Climbing Access Arches NP threatened WRITE LETTER!

[Alpinfox]

 

Thanks to Todd Miller for bringing this issue to my attention.

 

From the Access Fund:

As we all know, a much-publicized climb in the spring of 2006 raised

public interest and concern about rock climbing in Arches National

Park. Prior to this event, Arches managers had limited contact with

climbers and felt no real need for official policies. However, an

overwhelming number of letters calling for an outright ban on climbing

forced the Park to impose serious restrictions on our sport. Since

then, a group of local climbers and the Access Fund have been working

with the Park to rehabilitate a good relationship between us.

 

The Park Service has decided it is time to make an official Climbing

Management Plan. This plan could be great for us, or it could be our

demise: the key is how we help them make the plan. They are currently

seeking input into how the plan should be. If the events of Spring,

2006 were any indicator, an enormous number of letters from

environmental groups and anti-climbers will be sent to the Park

Service calling for a ban or some draconian restrictions. However, The

Park managers will be willing to look at all sides. As a matter of

fact, they have shown local climbers that they are willing to work

with climbers provided they see a positive result.

 

That said, it is up to us to send positive letters about the sport. If

you have ever climbed in Arches, you should tell them so and tell them

you enjoyed it. If you ever want to climb on the unique towers in

Arches, you should tell them so. We need to show them that we really

do care about the policies and that we want to be able to climb in

Arches. We also need to point out that the outright ban on fixed

anchors prevents the ascent of the majority of spires and towers (no

pitons = no aid). I think most of us would admit we don't feel a need

to climb up on the actual arches, so we should state that. Above all,

we need to write positive letters endorsing climbing as a legitimate

form of recreation in Arches National Park.

 

Its easy to write them a short note. If you want to do it online, go

to this website: http://parkplanning.nps.gov

At the bottom of the page, pull down the menu and go to "Arches NP",

then click "Plans/Documents open for comment". The top one is about

climbing management. Click

"Comment on Document" and write your small letter. That's it.

If you want to write out a paper letter, you can send it here:

Superintendent

Arches National Park

PO Box 907

Moab, UT 84532

 

Here are a few things to keep in mind:

 

2. Arches National Park is grouped with 3 other Parks in its

administration. Many of the rules that govern one Park eventually fall

into the rule book for the one next door. In this case, Canyonlands,

an area containing more Windgate and Cutler towers than the rest of

the world combined, is next door. A draconian rule in Arches could

eventually lead to one in Canyonlands. If that's the case, it would

look like a precedent for other Parks in the country to follow. The

trickle-down effect could be seen with the BLM and Forest Service. In

other words, we could lose a lot more climbing resources than the

76,000 acre's and 100's of towers that is Arches.

 

3. Writing a letter to the Park will take less time than we spend

blurbing in online forums.

 

4. They really do want to hear from us. I know this for a fact, and I

know they will listen to positive words we have to say.

 

MORE INFO

 

COMMENT HERE

[Alpinfox]

 

[smithisheaven]

Thanks alot Dean, what an azzhole. Only takes 1 stupid act to get our azzes out. Gee, lets go climb something real public, real off limits and see what happens. A....gee....idunno maybe no climbing. Deans my hero....NOT

[kevbone]

dude, have you ever climbed in Arches? I have I thought the rock quality suckes. Go climb something else.

[Kat_Roslyn]

I haven't, but I've at least wanted to.

[dan_forester]

outside article

 

very selfish

[SlickWilly]

dude, have you ever climbed in Arches? I have I thought the rock quality suckes. Go climb something else.

 

I think there is some great climbing there. Regardless of what you think about the rock in Arches, this is the part of the letter that I think we should be very concerned about:

 

Arches National Park is grouped with 3 other Parks in its

administration. Many of the rules that govern one Park eventually fall

into the rule book for the one next door. In this case, Canyonlands,

an area containing more Windgate and Cutler towers than the rest of

the world combined, is next door. A draconian rule in Arches could

eventually lead to one in Canyonlands. If that's the case, it would

look like a precedent for other Parks in the country to follow. The

trickle-down effect could be seen with the BLM and Forest Service. In

other words, we could lose a lot more climbing resources than the

76,000 acre's and 100's of towers that is Arches.

 

 

[motomagik]

I haven't, but I've at least wanted to.

 

Exactly. Kevbone, you are a total douchebag. Since the implications of Potters publicity stunt are completely lost on you, why don't YOU go climb something else. The rest of us who enjoy amazing unique places might like to be able to climb there someday. Why don't you go run some laps out at the mall,,, er I mean Broughton. Totally rad brah!

[kevbone]

As of midweek, Park Service investigators declined to say whether they had found signs of damage to the arch. But a photographer dispatched by Outside—who used a telephoto lens to take pictures of the area directly above Potter's route—identified three distinct grooves

 

Damage to the arch? Are the fucking kidding me. They are worried about damage to a rock? What about the damage to the park itself as the pored concrete down to create a road? Did they think about damage then? I agree the accent was in pore style, even if it was NOT illegal. But STFU about damage to a rock.

 

Damage to the credibility of climbers is something that Dean needs to look at.

 

[kevbone]

Why don't you go run some laps out at Broughtons.

 

I have...lots of times...bored silly!

[motomagik]

Why don't you go run some laps out at Broughtons.

 

I have...lots of times...bored silly!

 

My point exactly. That's why we should all be concerned about our privileges to climb other places that don't suck ass.

[ketch]

Kev, I can agree only to a point. I have climbed in Arches on several occasions. Not the best rock but it is a nice place to pass time on a road trip. For years I have appreciated the parks having just a handout that spells out the local ethics and asks climbers to respect their concerns as land managers. Heck even the 4x4 crowd gets a place to do their thing. But they are asked to respect the local ethic.

 

It is a sad day for climbers when someone chooses to disrespect that by doing what is "legal" not what is requested. Now we face legal codified restrictions on our little group. And I'd be willing to bet that the off road group and other interests that respect the concerns get to still do so without the formal restrictions.

[kevbone]

Why don't you go run some laps out at Broughtons.

 

I have...lots of times...bored silly!

 

My point exactly. That's why we should all be concerned about our privileges to climb other places that don't suck ass.

 

Are you saying Broughtons sucks ass?

[motomagik]

Umm, yes. Yes I am.

[kevbone]

Umm, yes. Yes I am.

 

A little off subject…..but what do you not like about it? I know it’s greasy as hell and the wasps in the summer suck balls. But there is some really good climbing there. What do you not like about it?

[motomagik]

Okay, I'll bite, even though it is totally off subject. Heres the list:

 

1. First and foremost the rock is the greasiest, nastiest stuff I have ever climbed. You might as well chop your feet off for all the good they do you. Classic Crack? Disgusting. Whatever isn't greasy is covered in dirt or moss.

 

2. The CROWDS. For whatever reason, every newb class in Oregon chooses this place to set up marathon top ropes. I remember I was desperate (key word) to get some climbing in one Saturday morning because I had something to do later in the day. You would think if you went to Broughton at 7 in the morning, surely you would get a little peace and quiet? Not so much.

 

3. The manky anchors/bolts. Apparently everyone else feels the same way about Broughton as I do because nobody wants to put in the time or money to replace anything (myself included!).

 

4. The locale. Yeah, Gandalf's is kind of a fun route except for the marvelous views of the trailer park and the outlet mall, oh and you get to inhale all the benzene from I-84 while you climb. Awesome.

 

I will say this, Red Eye is a pretty fun little route, even if it is only 3 bolts long.

 

With the notable exception of Beacon, the climbing around Portland is nothing to get excited about, to say the least. Don't take it personally.

[Alpinfox]

Hey you ninnies. Write your letter and STFU.

 

Jesus you are a bunch of hens. Where's the rooster to get you all in line?

[Shibumi]

The government hates not to have control and it's tough to control people who are up on rocks. I'm writing my letter.

And Broughton does suck serious ass, btw.