, and I agree with Off White’s statement that the actions taken at the September 26 cleanup appear to be, in and of themselves, a “reasonable solution.” So what gives?


There is a distinction to be made between bad people and bad actions. I think this distinction has been confused at Dishman. I’ve never met the folks responsible for bolting on the holds, but I know people who know them, and it’s obvious to me from attending the August meeting in Spokane that the folks have a lot of friends. This “controversy” took a personal turn from the start. I think a large number of Spokane climbers on the “other side” of this issue from Dane are on the “other side” because of the manner in which this issue developed. In my opinion the resulting defensiveness and polarization has, to this point, precluded the “compromise” that I’ve felt was appropriate all along. That “compromise” is one that would have Dishman looking very much like, if not identical to, the way it looked at the end of September 26.


I participated in the conference call Dane has mentioned. Michael, Matt and I all shared our sense that we could make progress on the real issues at Dishman if the wind was taken out of the war of wills. I, for one, expressed my sense that the key to making such progress was for Dane to turn down the heat and allow a third party to step in. I still believe that today.


Bottom line: I don’t think the goals of the AF and WCC are any different than those of Dane at Dishman. I’m concerned, though, that if we stay on the current course, we’re headed toward a divided community, a closed cliff, and potential repercussions elsewhere.


I’m tempted to continue. I’m frustrated by the inference that I was unresponsive to Dane until a week or so ago; I’m frustrated by the suggestion that the AF, the WCC and I took no interest in Dishman until recently; and I’m frustrated by the way in which the AF and WCC have been characterized in a number of posts. I’ll fully admit to lapses in responsiveness to a number of folks over the past year (which is one of the reasons I resigned as a regional coordinator, probably a year too late), but I won’t admit to that in this case. The point of this post, though, is a call to depersonalize and de-escalate this situation, so I’ll let it go.




Andy Fitz

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support the work that Dane and others did in removing the artificial hold bolted onto the rock, and the bolts next to protectable cracks.


In the case of the bolts next to gear placements in particular, it seems that in this case it seems clear that the two conditions that most climbers require for exceptions to the "no bolts next to gear placements" rule were not present in that (1) they did not have the consent of the FA, and (2) gear placements are not not uncommon enough to be totally out of character with the crag. I am not sure how the second condition will jive with the sensibilities of the more vehement opponents of bolting on this board, but in practice a bolt next to a feature that might take gear amidst a line that involves 100 feet of otherwise unprotectable face climbing, at a crag that features nearly all bolted lines, is just not something that most reasonable climbers are going to get upset about - and even those that do get upset probably make the reasonable conclusion that in a world where you have to pick your battles, it would be wise to save the ammo for more significant fights.


Returning to this particular fight, I get the sense that neither Dane nor the people installing the bolts are going to allow the other to have the final say, and that we are on our way to the eventual "winner" achieving a pyrrhic victory in which access is lost, the rock is trashed, and climbers earn themselves a bad name in the eyes of land managers across the state.


The only way out that I can see is for the two sides of the dispute to turn the matter over to a third party, and accept the compromise that the said party comes up with after hearing the arguments from both sides. This might even take the form of a route-by-route judgement. No one will come out of such a process as the unanimous winner, but that seems a hell of a lot better than the likely outcome of the current stalemate, in which everyone comes out a loser.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand that due to prior personal conflicts some of you folks may not be able to deal with Dane, but I am curious what it is you want to negotiate.


Bolt on holds outside of a man made structure like a gym are clearly wrong. All of the bolt on holds should be removed and not come back.


Chipping is also clearly wrong. I don't see any remedy for what's happened, but nobody should do any future chipping.


In general crack bolting is clearly wrong...given reasonabe placements. You may have some negotiating room if some of the cracks are knifeblade seams or expanding flakes, but that's all the negotiating I can see.


You might get a new guy to talk to, but I don't think you can get or deserve a different outcome.


I also wonder what MattP and AndyF mean by negotiating a solution. Are you saying that you're going to leave some of the bolt on hold routes intact? I couldn't support that. I can't imagine any but a very small minority finding that acceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

grin.gif Dude, you are so wrong about my involvement here. I am an adult, with a free mind and spirit. I posted the questions on this board, directed to you in regards to the meeting on my on volition, not my boss's.


I asked what the results of the meeting were here in a public forum not to "stir up the pot" but to find out what your proposed course of action was to be, and how all climbers involved could get involved and provide input.I also do not consider asking you questions in this forum to be a "pissing match" as you stated. Just trying to figure out where you were taking us.


I did ask Michael to tell me about the meeting, and I heard his version. The reason I posted was because I thought the community should also know of the meeting, and the results.


I, as well as many others still do not know what your proposed solution to this mess is. Why dont you let everyone know what you want to see as an end result?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also wonder what MattP and AndyF mean by negotiating a solution. Are you saying that you're going to leave some of the bolt on hold routes intact? I couldn't support that. I can't imagine any but a very small minority finding that acceptable.


Mr. K-


The point here is not what either Andy or I think should happen though, if you scroll up a couple of posts, you will see where Andy stated the holds you worry about should go and where I said we don't approve of bolted on or chipped holds. However, the real problem here is that a small number of the Dishman climbers have been at loggerheads. The solution to that problem lies in their being able to reach some kind of working agreement that all concerned parties can live with.


Personally, I agree with your "standards" - but you and I don't climb there and probably never much will. Spokane area climbers and the land owners are going to do what they will quite apart from whatever you and I might say. Does that mean that we give it our stamp of approval if they decide to do something we don't agree with? No. But at the end of the day, the climbers who regularly visit the place as well as the land owners are the ones who will have to live with it.


Any "answer" here lies in seeking a working agreement and then taking it to the land owners to show that they need not fear an ongoing crisis - any long-term solution lies in abiding by such agreements.


We can't impose "our" solution on Spokane area climbers or on a Spokane property owner. It isn't going to fly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't climb there true, but I have spent a bit of time climbing at Mini, so I'm not totaly unfamilier with the region.


I don't think I'm saying anything radical by saying that bolt on holds are unacceptable on real rock. I'd even be willing to bet a large amount of money that at least 95% of the current Spokane area climbers don't find bolt on holds acceptable.


My personal perspective is that allowing any bolt on holds to remain at a climbing area sets a very bad presidence for other areas which I do climb at on a regular basis. I also feel that the whole issue of bolting next to cracks caries over to other areas of the state. This spring I climbed a route in the Icicle with blatant crack bolting. I would hope that there is only a very small amount of negotiating room on this subject, and I'd like to see this subject debated in other areas of the state.


My original question, which you've avoided, is what are the issues that are to be negotiated. I don't expect an official position posted by you or anyone else, but I'm curious where there is going to be give and take since I don't see much room for that in the other 4 issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. K, we seem to be misunderstanding each other here. Obviously, the discussion here has focused on the bolted on holds and chipping - and I have told you "where I stand" on these issues. I believe you know where I stand on bolted cracks, too, but I suppose we could discuss that point as well. But my point is this: who cares if Mattp would be satisfied to leave ten holds or zero holds on the wall? (My own preference would be zero.)


Questions right now revolve around not only past practices and current repairs, but also ongoing management. The land owner could step in and say "no more climbing," or "no more bolted on holds" or "no bolts, period." That might "resolve" it, but I believe that may not be necessary if those directly involved are able to work this out amongst themselves. I don't think there will be any successful resolution unless those involved discuss more than just whether this or that bolt or bolted on hold remains or goes. Among questions I might ask is under what circumstances are any future modifications or maintenance to take place at Dishman? Who is going to be involved in any discussion of these issues?


I am not negotiating anything here - I have no direct interest in the outcome. I also don't really know all of the concerns, in part because I haven't even spoken to the "other side." The folks who have to negotiate are those involved in the conflict and any "agenda" will have to be theirs.


Do you want me to prepare some kind of checklist or script for negotiations between people I have never met and never or barely ever talked to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read in previous posts that you and or the WCC want to help resolve the issue so forgive me when I think that you are directly involved or at least have spent some time studying the issues.


From my perspective I read that one side seems to like bolt on holds etc. and the other side is opposed to the practices. I also read how the WCC and the Access fund want to help negotiate a settlement based on the middle ground. To me that means that a negotiated solution would leave some bolt on holds and some bolted cracks; either that or there are other issues not mentioned in the posts that could be used while negotiating.


Do you want me to prepare some kind of checklist or script for negotiations between people I have never met and never or barely ever talked to?


I was just asking questions and they weren't only dirrected at you. I would hope you or whoever does help negotiate does have a firm grasp on the issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what I think the Access Fund should do? Go out and buy some land with some rock on it, it can even be nice rock. Tell the guys who are chipping and bolting on holds that the can do WHATEVER they want with the land and the rock. As time passes, some bolts find their way onto the face, then some faces that are pretty clean get chipped a bit, and when the climbers realize that even the chip holds make it too hard, the just bolt on some big jugs. So they are happy as a clam and then all of the sudden fall rolls around, and shit you know what, it's starting to rain. How bout we build a room over the rock? Excellent idea! So they build a roof and now they have dry rock any time they want. A month goes by and the climbers realize "shit it's fucking cold out!" Lets builds some walls around the roof? BRILLIANT! So the climbers build the walls, add some heating. Wow this is great, we have warm and dry climbing all year long. So the months pass, a latte machine arrives, they put in a snack bars, some showers and a bathroom. Getting tired of washing their cars the pave the road leading to the gym.... umm I mean crag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The folks who have to negotiate are those involved in the conflict and any "agenda" will have to be theirs.


how does this square with saying those involved in the conflict are getting personal issues involved and need to stand aside? or did that comment apply just to dane, and whoever rebolted on artificial holds, and replaced bolts next to cracks, has no personal issues and can be negotiated with confused.gifhellno3d.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never said I want Dishman closed. I have argued the opposite to the land owners in fact, gym holds, chipping and all.


Matt where do you get this shit? Too much acid as an undergrad? Next time you misquote me in public to the extent you have here we'll be discussing that fact further in a different forum.


Matt sez

I also don't really know all of the concerns (at Dishamn)


The first reasonable comment on Dishman you have made to date, Matt.


Gary if your questions were actual concerns my apologies. My answer has not changed. Take a look a what I previously posted. Lane's versions of the events at the BOD meeting shouldn't differ from mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dane, you said what I reported. I made a special point of saying "let me get this straight: are you saying you would rather cause the area to be closed than to allow a single bolted on hold to remain?" You said yes. Eight people were listening. You asked if any of use were for "access at any cost," and we said we were not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gosh Matt and I thought you were an attorney and formally trained to be speciifc. Lets be specifc and not misrepresent anything here. I did not say what you have quoted.


Your first quote is this:

"Dane said he would rather cause the area to be closed than to allow a single offending hold remain."


Now you want to change that to, "let me get this straight: are you saying you would rather cause the area to be closed than to allow a single bolted on hold to remain?" You said yes."


At Dishman there are bolted on holds, glued on holds, many chipped holds and a stud or two used as foot holds.


I find them all offensive. There are/were two bolted on gym holds however on two different climbs.


To be specific and not misleading, I said "I would rather see Dishman closed than leave up bolted on gym holds in place. I have also offered the land owners a reasonable financial incentive and a plan to keep climbing access open and acceptable to them. You on the other hand have done nothing but offer misinformation and a misrepresentation of the facts.


In the same context you were preaching compromise to keep the area open. Compromise what? Leaving it "as is"? Which has been your public position. Or better yet I'll quote you on Dishman. "No comment". Get your shit together if you want to quote me.


Your credibility is zero on Dishman. You need to find another forum to push your weak agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, Everyone …


It sounds like there is confusion about what The Access Fund’s positions are. For clarity, I’ve reprinted our position statements from our website: http://accessfund.org/whoweare/who_about_pos_responsible.html



Where We Stand On:


Placing Bolts. The Access Fund recognizes that bolt safety anchors have been used as climbing protection for over sixty years, and believes that bolts should generally be allowed where climbing is permitted. However, the Access Fund recognizes that the use of bolts may impact the natural resource. Collectively such impacts may have a significant effect on natural or social values. For this reason the Access Fund strongly encourages climbers to place bolts legally, discretely, and in a manner appropriate to local climbing tradition.


Removing Bolts. The Access Fund believes that once bolts have been placed they should not be removed unless there is consensus among the local climbing community favoring their removal, and/or compelling evidence that the bolts in question have caused or will cause adverse impacts to natural resource values. Chopping a bolted route often results in significant damage to the climbing resource. The Access Fund strongly urges climbers not to take unilateral action on bolt removal without the support of a majority of the local climbing community.


Manufacturing Holds. Although chipping is not a widespread practice, the Access Fund vehemently opposes intentional alteration of the rock for the purpose of creating or enhancing holds. We believe such actions degrade the climbing resource and eliminate challenges for future generations of climbers. Conserving natural resources and the climbing environment should be a high priority for all climbers.


Our Conclusions:


Climbers involved in the placement or removal of fixed anchors have a responsibility to be aware of the implications of their actions on climbing access and the cliff environment. Chopping bolts and chipping holds harm the climbing resource and the climbing experience. The physical acts can permanently scar the rock itself, and often result in division among members of the climbing community. When such division becomes public, it tarnishes the image of climbers to the public at large and to land owners and managers. The vast majority of climbers are responsible individuals committed to cooperative stewardship of the environment, as evidenced by the Access Fund's ten-year history of creation and maintenance of trails, area cleanups, raptor monitoring and support for scientific studies.


In any dispute over bolting the Access Fund advocates a balance between climbing opportunities and resource protection, and promotes responsible climbing attitudes and practices. The Access Fund believes climbers should address differences of opinion about where and to what extent bolts should be placed among themselves, rather than encouraging or expecting land managers or politicians to resolve those differences through law or public policy.



Pretty clear that we don’t favor bolted cracks, chipping or bolted-on holds and I have never made any statements to the contrary, to anyone.


But note the final paragraph …


We advocate “a balance between climbing opportunities and resource protection.”


This is the part that a few people seem to disregard. To refuse to seek that balance in favor of a strict, binary (black or white, good or evil) position on this issue is to ensure a prolonged and escalating conflict. This is particularly true when tempers and personalities erode the foundation of cooperation.


This is all I’ve been saying. We want Dishman to be free of bolted-on holds and chipping. We also want the community as a whole to decide how the area should be bolt-protected. This won’t happen until more good dialogue between all parties occurs and any unnecessary, polarizing influences minimized.


As for what Dane is saying about the Access Fund, I don’t understand this at all. I’ve never varied from our stated objectives in my discussions with him. He spoke with my boss and the national policy director about this, as well, and we all said the same thing: we want to work toward removing bolted holds, stop the chipping and to keep it from spreading to other crags.


The difference that, perhaps, Dane refuses to accept is that we believe the best way to do this is through education. If you can convince someone to buy into your beliefs, they’ll be your partners. If you force your will over theirs, they’ll be embittered enemies.


The process of winning people over can take time, however, and we’re willing to work through that. It was in this context, by the way, that Dane misrepresents my comment that leaving things “as is” might be a consideration while we work this situation out.


It was also Dane who came up with the “access at all costs” phrase to describe our position and it is one we’ve refuted time and again. Everyone from The Access Fund he’s spoken with has been extremely clear with him: this is not where we’re coming from.


During a conference call with six others (mostly WCC and AF folks), Dane assured us that his presentation to the board of directors was going to be “generic, non-confrontational and non-controversial.” He agreed with us that the worse thing to do was to paint a picture of a group that was at war within itself.


Unfortunately, he chose not to follow through on that promise. To the board, he presented a case of climbers run amok and was clear to them that we were bitterly divided over this issue. As I’d suggested to Dane—and what I believe has, largely, caused the rift between him and us—I thought the presentation would be more effective if it had included more input from the Spokane climbing community. I felt that we should have attempted to achieve greater consensus prior to meeting with the board, but Dane was insistent (and made a good argument for it) that making first contact with them to get a sense for what they want was a good idea.


Regrettably, the presentation was directed differently and I believe that the board came away very concerned over the actions of what they view as a group of anarchic, unruly climbers.


The Access Fund and the Washington Climbers’ Coalition want to help anyone who’s interested in resolving this conflict. And for those who criticize our position on bolts, holds and chipping, you simply aren’t paying attention. Perhaps what you may not understand, is that we want more discussion on the matter before we take any actions that could force the closure of the cliff. It’s that simple.


And if it takes some time to accomplish our goals, so be it. The damage to the cliff is done. It cannot be undone. We can go to Dishman today and chop more bolts, but the rock still has holes in it (and, by the way, when removing bolts, it’s better style to cover the holes and conceal the damage; leaving chopped studs is leaving the job less than half-done). We believe that it’s far more pragmatic and longer-lasting to work together to achieve a policy that that we can all live with.


We do not want to fight with anyone over this issue. I’ve spoken with climbers on both sides of this issue and I can plainly see resolution in sight … there’s a lot of common ground.


Dane, you’ve done good work at this crag for 24 years. From the routes you put up in the eighties to the cleanup you organized last month, your commitment to this area runs deep and wide and it’s honestly appreciated. From the start, you took a leadership role and you’ve, literally, put your money where your mouth is. The cleanup last month absolutely changed that cliff for the better and it’s a good thing that you got everyone talking about the health and future of the crag.


The trouble is that you are willing--in fact you appear almost eager--to see the crag closed if things aren't immediately fixed to your satisfaction. I told you then, as I say now, The Access Fund does not view even "temporary" closures as an acceptable result this early in the process of resolving this issue. You've said clearly that you don't really care if Dishman is closed because, as you told me, you've "been there, done that." For clarity, the Access Fund absolutely will endorse a closure of a crag if it's necessary. The difference between our positions, though, is that you appear to have your finger twitching above a hair trigger, waiting intensely for the opportunity to drop the hammer.


But that doesn't make me your enemy, just someone who disagrees with a tactic. We all want to keep climbing at Dishman and we’re all willing to work to achieve this. Why can’t we focus on this as a platform for further discussion?





Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dane, you said that you would rather cause the area closed than to see a single bolted on hold remain. We were discussing a response to the fact that bolted on holds were replaced after you removed them and no part of that discussion addressed the chipped holds (although you had earlier reported that you filled them in) or studs that were used as foot holds (I didn't even know until now that such "holds" existed). You said what you said. Eight people were listening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lane, I respect your position. I don't agree with it however.


If your position or that of the Access Fund has been misrepresented, so has mine, intentionally or not.


Fact is we are a group at war with itself. Anyone misrepresenting that fact is lying. The land owner needs to know that so they can make good choices for their own interests. We are infact a group of "anarchic, unruly climbers". That hasn't changed thank goodness.


I doubt we will ever loose access to Dishman if for no other reason than the land owners now have a finacial incentive to keep us climbing there and a land manager still willing to work with us after a little reasonable communication.


The conflict between our group's interests @ Dishman and yours come directly from you suggesting to me personally, Dishman stay "as is" to maintain access as the Access Fund RD. Futher distance was necessary when I was told "Dishman wasn't important, how Dishman effected other projects was important". Let's not shy away from those facts.


If those statements are not fact and were misrepresented by me (I can admit to a mistake if that happened) what is the AF vision of Dishman in the future? How about we stop pussy footing around and get a vision of what the AF thinks is acceptable at Dishman in the future?


When I see anyone from the AF or WCC stand up in public and say the chipping and holds have to go and we'll fix them for you, I'll be right behind you. Till then it is just words that you guys waffle on at the crux.


To keep implying that I would rather have Dishman closed is disingenuous at best. If you actually believe that you have no clue what I am about. Which is partly my fault I suspect. Am I afraid of Dishman being closed?




If we as climbers can't be better stewards of the land I don't think we have the right to climb there or anywhere for that matter. I have BTDT as have many in the NW.

Peshastin was closed for years and reopend (with a great deal of Access Fund help I might add) to be a better place to climb and a better physical environment.


That idea may not fit with the current national agenda of the AF but it might well be the best answer at Dishman. I didn't suggest that to the BOD nor do I now in public.


I had 4 days to digest our conference call before the BOD meeting. My feelings changed after reflecting on that converstaion and what I heard over the following days by those more involved.


Dishman "as is" is not acceptable. I would rather work directly with the land owner than keep guessing exactly what the agenda is here.



In response to Matt.


Matt said:

"I didn't even know until now that such "holds" existed"


Matt you keep trying to be involved in something you are not a part of. This from the guy who just a few posts ago was going to give us a "complete history" of Dishman.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

This from the guy who just a few posts ago was going to give us "a complete history" of Dishman.


As I said in a separate forum earlier today, Dane, I never promised any history of Dishman beyond what I know of the conflict that has been taking place for the last few months. On this topic, most of what I know I've learned from you.


I tell you what, though. This "you said this" .. "no I didn't" is getting kind of boring. How 'bout we talk about what we'd like to see for Dishman. The reality here is you and I and lots of other people may in fact pretty much agree on well over 90% of that but we are way too busy arguing about tactics and posture to keep our eyes on the ball here.


You complimented me earlier for saying that I don't really know exactly what all the issues over there actually are. I mean that. And I mean what I said when I don't envision trying to impose my solution on Spokane area climbers. I would be happy to see, though, some kind of coordinated approach to future actions. I'd like to see the same for any climbing area. Let me repeat what I've also said in a separate forum: I commend you for sticking up for what you believe in and I echo some of the remarks of others here who have said "kudos" for organizing a clean up and caring about a crag.


If you are not worried about the area being closed, that is news to me after all the alarming posts you've entered here over the past few months. Lets start talking about ongoing management issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are not worried about the area being closed, that is news to me after all the alarming posts you've entered here over the past few months.


Matt, I made a formal offer of finacial support at the BOD meeting that would be hard to refuse. I believe "we", the climbing community as a whole, will continue to be welcomed at Dishman because of that offer and continued good communication in the future. Nothing in stone just my take on it.


I suspect that their will be conditions to that that access but I have not seem what they are, if there is anything.


As I said before I would like to wait until the land owner comes to us with a management plan that they can live with or at the very least asks us to offer them a more specific one than what I presented. I gave them most every option available and then my thoughts on what might be appropriate. You have talked to their land managager. I trust his judgement on the climbing issues if required and will abide by their requests.


I believe the concerns for future management are the climbing community's general concerns and the land owner's as well:


chipped holds

bolted on holds

number of bolts now on the wall

bolted cracks

replacing the TR anchors that were pulled

trash control


limit access of automobiles

human waste


While none of us may agree on everything that has been done about Dishman I do think we are better represented as a cohesive group than as a group of squabbling children. Having a moderate middle ground is workable if we can all agree on what actually is a "moderate stance".

And be willing to act upon that stance.


I gave the land owner all our contact info, the Access Fund, Lane's, your's, the Spokane Mountaineers, Marty's, the DHNA, as well as mine and recommended several times that they talk to all involved. I think they will let us know when they are ready.


I highly recommend anyone else interested to contact the water district BOD to offer their own suggestions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...