Mount Hood Climbing Restrictions again possible

[Fairweather]

I just received a letter today from Gary Larsen, Forest Supervisor of Mount Hood National Forest. In it he gives notice that he is "withdrawing" his earlier decision to allow continued unlimited use of Mount Hood and adjacent wilderness areas and he will "undertake additional deliberations around the issue of solitude and consistency with the Wilderness Act".

Understand that this is the guy who wanted to limit Mount Hood South Climb to 25 individuals per day (permits and fees,no doubt) to preserve "solitude". As this climb sees hundreds of climbers per day during peak spring and summer months, this would cause climbers to lose a valuable "trainig" resource and would force a lot of novices onto more difficult and dangerous routes where they may be placing themselves (and potential rescuers) in danger.

Whatever your opinion of The Wilderness Act, I doubt few climbers would argue that they go to Mount Hood to find "solitude", or that they would support a use limit to impose solitude. MY GOD; there's a SKI Resort there! (Solitude is the ONLY issue here...no documented environmental damage has been included in the EAS)

The Access Fund thought they had won this fight last year when Mr Larsen issued his first ruling. Now it appears that the "final" decisions of a Forest Manager aren't worth a damn.

Write or call:

Gary Larsen

Forest Supervisor

16400 Champion Way

Sandy, OR 97055

(503)668-1700

[jon]

They're just trying to get the people out of the way so they can put a chair to the top. Petition anyone?

[Cpt.Caveman]

Fuckin' A where do I sign up.

[willstrickland]

I'll sign a petition.

Solitude? On the south side? Gimme a fucking break, when I can see the lift from the entire route I ain't gettin no solitude. If there are 25 other climbers or 200 other climbers on route, I ain't gettin no solitude. Want solitude? Go to the north or west side. Last thing we need is a boat load of accidents and rescues because those beginners who don't get permitted try to do harder routes instead. What are these guys thinking?!

[RStewbone]

I am so tired of this bullshit! This fee demonstration program made us criminals in Jan. on a day hike up the worm flows. We opted to chance not paying for permits and found out later we would have gooten 100$ tickets no questions asked had we been caught. The lazy ass rangers were'nt out in the marginal weather. It has to be about the money.They dig trying to lease more land to Mt.Hood Meadows although their last attempt was stopped by the suit brought by the Mazamas(who BTW lobbeyed long and hard against the original forest service proposal ,prepared studies and offered alternatives and the permanent anchor controversy also). Limiting trails and summits to those with money is unfair. The U.S.D.A. is just a front to provide welfare for mining, grazing and logging in the form of subsidies and roadbuilding. It makes up the majority of their budget(which the forest service is a part of). Now the forest service is focusing on the recreational ares that produce revenue as opposed to the forest as a whole. You can ride a snowmobile to the rim of Mt.St.Helens tossing beer cans along the way-leaking fuel and spewing pollutants-enjoying the freedom that your powerful lobby of wealthy fatass cigar chomping tobacco money accepting aholes has provided, with little or no consequence ,but walk to the top without your papers and the thought police will have you by the thumbs. Mt.Hood is where I learned and the opportunity should be available for the next group to learn. I bet Larsen didn't mention the 10 million pounds of salt put on the palmer in the last twenty years to support the Timberline gravey train and how thats affecting the ecosystem downstream. If they can't get money from climbers to offset the extra passes necessary by the snowcat(some climbers walk through the middle of the run and get the cat driver yelling at them-the sound of it and the diesel smell sure add to the solitude) they'll simply eliminate the number of chances to mess up the run. There will never be solitude until the thing erupts sending a lahar down the Sandy and wiping out Troutdale. I'm pissed. Let's storm the Bastille! Where do I sign. Mazamas will probably form a commitee to decide how to approach this and I will find out from them what I can do. Unlike You to the north we have limited moutains here so it will be imperative to preserve this great climbing resource.

[This message has been edited by RStewbone (edited 08-05-2001).]

[Fairweather]

RStewbone,

I believe Mr Larsen honestly believes he is protecting both The Wilderness Act and "his" mountain. Maybe I'm naieve, but I'm not sure "follow the money" is behind this guy's goofy ideas. Who knows...maybe he's trying to put the "solitude" provisions of The Wilderness Act on trial. (I'd be all for that.) Or maybe he's been intimidated/threatened by the lefties/ELF types that you guys down in Oregon seem to have so many of. (no Oregon dis intended) Anyway, he went back on his word and if he has his way we'll all be locked out. Rest assured, I'll be climbing anyway...what will they do when I refuse to identify my unpermitted ass? Lead me down from Crater rock at gunpoint/in handcuffs? Bring it on.

Also, I don't believe this is a Republican/Democrat issue...the fee demo, the lockouts, any of it. Republicans have climbers lumped together with "hikers/environmentalist/WTO protester/lab burner-downers". (They don't mind screwing us out of a few bucks just to piss us off.) As we all know nothing could be further from the truth. Climbers are much more social than the aforementioned groups. Democrats would like to see groups like The Sierra Club running the whole show. Then we could all look foreward to being locked out of virtually all wilderness where humans are deemed "intruders". Basically, we're screwed supporting either party. It's not a "party" issue. The user group who screams the loudest (within the confines of the law) will be heard...climbers just have to scream a lot louder because we generally don't have the support of the enviro's or the $$$$ to BUY our way in.

I'm convinced it will come down to ignoring registration/permitting. Maybe a fake set of license plates and a pair of bolt cutters (for gates) will be our only means by which to access "our" mountain wilderness areas.

[RStewbone]

Bryan,

I removed the r word from my reply. No partisanship intended.You can go outside and scream as loud as you want but without money you will have no political influence. Our system is all about quid pro quo and we have nothing to bargain with. The access fund is effective because it has lawyers and cash. Ski areas get preferential treatment over climbers because it means big $$$ not because the forest execs think that skiing is a more laudable use of the mountain than climbing. Timber sales have to be blocked by lawsuits because forest execs ignore the law to get the sale.

Where is the evidence to show that Larsen's intentions are altruistic?

[This message has been edited by RStewbone (edited 08-05-2001).]

[Don_Gonthier]

I don't believe all I read in the newspaper but from the Oregonian and my experience with Mt Hood National Forest. It sounds like the Forest Service's plan called for no restrictions on access on the south side but Wilderness Watch sued the Forest Service over the solitude issue. Some folks in the enviromental comunity are not climbers best friends. At least the guys on snowmobiles arn't trying to limit my access because they can see me from a mile away.

[Fairweather]

Don,

AMEN! I wish more climbers would see as you do that environmentalists are NOT our best friends. They try to limit our access at every turn and now want to ban fixed anchors.

It's ashamed "the movement" has been hijacked by a bunch of lawyers and those who see evil in everything human hands touch. They sure have done some good over the years, but why shut out the very people upon whom you've built your support? Mountain Bikes, Hang gliders, snowmobiles, dogs, horses, skiers, lug soled boots, brightly colored fabric, cell phones, motor drives on cameras,people in general....and CLIMBERS....it seems a vocal few of these enviro's hate just about everything. They act like grouchy old men if you ask me.

[Winter]

Hey folks -

Wyden introduced a bill to chop the fee demonstration program, and if you think the program sucks (which it does), give Wyden a call and offer some support. Also, check out www.freeourforests.org.

On a related topic, Mt. Hood Meadows is trying to put in another lift (Lift 21). Friends of Mt. Hood has been watchdogging and protecting this area for years along with the Mazamas. Call Kim Titus, District Ranger, Hood River Ranger District at 541-352-6002 for some information. Comments to the EA are due August 20. I've got comments if you want to submit some.

[Winter]

As a grouchy old environmentalist (29) and a lawyer, I have to partially disagree. Yes, enviros and attorneys have limited access, and maybe the Mt. Hood situation isn't a great policy decision. But the bottom line is that these folks are out there working to protect the places that every climber loves to experience. You should be supporting the movement not railing on it because of the few exceptions.

[climbing4fun2000]

I do not believe limiting access is the answer, teaching people to respect the land is. How many times have you come across garbage while hiking/climbing; I know I have. Impact may not be the only thing they are trying to help, but it is an issue. I was going to take a friend up St. Helens on monday, but we didn't get drawn in the lottery, WHAT THE HELL IS THAT SHIT! As a new climber (2 years now) the last thing I want is more red-tape. Showing up, standing in line, and paying a fee so you can enjoy the wilderness is bunch of crap. What ever happened to "this land is your land, this land is my land..." now (or in the near future) it will be our land only if we pay for it...I don't think so! I consider myselft an enviromentalist but I also believe EVERYONE has the right to go ANYWHERE they want on public land. If people treat the land with respect (and carry their &%^*ing trash out) some, if not a lot, of these issues would go away. Limiting access to an area is a bad idea and the fact that it is already happening in some places is scary. I agree, let get the petition going and take back all our mountains!!

[Fairweather]

Winter,

As a not-so-grouchy 40 year old climber and supporter of REASONABLE environmental law, I can tell you that "the movement" is going too far in twisting The Wilderness Act and The Endangered Species Act. Lawers are the willing tools they use to lock out the public and to put an agenda/ideaology ahead of public safety and human life.

I was once proud to call myself an "environmentalist". That changed in the early to mid 1990's when they turned on me and started locking me out of my favorite areas...not because of environmental damage, but because of subjective ideas like "solitude".

I stand by my "intolerant/grouchy" label that I used to describe today's environmentalists. Stop locking climbers and hikers out of the mountains they love and care for and I may one day support you again. Your "movement" has been corrupted.

[Dan_Petersen]

Well said. I tried three times and every attempt came out a rant. Whenever some group begins to refer to themselves as a "movement" its time to run like hell. All "movements" I've run across always know what's best for you, despite your protests to the contrary.

[RStewbone]

Now that everyone has had there say I have to point out that condemning these freaks for thier opinions won't change the fact that the courts listened to them.

And our recreation(or more)depends on getting the courts to listen to us.

We would be better served united as a group with a common goal rather than pitching our personal platforms and rants although I admit to starting it. We need to find balance between, for example,turning Smith Rock into a quarry or disallowing visitors except on a guided permit only basis due to erosion or native cultures.(It happened in Texas but because of other reasons.)

Back to Mt.Hood. It does boil down to some court somewhere hearing the side of the climber. If Larsen has this much power than something is screwed up(or is it that the court ways heavy toward the opinion of Mr.Larsen)

What can each of us do to effect this decision?

[To_The_Top]

We need to get a petition going on stuff like this. As a supposed enviormentalist myself, and for the people I climb with, and those I see in the mountains every weekend, we all care about what we climb in. IMHO climbers I see care very much about the mountains, and speak up about it. These out of control wacko's are shooting thier left foot (US) by doing all this with fixed anchor stuff and limiting Hood climbs to a solitude issue, or even bringing back the Griz in the N Cascades. HOW CAN THERE BE SOLITUDE when half the route is filled by skiers who take the Tahoe to the lot, and get multiple rides up a mountian with hundereds of thier closes friends. I understand the Rainier limits (except that shuttle thing), and have climbed Baker with Snowmobiles blatting close by, but 25 when I have been to Hood and seen 200...big deal, what about light pollution from the ski area? There is no envioremental damage that I have seen. Just steps in the snow, no trail damage. Time for a petition. TTT

[Dan_Harris]

First, a petition will help. Second every climber, whether you climb Hood or not needs to call and/or e-mail your Representatives and Senators (deluge them), especially if they may be sympathetic to our arguments. Being from CA my senators are worthless, but a local Rep. would definitely be on our side. I will be sending in my $0.02 worth. Do it now and then again as soon as Congress reconvenes.

[Winter]

Hmm. A week late is better than never.

I don't want to be the one to defend the Mt. Hood climbing lock out, and that's not my point. The "movement" that you all think has been corrupted has also reigned in the Forest Service's raping of the federal lands and forests (mostly through an aggressive litigation strategy), put the wolf back in Idaho (and hopefully the grizzly in the N. Cascades), and brought the bald eagle back from the brink of extinction.

Don't get so pissed of at the whole "movement" just because of fixed anchors and access issues, because your next approach to the North side of Mt. Adams may just be through a barren stretch of wasted clear cut, and the drinking water flowing from your tap at home may be causing cancer in your kids. If y'all really want to be reasonable than step back from the access issues (recreational value) and consider all the other values (ecological and human health) folks are working to protect, and try to bridge the gap between climbers and enviros.

You don't have to agree with access restrictions, but without the "freaks, movement and wack'os," the Pacific Northwest and its mountains would be in a much worse condition. You condem them but you reap the benefits every time you step foot in the backcountry. Try to find some common ground instead of ranting or else the divide will just get worse, and climbers aren't going to win the access war under the current laws (but they may find a friend in the Bush administration).