The Access Fund in Washington

[Andy_Fitz]

Between my job, marriage, 2 kids under 5 (one of whom put our PC in the shop this summer) and my need to climb once every three weeks or so, I’m sometimes slow to keep up on the latest cc.com posts. In looking back, I’ve come across some recent threads on the theme of “What’s the Access Fund ever done around here?” As the Access Fund’s regional coordinator (RC) for Washington the past seven years, I thought I’d recap some of what the AF has done in the state.

 

First, I should explain a little about the Access Fund. It’s a national, non-profit organization supported by individual members (around 10-11,000 the past few years) and corporate sponsorship. Aside from a small paid staff in Boulder (usually around 7 folks) and an occasional contract consultant, all the work is done by volunteers such as myself.

 

I don’t get paid a dime for what I do. In fact, over the past year I’ve spent more than $600 out of my own pocket on mailing costs and burned a week of vacation days taking time off work to attend meetings. I mention this not because I’m fishing for kudos or sympathy, but because it illustrates the constraints on how much I can (or am willing) to do.

 

I became an RC in 1995 because the person who did it before me was moving, knew me, and pleaded with me to do it. Since then, I’ve spent a lot of time talking with land managers and organizing projects to mitigate impacts. If you think both the Access Fund and I should be doing more, you’re right. However, the ability of the Access Fund to become more effective is dependent on the support it receives from climbers. I’ll get back to that a bit later.

 

So, has the AF actually done anything in Washington? Here are some examples:

 

1. Washington State Parks: In 1995, State Parks set out to develop climbing management regulations for its lands, which include some of the most popular climbing areas in the state (most of Index, Beacon Rock, much of Exit 38, Peshastin Pinnacles, Deep Creek, much of the granite at Banks Lake). The agency called on the Access Fund for examples and I was a climber representative on the agency’s rulemaking committee. I was successful in encouraging the agency to adopt a regulation that left it to each park to develop its own management plan to fit the character of its area, and I’ve worked with Parks staff on the plans for Beacon Rock, Exit 38, and Peshastin. Washington now has one of the most climber-friendly state park systems in the country.

 

2. Little Si: Climbing access at Little Si was in serious question as recently as 1995 due to the area’s land management aims. The state DNR land managers were concerned about the sudden influx of crowds, social trails and erosion. I approached DNR for permission to create a sustainable trail system. The trails today to Repo Rocks, the Woods, and WWI were built through projects I organized with AF money for design and construction oversight (more than $4,000 spent). Has this made any difference? Here’s what the DNR’s South Puget Sound regional manager wrote in a letter of thanks to the AF in 1997:

 

“Access Fund leaders have been responsive to working with the land managers and meeting the conservation goals from the beginning. [...] This area [the Mount Si Natural Resource Conservation Area] was set aside to protect natural resources and provide low impact recreation where it does not conflict with conservation goals. Rock climbing can be detrimental in some areas, but together we have determined that, with mitigation, the impacts are within the low range at Little Si."

 

3. Exit 38: Those who remember the trestle area before the current trail appeared will remember the awful eroding “paths” that led up to the railroad grade. This erosion was one of State Parks’ primary concerns with climbing at Exit 38. The current trail from the trestle parking area, from the point where it enters the open area below the trestle to where it meets the railroad grade, was built through the AF paying a professional trails contractor to design and oversee construction (approx. $2,000) and my organizing of volunteer trailbuilding projects.

 

4. Frenchman Coulee: Frenchman Coulee may be everyone’s poster child for climbing conflicts, but the area remains open. I’d like to think that’s partly due to my involvement. I’ve been working with state Fish & Wildlife since 1995, when I first called up the land manager to talk about addressing climber impacts. Since then, I’ve organized (and the AF has funded) projects that built the trail from Sunshine Wall to the Powerhouse (which eliminated two social trails leading to the same place); the trail from Sunshine Wall to the M&M Wall (eliminating a rapidly eroding downhill plunge); the information board in the parking area (it looked better with the original shake roof, before it was dismantled for firewood); and the rock retaining walls around Satan’s Tower at the Feathers. I also tracked down and, with AF money, purchased two porta potties (down to one after OzzFest a couple years ago). And finally, the state is starting to entertain discussion about some serious improvements at Frenchman Coulee. There’s obviously much, much more to do there. You can help by giving up a day for the project weekend on the 21st-22nd!

 

5. Tieton River: OK, I have to admit some bias here (I’ve spent a LOT of time climbing in the Tieton over the past 17 years), but erosion was a growing problem at the Bend that created the potential for problems with state Fish & Wildlife. The trail system and cliff base retaining walls now at the Bend (nearly complete) are the result, once again, of AF money and my project organizing.

 

6. Index: The AF has been working with Washington State Parks since the early ‘90s to aid public acquisition of the Lower Town Wall, which is mostly privately owned. When title problems posed a roadblock, the AF paid $1400 for title research to verify the primary landowner’s title. Thanks to a major benefactor, the AF has a significant sum pledged to help with acquisition and/or improvements once acquisition occurs. Acquisition is currently stalled due to the landowner’s negotiating position.

 

7. Peshastin Pinnacles: In 1991, the AF contributed $10,000 toward State Parks’ acquisition and reopening of Peshastin.

 

8. Castle Rock, Leavenworth: The trail to Castle Rock (which replaced another eroding mess in 1993) is thanks to another AF project, with design and construction oversight paid by the AF and project organization handled by an RC (Elden Altizer, my predecessor RC once removed).

 

This list is not exhaustive. I’ve also worked on (or am currently working on) issues at Beacon Rock, Mt. Erie, Newhalem, Banks Lake, and a number of cliffs on private land around the state.

 

I expect some will take issue with what I’ve done, what I’ve left undone, and the priorities I’ve set. I don’t carry any illusion of covering everything or satisfying everyone. I need help. What would make a huge difference is to have climbers step up to take “ownership” and become stewards of individual areas; to make regular contact with the area’s land manager(s) and look proactively for opportunities to address potential problems. Matt P. has already doing this at Darrington and is a great example; Matt has done the legwork to organize two great trail projects to rehab the Squire Creek Pass trail up to 3 O’Clock Rock. Leavenworth is an area with a crying need for someone similar to step forward; I know from direct discussion with the Leavenworth Ranger District that they’d love to have a regular climber “contact.”

 

In addition, the AF needs more members. The money for the above projects came from climbers around the country. With more support, we can do even more. We also need more strength in numbers. It’s hard to influence a national issue like fee demo without more support.

 

So far, I’ve been disappointed with the response to my call for volunteers for the Frenchman Coulee project. You can bitch, or you can do something to help out. I hope more folks will get in touch with me to volunteer for the trail project, and I hope folks will turn out for the Kurt Smith fundraiser. Your support of the Access Fund has made a difference in Washington.

 

Andy Fitz

[DCramer]

Keep up the good work Andy!

 

The Access Fund is an important group to keep active. I remember working on the Castle Rock trail project. On the day I worked I was the only climber! The other volunteers were hikers who thought it would be a fun project.

 

I just wanted to add that one benefit of the Access Fund that is intangible but perhaps one of the most valuable is the quick and easy contact point with land managers that the Access Fund provides. Our active participation however small or large in events, projects and fundraisers strengthens this contact point. If the list of past accomplishments doesn't inspire participation, think of the future problems that will be either avoided or minimized by the existence of an Access Fund with a strong and cordial relationship with land managers. In all of my contacts with either Forest Service of State Parks Dept. staff they have mentioned both Andy and the Access Fund as a legitimate and effective resource for climbers. That they do so attests to the high quality work it has been doing.

 

Darryl

[mattp]

Listen up, people. One of the reasons climbing takes a low priority in recreational land management plans as compared to other activities is that we climbers like to complain a lot and argue about the ethics of bolting but we can't seem to get it together to organize ourselves. My experience with the Darrington work parties has been the same as that Darryl noted: on each of five work-days, there have been a lot of hikers who turned out for the project but at most two climbers have showed up. Similarly, at public meetings concerning things like a proposed expansion of the wilderness permit system in the Alpine Lakes, I've seen more horse packers than climbers. How many active climbers on this board have spent even one day on a trail project, clean-up or other such effort in the last year? How many have written letters or contacted a ranger about some issue related to climbing access? On the other hand, how many have chimed in on some kind of argument over environmental ethics or called so-and-so a jerk because they did so? My point is not that there is anything wrong with calling attention to climbers' abuse of the vertical environment, but that it takes more than verbally assaulting other climbers if you really want to do something for the sport.

 

[ 09-16-2002, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: mattp ]

[JayB]

Thanks for all of the hard work, Andy!

 

Matt and Darryl speak with far more authority on this issue than I do, so I'll limit my commentary to a wholehearted agreement with them.

[jon]

Thanks for your work over the years Andy, same to Darryl and Matt.

 

Here are a few of my thoughts.

 

I think the reason it may appear to many that the Access Fund hasn't done much in Washington is because to the casual onlooker the organization hasn't projected much of a presence besides a few high profile cases like Peshastin and Frenchman Coulee. Of course one person (Andy) and a couple other volunteers can't do this effectively. Additionally when people read in the climbing mags about Access Fund projects in other locations in the US it may give the impression that the AF isn't interested in this area because nobody is hearing about what has been done.

 

In a conversation I had with vice president of the Access Fund they said the major needs at the moment were members and money. Problem is besides flyers at the climbing gym and inserts in the magazines there has been a very poor effert in the recruitment of new members, at least in Washington. This goes along with the organization projecting it's presence. Obviously it is unrealistic for a person like Andy to go around the states crags and such trying to recruit members, so this has to fall on someone elses shoulders, most likely the members of the AF in Washington. Without an organized member group how will this ever happen though?

 

This is just some food for thought. While I totally agree with Andy's, Matt's, and Darryl's sentiments and my dialog may seem a bit negative, I'm trying to approach this from another perspective and identify the problems so that maybe as a group we can proactively come up with some solutions so that we may have a louder voice and accomplish more in the future.

 

Jon

[mattp]

Are there any more thoughts on this?

[jon]

For those of you who never participated in this poll take the few second to.

 

http://www.cascadeclimbers.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=002035

[Cpt.Caveman]

I am now a CASBC member and not an Access Fund member. I think I will donate \ join

[mr.radon]

Probably get more funds by moving outa Boulder. How can anyone afford to run an office outa there? That has to eat up a lot of money. I used to live and work there. Got priced outa that town.

 

Up in Squamish the access group (name?) up there puts fliers out on the windshields of cars in the parking lot. Maybe if a few volunteers canvassed the cars in the parking lots more awareness & memeberships would be generated?

 

Kudos on the work! Keep it up.