TR: Grassroots Gathering
John Peterson
The Access Fund Grassroots Summit
Sept 12 - 13, 2003
Estes Park, CO
The Grassroots Summit is a small conference that brings together
local climbing organizations, the Access Fund, land managers, and an
academic or two to discuss the state of climbing access and
organizations around the USA. I was there to represent the Ragged
Mountain Foundation (RMF) in Connecticut. We met at the YMCA camp in
Estes Park, Colorado, a place with modest food and lodging but
fantastic views of the high peaks. The Access Fund covered some
travel expenses and lodging for participants but I decided to cover my
own trip since I had enough frequent flier miles and my family lives in
Colorado. Unfortunately I missed a couple of the evening sessions to
spend time with my parents so this won't cover all of what went on.
The Access Fund invited about 150 people to attend this meeting; about
35 were able to come. Many people used precious vacation time.
Many different climbing areas were represented and much of the paid
staff of the Access Fund as well as some of the board members
attended. Many of the people were Access Fund regional coordinators
- these guys represent the Access Fund when there is no local climbing
organization. They are usually members of local organizations when
they exist.
This is strictly a personal account of what went on - I'm sure I'll
occasionally misquote people, miss key details, and confuse the
various participants. Before I continue, here is some of the
abbreviations that I'll use:
AF = Access Fund
LCO = Local Climbing Organization
RC = Regional Coordinator
CMP = Climbing Management Plan
MOU = Memorandum of Understanding
FS = Forest Service
BLM = Bureau of Land Management
I'll start with some general impressions. First, this meeting
contained the highest concentration I've ever seen of dedicated people
working on climbing access issues. The LCO representatives are folks
that have put an extraordinary amount of effort into their local
areas. Every climber should be glad that these people work so hard on
their behalf. The AF people are just as dedicated to the cause and as
the conference went on it became obvious that they had made a
tremendous difference to the LCOs. Unfortunately many climbers don't
really know what the AF does or the things it has accomplished. Many
people judge the AF in terms of land acquisition or direct local
involvement, often missing much of the "nuts and bolts" stuff that is
so important. Perhaps the AF should do a better job of telling the
climbing community what it does - this report is an attempt to open up
the dialog between the AF, LCOs, and the climbing community. In
fact, one of the main topics of discussion was the relationship
between the AF and the LCOs.
One of the biggest problems for LCOs is burnout. When people work
hard to build an organization and work on access issues sometimes they
become disenchanted when the don't get the support they need from the
local community and the AF. One of the big challenges is building
LCOs that can grow and sustain themselves even when key people chose
to move on.
Another big problem is the lack of funding for federal land management
agencies. Many LCOs are at the mercy of the federal government and
continued budget cuts have become a severe problem.
Another interesting observation is that one of the most common issues
that came up was the impact of boulderers (mattress monkeys / pad
people!) Unfortunately bouldering has a much greater footprint on the
cliff base than other types of climbing and has become extremely
popular. One challenge is to prevent the climbing community from
fracturing or being fractured by land managers. Most LCOs are trying
to integrate the bouldering into their organization but it's sometimes
hard.
Another surprise was that there was a lot of academic research
presented at this meeting. The only way the climbing community can
deal effectively with issues such as raptor closures or resource
impacts is to gather solid, scientific evidence.
I missed some workshops held in the evening, one on inventorying
climbing resources and one on starting, sustaining, and strategic
planning for LCOs. If anyone at these workshops wants to post a
summary that would be much appreciated.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Introductions
-----------------------------------------------------------
The meeting started with each LCO / RC presenting the status and
issues associated with their local area. This is a very brief set of
notes from each person / organization.
Leslie Brown (AF board member), NW Oregon.
User fees (federal fee demo program) is a big issue
Aaron Gibson, Wichita Mountains Climbers Coalition, Oklahoma.
http://www.wichitamountains.org/
Federal Fish and Wildlife are the landowners
LCO works closely with the wildlife refuge
A bolting committee / permit system is used to control bolting.
Quartz Mountain was purchased from a private owner and donated to
the state for a state climbing park.
Greg Orton, Climb SW Oregon. Roseburg, OR.
http://www.climbsworegon.com/
20 relatively new climbing areas
Many secret areas until a guide came out.
Biologists object to access (raptor issues).
8 month unofficial closures.
Since biologists don't want people to know where the birds nest
there are no signs on closed crags.
Should tickets be issued when no actual bird encounter happens?
Proposed year round closure by biologists.
Much private timber company land - companies are supportive.
Organization sponsors cleanup days.
Recreation is having a bigger influence on forest planning.
John Myers (AF board member), Asheville, NC.
http://www.thered.org/
Talked about the 700 Acre RRG potential purchase.
Dan Berek, Flatirons Climbing Counsel. Boulder, CO.
http://www.flatironsclimbing.com/
Bolting issue - bolting permits via committee.
Recognized by the city of Boulder.
Trail work.
Also represents boulderers.
Developing a CMP.
Kirk Brode, Southeastern Climbers Coalition. Atlanta, GA.
http://www.seclimbers.org/
Private land is the big issue.
Land purchase is getting more attractive.
Maybe transfer land to the state.
Climber impact is a big issue.
Old bolts is a problem - potential liability issue when LCO replaces
them.
Conflicts on public land - Sunset Rock.
Probably 1/2 of the quality crags are closed.
Area is very spread out.
Shannon Stuart-Smith (AF board member), Red River Gorge Climbers Coalition.
http://www.rrgcc.org/
Destination area - lots of outsiders make it harder to form a
community.
70% public / 30% private land with crags.
Restrictive management guide by forest service pushed routes on
private land.
State has ban on climbing on state land.
Endangered plants / animals.
Lots of cultural resources.
Whitehair Goldenrod & edangered bats.
Overhangs generated a perfect place for early human habitat.
Aram Attarian, Carolina Climbers Coalition. Raleigh, NC.
http://www.carolinaclimbers.org/
Developing relationships with federal and state land managers.
Bouldering is an issue - currently leasing a bouldering
area.
Conflict with hunters.
Bouldering near Charlotte has been closed.
Endangered plants are an issue.
State park registration is an issue - local landowner problems but
not state or federal.
Websites are really important for management and getting information
out to climbers.
Summer camps put pressure on climbing area - internet based
registration is used to disperse groups.
Frank Harvey (RC), East Tennessee Climbing Club. Obed area.
Obed is subject to "Wild and Scenic River" restrictions.
A CMP is in place.
Good relationship with park service.
Currently no new bolting.
Park service doesn't have money to do studies to develop management
plans.
Special exception to use power drills to replace bolts.
Camping is a problem.
Need to build the organization.
Climbers are seen as a way of controlling bad user groups (partyers)
and cleaning up property.
James DeRoussel - Tucson Climbers Association.
http://www.tucsonclimbers.org/
Climber education and service.
Website is key.
Mostly federal land ownership.
Need to build the organization.
Fire problems at Mt. Lemmon - need to keep FS from long
term closures.
Build a database of approach trails.
Not allowed to maintain these trails yet - NEPA (NEPA = National
Environmental Policy Act) problems.
Many other groups have NEPA problems. Need waivers or funding for
studies.
Poor relationship with forest service.
Scott Justham (BLM ranger), Bishop.
He keeps nice places nice.
Full report later.
Kaija Webster, Minnesota Climbers Association.
http://www.mnclimbing.org/
Climbing mostly in state parks.
Good relationships with managers.
New bouldering areas on private land.
Continuity of local climbing organizations is an issue.
Ice climbing is a big group.
Good ice farming - liability issues may be a problem.
Anders Ourum, Climbers Access Society of British Columbia.
http://casbc.bivouac.com/
Canadian groups need to maintain a relationship with AF.
Ministry of forests no longer manages recreation.
Keeping roads open is a big issue.
Forest fires are the current big problem.
Volunteer patrols to keep cliffs open.
Nearly punched out a boulderer for smoking!
Built lots of toilets.
Very concerned with mountain / alpine issues.
Nathen Smith (RC), Salt Lake City.
Privatization of camping / picnic area is a problem since much
climbing occurs at picnic / camp areas.
Erosion and bolt replacements are problems.
Building a database of climbing areas.
Dry tooling is scarring summer climbing.
BLM has been supportive.
Johnathan Knight, Salt Lake Climbers Alliance.
http://www.saltlakeclimbers.org/
Organization is getting off the ground.
Good relationship with forest service.
Working hard to develop a relationship with LDS church but it's hard.
They (LDS) do not acknowledge climbers.
Gate Buttress parking still closed.
Lots of bouldering.
General parking problems.
Urban sprawl is a problem for access.
Eric Murdock, University of Arizona.
Studying fixed anchors in JTree. Full report later.
Rob Holzman (RC), Eastern Pennsylvania.
Lots of climbing areas in eastern PA.
Diverse land ownership.
Raptor closure at Delaware Water Gap.
Will close smaller part of cliff next year.
Re-bolting projects.
Climbing Magazine donated bolts.
Lots of cleanups.
Lots of small climber groups.
Still trying to open Safe Harbor.
Kerry Nodal, Northern Arizona Climbers Coalition. Flagstaff, AZ.
http://www.nazclimbers.org/
Lots of climbing areas.
Clifftop erosion at Paradise Forks and Oak Creek.
Tree impacts.
Fee demo is an issue - need fees but it's not obvious that money
currently collected is put good use.
Clifftop anchors can help with erosion but some climbers object to
fixed anchors at trad areas.
They will be experimenting with top anchors at the Oak Creek overlook.
Antagonism between climbers and FS is a problem with relationship.
Issues at Jacks Canyon - parking and overuse.
Need to reach out to boulderers.
Lots of cultural issues.
Bill Strachan, Ohio Climbers Association.
http://www.ohioclimbers.org/OCA/index.html
State conducted an inventory of climbing and is friendly to
climbers.
Areas on city property.
Lost access to an area after a climbing fatality.
Private land issues.
John Peterson, Ragged Mountain Foundation. Connecticut.
http://www.raggedmtn.org/
Ragged Mountain is owned and maintained by climbers.
Organization is stable and well funded.
One of the first LCOs.
Diverse crag ownership - private, municipal, state,
quasi-governmental agencies.
No federal ownership.
Land acquisition is going to be a big issue.
Parking problems.
Bryan Pletta, NM-Crag, New Mexico.
http://www.nmcrag.org/
Organization is incorporating.
Hard to build an organization that covers a wide territory that has
few people.
Lots of public land.
Indian land is nearly impossible to get permission for.
Road to Enchanted Tower is a big issue - fairly climber friendly.
Getting the word out to the climbing community is the hard part.
Trail projects have helped landowner relationships a lot.
FS won't put in a toilet at Enchanted Tower because they don't own
access road.
Tres Piedres is another private land access to FS land.
NPS does not want climbers in Petroglyph National Monument.
Gallup bought a cliff for climbing to bring tourists in.
Picked up 200 pounds of glass from a bouldering area.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Invited Talks, Day 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wildlife and Natural Resource Issues.
Rob Ramey (Denver Museum of Nature and Science)
Dan Mydans (University of Colorado)
There are wide discrepancies in how seasonal wildlife closures are set
up and managed across the country. This presentation will focus on
a qualitative assessment of data and literature used in managing
raptor closures.
Problem: land managers use closure as a management tool without a
scientific basis.
How do land managers decide when to close a cliff?
Most literature is opinion rather than results of studies.
Buffer zones from 250 - 1200 meters.
Papers that incorporate empirical evidence tend to recommend much
smaller closure distances (200 - 300 meters).
Birds are less sensitive later in the season.
Over-caution erodes public trust and wastes conservation resources.
Climbers need to question the science that managers cite.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Policy Update
Jason Keith, AF Policy Director
Hear the latest on fixed anchors in wilderness, climbers for
political action and the recently inked MOU between the AF and the US
Forest Service.
Forest service currently says that fixed anchors are illegal in
wilderness lands.
Still being enforced on a region by region basis.
New policy seems to be toward prior authorization for fixed anchors.
Policies are more strict for proposed wilderness than actual
wilderness.
Forest service and BLM are doing things differently - FS and NPS will
default to "allowed except where prohibited" while BLM is
"prohibited unless authorized".
Getting a Red Rocks CMP in place is really important.
Lawsuits are inevitable over (lack of) fixed anchor ban.
It's a big thing to get government to acknowledge that fixed anchors
are legal but subject to regulation in wilderness.
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Forest Service and AF states
that the AF represents the interests of climbers.
Gets climbers in the door on management decisions.
MOUs are are non-binding but really useful; gives climbers
legitimacy.
MOU allows climbers to tell managers what is important.
Everyone working with the feds should have MOUs.
Climbers for political action: AF organized an event in DC that
invited congress-critters to talk about climbing issues (looked cool).
LCOs should use the AF to help with national level political lobbying.
AF has a list of congressmen who climb!
---------------------------------------------------------------
Invited Talks, Day 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
Developing the AF Grassroots Support Program
Shawn Tierney - Access and Acquisitions Director
This session will provide an update on the AF grassroots support
program as well as generate ideas and input on how the AF can better
support grassroots activists and organizations.
LCOs allow local involvement in access issues.
LCOs have formed with little connection to the AF - the AF wants to
make sure that the LCOs will see the AF as an asset instead of
competition.
Avoid a disconnection between LCOs and the AF.
Much of the process of creating LCOs is being duplicated by each
organization - the AF can help.
AF will survey LCOs/activists and find out what their issues and
needs.
AF wants to work with organizations that are focused primarily on
climbing access.
Currently about 50 LCOs.
AF needs to prioritize the needs of LCOs and work with the LCOs to
determine the best way to build the relationship between the LCOs and the AF.
Majority are run by a small core of dedicated individuals (potential
continuity problem).
Every group has organizational needs.
Incorporation takes a lot of time and effort.
Effectiveness requires good relationships with land managers.
Currently very little direct support for LCOs from the AF - no
formalized process for a relationship.
Much of current AF literature is directed at land managers instead of LCOs.
Goals:
* Support organizational capacity of LCOs.
* Strengthen LCO efforts to address access threats.
* Promote establishment and growth of local groups.
* AF does not want to co-opt decision making process from local groups.
* AF will put more information on the web and run regional workshops.
* Develop a list of people with specific expertise as a resource for
LCOs.
Long discussion about AF + LCOs followed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Local Activism in North Carolina
Aram Attarian, Carolina Climbers Coalition.
Education and outreach to climbers; the development and of of surveys
in gathering baseline data for climbing management plans; and
effectively dealing with access issues.
Communication and Education as a land management tool
* Non authoritarian
* Modify behavior without losing individual choice
* Increase quality of recreational experience and reduce social
conflict
Lots of participants in education. LCOs, AF, land managers,
retailers, other climbers, print media.
AF will be making a video for free distribution deals with climber
education.
There's a Red River Gorge video that's available for free.
All climbers need to help and nicely educate other climbers.
Magazines should give the AF a forum but don't at the moment.
Need to get land managers to allow educational material at kiosks.
Posters need to be site specific.
Design of poster makes a difference.
LCOs need to gather information about climbers.
Surveys to get data for things like climbing management plans.
Producing good questions is hard!
Needed to collect baseline information to demonstrate impacts (or lack
of impacts)
Support and assistance for management.
OMB needs to approve surveys on federal lands used to make management
decisions!
Typical climber survey:
* Where you are from
* Party size
* Reason for choosing site
* Attitude toward management
* Personal info about climbing habits
* Demographic
* Area specific stuff
* Additional comments - give climbers a forum
------------------------------------------------------------------
Workshop: Land Acquisitions
John Myers, AF Land Acquisition
An overview of the land acquisition process and the various methods
used to permanently protect climbing areas.
Vision: permanently protect climbing areas on private land.
55% of Rock and Road closed areas are on private land.
Closed areas: 101 in 21 states (3700 routes)
Steps:
Identify parcels - tax maps / owner contact info
Negotiate - direct contact; do they like climbers? Willing to sell?
Tax benefits?
Prioritize - pick the best place to apply efforts in your area
Purchasing / Selling strategies - public agency, get an option to
allow time for fund-raising. Seller financing.
Disposition: resell to public agency, keep land in LCO, subdivide to
pay off loan.
Budgeting - lots of costs to be aware of. Look at private
investment
Management - LCOs, access fund. If possible set up a stewardship
fund. Land trust. Use deed restrictions for perpetual
climbing.
Private investment allows deals which make a profit as well as set
aside climbing areas.
Look to local climbers for investors.
Offer fixed return or limited partnerships to raise money.
Leverage tax advantages for investors.
Sell developed lots to climbers.
LCOs need to be aware of continuing management issues.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Survey of legal issues affecting climbing
Cristian Caslin
A survey of the various issues relating to climbing on private and
public land including the lowdown on recreational use statutes,
liability and various approaches that can be used in negotiating with
landowners.
Legal issues are scary and expensive!
Torts - liability via negligence is the problem for climbing.
Everyone has a certain level of duty; professionals have a higher
standard of conduct.
Landowner liability is the main climbing issue.
Limiting liability: do climbers assume all risk in climbing
situations?
Waivers limit liability; must be narrowly tailored to be applicable.
Tricky to write.
LCOs should look at waivers for trail-work or other organized events.
Law varies from state to state - no one waiver can be used by
everyone.
In many states waivers don't apply to kids - probably shouldn't have
kids on organized events.
Get a separate organization like ASCA to replace bolts to avoid
liability.
Don't take responsibility for installing bolts.
Recreational use statutes allow landowners to avoid liability for
recreational uses - definitely includes climbing.
Usually requires that user is not charged.
Does not prevent lawsuits.
Can LCOs / AF provide legal defense?
Someone found a policy for $50 to provide legal protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Tree Wilderness Rock Climbing Study
Eric Murdock, University of Arizona
This study combines the use of a climbing resource inventory, visitor
use monitoring, behavior profiles, cartographic modeling and
simulation to explore the consequences of proposed management actions
prior to field implementation.
Park service wants to study impacts associated with fixed anchors (not
climbing per se).
Park will use permits to control wilderness bolting.
Climbing committee in JTree is hashing out details.
Understand current condition of climbing resources.
Model relationship between use and fixed anchors.
Predict implications of management decisions.
Climbing resource inventory, visitor inventory (all users), climber
survey.
Computer modeling and simulation based on user behavior.
Many volunteers are willing to help out.
Route inventory:
* formation (GPS)
* difficulty
* # bolts
* # anchors
* quality
* approach time
* cliff base environment
* condition of anchors and environment
560 routes in Wonderland of Rocks
138 formations
172 anchors
992 bolts
58% of routes have rock bases
Trail inventory: class by width, character, use. GPS.
Biological & Cultural inventories (raptors, bighorns, plants)
Visitor inventory: start with access locations, record time and date
of entrance.
separate climbers from hikers visually
use camera to randomly sample usage
IR sensor to count traffic
counter pads when no place for an IR counter
Climber survey
* link climbers to destinations
* look at skill level, frequency of climbing, control.
* ask climbers what sort of experience they favor
* Use routes actually climbed to validate route preferences
* Ask route preferences based on hypothetical route topos
(would you like a 5.7 sport route next to the road or a 5.10
offwidth an hour hike away ...)
Use climber survey info to model climber and generate anticipated
usage patterns.
Elaborate simulation demonstrated!
Predict effect of additional routes.
Work does not address policy itself - just predict consequences of decisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bouldering Management in Bishop
Scott Justham. BLM Ranger
Bouldering use has skyrocketed on the Volcanic Tableland, making this
one of the premier climbing areas in the country. This presentation
will focus on how the BLM has responded to the dramatic surge in use.
Lots of really good pictures scroll by ...
Gas tax finances off highway program - hug an ATV rider today.
Many high use areas.
Biological resources like bristlecones.
Wilsons is the climbers hub - perfect for climber information.
Area is heavily marketed to climbers.
BLM has a website targeted at climbers.
Happy boulders as a sacrifice area - guidebooks lead to major traffic.
Trails is an issue.
Very little funding for resource management.
Bouldering impacts: off road use, new roads / parking, camping.
Need to eliminate roads / parking that shouldn't be there.
Wild camping scene - lots of crazy people out there.
BLM provides dumpsters / portapotties / kiosk / donation boxes.
Ask for donations at campground (the pit).
$2000 in donations last year; all goes into campground.
Need to limit camping - people want to live full time in the
campground.
20,000 visitor days this year so far (?).
Trail counters to establish trail use.
Peak use is spring break.
Dogs are an issue - off trail travel, vegetation problems, social
impacts.
Boulderers need rescues!
BLM asks $1/day for camping but many people don't donate.
10 cents per person per day day is collected.
Can't charge because it will disperse campers to more fragile areas.
Educate climbers in the gym.
Many users just don't know anything about Leave No Trace behavior.
Could manufacturers put a "leave no trace" sticker on crash pads?
Use adopt-a-crag to designate trails at Happy Boulders.
Eastern Sierra MountainFest is a way of building and educating the
community and work on relationships.
Do outdoor events help? - impacts are pretty severe for big events.
Access fund doesn't always authorize events that use the AF name.
Don't assume that the AF has approved events that use the AF name.
Desert vegetation is very fragile - easily impacted.
Lots of petroglyph's and historic artifacts near bouldering areas.
Did an inventory the area (funded by the AF) - 33 sites / square km.
Indians are very worried about climber impact.
Visitor counting.
Photo surveys of road conditions.
Often over 100 people bouldering on a busy day.
Cover boards are used to evaluate vegetation impact.
Big impact from bouldering.
What is the acceptable impact?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The meeting wrapped up with a long discussion of the relationship
between the AF and LCOs. Unfortunately I had to leave early so I
don't have a full record of it.
I have been a big critic of the AF web presence and decided to put my
effort where my mouth is so I'm putting together a LCO webpage to
enable communication among LCOs and between the AF and LCOs. Alex
Chiang is helping and we should have something online soon. All of
the slides and notes passed out at the meeting will be there.
------------------------------------------------------------------
One of my crusades is to make the AF a more open organization. This
lack of openness is not really their fault - they are happy to talk to
climbers one on one via phone or email (check their website for
contact info). My opinion is that they should participate more in
open forums where everyone can view a discussion - this is much more
effective than answering hundreds of phone calls / emails.
If you have any questions about this meeting and the topics discussed
I would be happy to answer questions or contact the presenters for
you.
John Peterson
Ragged Mountain Foundation
peters...@cs.yale.edu
Will Niccolls
indig...@hotmail.com
with a more specific subject? Like Access Fund Grassroots Gathering
Notes (9/03)? or something shorter but with similar meaning?
I don't read every post on this board and accidentally stumbled on
this one. Info like this helps me better rationalize sending $ to the
Access Fund. I know they do things but knowing more helps me out.
-thanks for the info, Carol
John Peterson <peters...@cs.yale.edu> wrote in message news:<kb7k47d...@ragged.cs.yale.edu>...
John Peterson
Those are about the only ones worth reading.
John
Christian :?
> But I thought everyone reads posts that have TR: in the subject!
> Those are about the only ones worth reading.
>
> John
I wouldn't worry about it too much John, I think you proved your point
just by the fact that Carol did read it.
And, on the other side, TR's don't have to be that sexy anyway; It's
amazing the point you can carry with a text editor.
Cheers,
Christian :?)
p.s. Again, it was good to finally meet you.