Access Fund Loses Cave Rock Appeal

[Winter]

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled against the Access Fund in a case challenging the FS's decision to close Cave Rock to climbing at Lake Tahoe. The Access Fund basically argued that the FS's decision violated the Est. Clause of the constitution because it promoted the religion of the Native group that used the historic site. Thought some of you all may be interested to see how the Ninth Circuit handles access issues.

Ninth Circuit Opinion

[hefeweizen]

It's interesting to see how significant it was in the decision that the masonry floor and hardware were placed without permission. I have to wonder if the outcome would've been different had these improvements been made with consultation to the Washoe and the Forest Service. All in all, they seem to have a valid argument in closing the area to climbing. At least we got Camp 4!

[ashw_justin]

"The FEIS articulated a new preferred proposal intended “to

protect Cave Rock’s heritage resources”: banning all climbing

immediately; removing all climbing bolts as soon as techni-

cally feasible and legally authorized; and removing the

masonry flooring inside the rock. This option would permit

non-invasive recreation consistent with the historic period,

such as hiking, picnicking, stargazing, boating, and fishing."

 

The writing is on the wall, so to speak. Time to own up on the leave no trace ethic (or at least the out of sight, out of mind ethic). Sport climbers do not have the right to install outdoor climbing gyms wherever they please.

 

[JosephH]

I'm entirely with the 9th on the grounds of both of the Washoe religious rights and climbing impact issues. The arguments around the fact the State ram-rodded a highway through the Rock over the Washoe's objections so we should be able to do yet more drilling and concrete work were specious and self-serving to begin with. Not every rock is our personal Xmas tree to decorate with fixed draws a manufactured base.

[el jefe]

so much sanctimonious posturing! you people don't seem to get the idea that if someone wants to shut you down, they'll do it no matter what style you use for climbing. the loss of a climbing area is a loss for all climbers, and your self-described 'pure' style is no protection.

[ashw_justin]

Take it back to the gym jefe. You can come say "I told you so" on cc.com, when they shut down alpine climbing in the Stuart Range/Enchantments, North Cascades, or Washington Pass... that is, if any of us are still alive by the time that happens.

 

Did you expect the entire climbing community to blindly put its credibility on the line for a piece-of-shit roadside outdoor sport climbing gym with a right to exist that was questionable at best?

 

I personally won't bat an eye until a) they start systematically closing climbing areas in an obvious attempt to kill rock climbing as a recreational activity in general, or b) they start closing classic climbing areas not established by the use of a power drill sometime in the last 15 years.

[pink]

lets just give them a casino and call it good.

[Raindawg]

The writing is on the wall, so to speak. Time to own up on the leave no trace ethic (or at least the out of sight, out of mind ethic). Sport climbers do not have the right to install outdoor climbing gyms wherever they please.

 

CLEAN UP, OR GET OUT!

 

Too bad Vantage and Smith Rock aren't on Indian Reservations.

 

 

 

 

 

[ashw_justin]

Sport climbing is an outdoor activity that is as legitimate as many others. It just requires oversight and regulation to control its growth and impact. Bolts are not very noticeable--it's what hangs on the bolts, be it permenant draws or people, that ruins the experience for non-climbers. The condition of many areas would improve with stricter management, such as no fixed draws and a permit/quota system to keep the numbers down.

 

Something along these lines may have even been pleaded by Cave Rock climbers and the Access Fund... but it's too bad this self-consciousness didn't manifest until long after it was too late.

[hanuman3]

I agree that sport climbers have no right to rape and pillage. As long as people feel they "own" a piece of rock or were "here first"(get real, how old are you?), then proceed to do what ever they want: we'll have major access issues. By the way, I understand the LOST WALL above Madrone will not be opened to climbers as previously planned. Rumor has it, the owner asked the Audobahn (how ever you spell it!) Society if they minded climbers accessing the area. According to the report, they replied NO, we don't want bolts and chalk all over the rock. Thanks again 'sport' climbers.

Edited September 4, 2007 by hanuman3

[archenemy]

CLEAN UP, OR GET OUT!

 

More like:

 

Clean up and get out.

[JosephH]

Sport climbing is an outdoor activity that is as legitimate as many others.

 

No, it's not. It's a manufacturing and consumptive consumer activity incompatible with many public resources.

 

It just requires oversight and regulation to control its growth and impact.

 

Given the near complete lack of restraint shown by sport climbers I'd say this is absolutely essential.

 

Bolts are not very noticeable--it's what hangs on the bolts, be it permenant draws or people, that ruins the experience for non-climbers.

 

Sport climbers would be wise to camo bolts, but the visual impact of chalk is also a very considerable and significant to non-climbers.

 

But it's too bad this self-consciousness didn't manifest until long after it was too late.

 

Here I think you hit on the heart of the matter - if sport climbers would self-police and moderate their activities there would be far less pressure to regulate. Unfortunately, moderation and restraint are not two of the things humans are particularly good at. I suspect a little less self-absorbed self-interest and denial of sport climbing's true impact would go a long, long way with most land managers. Sort of like when you get pulled over for speeding - pleading lilly-white innocent is rarely the right approach for minimizing the potential for pain.

[ashw_justin]

Sport climbing is an outdoor activity that is as legitimate as many others.

No, it's not. It's a manufacturing and consumptive consumer activity incompatible with many public resources.

What I meant was that many other outdoor activities are considered legitimate that create an equal or greater impact to developed crag climbing (mountain biking, offroad moto, snomo, hunting, etc). However, these too are generally subject to governmental control in sensitive areas.

[JayB]

I'm entirely with the 9th on the grounds of both of the Washoe religious rights and climbing impact issues. The arguments around the fact the State ram-rodded a highway through the Rock over the Washoe's objections so we should be able to do yet more drilling and concrete work were specious and self-serving to begin with. Not every rock is our personal Xmas tree to decorate with fixed draws a manufactured base.

 

I agree with the decision on the grounds that the motive for restricting climbing at the site was "pursuant to a secular purpose - the preservation of a historic cultural area."

 

When it comes to public lands, there are various places and resources that have a cultural, historical, or ethnographic significance that provides a secular basis for their preservation. Any time any group attempts to exclude others or restrict their activities on the basis of legal arguments that have their basis in the assertion of their "religious rights" is one that courts should dismiss out of hand.

 

If Mormons asserted their "religious rights," and attempted to exclude the public from, or restrict the public's activities on public lands on this basis, then they'd also enjoy your enthusiastic support, would they?

 

 

[ashw_justin]

The religious cast was definitely unnecessary, since limiting human impact on a piece of land is hardly something that needed to be justified by association to Native American spiritual beliefs. But who made religion the main issue--the Forest Service or the Access Fund?

 

I guess one's opinion as to the legality of this closure still comes down to believing whether the FEIS conclusion was motivated by natural preservation or by religion. The outward difference was negligible in this case, but the Establishment Clause is still very much worth protecting.

[ashw_justin]

SHOW 'EM HOW IT'S DONE, DANNY BOY! (cave scences are all Cave Rock?)

viy9pWTGNys

 

COMPARE TO:

hKNQkphPkxc

[elaine]

It is important to note that this lawsuit was between the Access Fund and the USFS. The Washoe Native American’s religious beliefs were not being questioned in the lawsuit, rather the suit sought for equal usage rights (other user groups were not banned) and fought the unconstitutional nature of the climbing ban. This is pointed out for clarification because the issue is often construed to be an issue between the Access Fund and the Washoe which is not the case.

 

See the AF's press release

 

http://www.accessfund.org/display/page/PR/77

[ashw_justin]

Certainly the Access Fund's efforts are pro-climbing as opposed to anti-religious. I think their motivations were quite clear--get climbing back by whatever legal reasoning necessary.

 

The Washoe beliefs probably shouldn't have been officially considered by anyone. But surely the FS could strip any mention of religion and re-ban. With the same ultimate effect that might be a waste of everyone's time.