Bogley

[Jaxx]

Brian in SLC wrote: Believe it? Take a close look at it, right at the point you'd think its most weak. Gray colored glue of some type. Been that way for years. I have some fairly decent pic's of it (slides). Call Arches and ask if you want.
-Brian in SLC

Do you have those scanned? I didn't notice when I went down there recently but I didn't really look that closely. I would have looked if I had known. It's not that I don't believe you, I am just curious.

[Iceaxe]

For those interested here is the current climbing rules for Arches NP

Arches NP Climbing Regulations
http://www.nps.gov/arch/planyourvisit/climbing.htm

.

[Iceaxe]

Hey Brian, your wired into the climbing community and I respect your opinion (even if I don't always agree). Give us some guidance in providing comment to the park on the new Climbing Management Plan.

:nod:

[scoutabout]

Oh, this is hilarious. I was trying to make comments using the mold of the anti-access folks who are constantly trying to remove motorized access from public lands. Some themes taken directly from comments on this site. It's good to see that "impact" and "effect" don't really matter when it's your favored form of outdoor recreation.

:roflol:

[Iceaxe]

Oh... I think we all understood you were a troll :fluff:

It was comments by some of the others, particularly by GDD, that got my attention.

:popcorn:

[scoutabout]

No, I actually am opposed to allowing climbing in Arches NP. I want to know why my arguments are faulty in this case, but the same arguments are valid when used against motorized recreation.

It diminishes my recreational experience to see people climbing on every arch or formation.

I don't think it's acceptable to damage formations in the park with ropes, anchors, etc.

[price1869]

scoutabout wrote: No, I actually am opposed to allowing climbing in Arches NP. I want to know why my arguments are faulty in this case, but the same arguments are valid when used against motorized recreation.

It diminishes my recreational experience to see people climbing on every arch or formation.

I don't think it's acceptable to damage formations in the park with ropes, anchors, etc.

No one is asking to climb the named arches or formations. We all think that it's retarded that DP climbed DA. He's a DA.

Don't be silly.

[Iceaxe]

scoutabout wrote: I want to know why my arguments are faulty in this case, but the same arguments are valid when used against motorized recreation.

I'm a gear head from way back so you are preaching to the choir. I guess you will have to find someone who opposes motorized recreation and discuss it with them.

scoutabout wrote: It diminishes my recreational experience to see people climbing on every arch or formation.

I think if you had of read the current climbing regs you would have noted that many of the formations are already out-of-bounds. Is there a specific formation you would like to see included? Or by people do you mean the camera and sandwich toting tourist that climb like ants over everything they can?

scoutabout wrote: I don't think it's acceptable to damage formations in the park with ropes, anchors, etc.

Every climber I know or climb with would agree with that statement. So what's your point?

:blahblah:

[scoutabout]

Iceaxe wrote:

scoutabout wrote: It diminishes my recreational experience to see people climbing on every arch or formation.

I think if you had of read the current climbing regs you would have noted that many of the formations are already out-of-bounds. Is there a specific formation you would like to see included? Or by people do you mean the camera and sandwich toting tourist that climb like ants over everything they can?



Man, that's harsh.

Iceaxe wrote:

scoutabout wrote: I don't think it's acceptable to damage formations in the park with ropes, anchors, etc.

Every climber I know or climb with would agree with that statement. So what's your point?

:blahblah:

My point is then that climbing shouldn't be allowed in Arches NP.

[Iceaxe]

scoutabout wrote: My point is then that climbing shouldn't be allowed in Arches NP.

Just remember one thing.... if they restrict climbing what is next? Hiking? Rafting? Bird Watching? All motorized vehicles? (oops... too late... Zion already banned them).

The Park is supposed to be so all can enjoy.

:popcorn:

[scoutabout]

Iceaxe wrote:

The Park is supposed to be so all can enjoy.



I love how logical that sounds. I wish more people felt this way.

Iceaxe wrote: scoutabout wrote: My point is then that climbing shouldn't be allowed in Arches NP.

Just remember one thing.... if they restrict climbing what is next? Hiking? Rafting? Bird Watching? All motorized vehicles? (oops... too late... Zion already banned them).



I believe only 8 NP's permit off-road travel on designated routes. Canyonlands and Arches are two of them. Some very fun drives in both.

On one hand I am playing devil's advocate and trying to point out the hypocrisy of the arguments used (by people on this forum) against motorized access.

On the other hand, I had never considered that climbing rope wore grooves in sandstone until I had read it on this forum. That being the case, I don't see how using damaging equipment on unprotected features is good regardless of the form of recreation we're talking about.

[Brian in SLC]

Iceaxe wrote: Hey Brian, your wired into the climbing community and I respect your opinion (even if I don't always agree). Give us some guidance in providing comment to the park on the new Climbing Management Plan.

Read over the plan. Decide what you like or don't like, and comment to it. I think Ram over on the Canyons egroup posted a blurb from Sam Lightener with some suggestions. My bet is the Access Fund website also has some suggestions as well.

From at least my perspective, I like some of the climbing in Arches (and frankly, most of it scares the bejeesus out of me). Any short letter supporting climbing as an allowed activity in the park would be a good thing at this point. We can all work around whatever restrictions. The bigger deal is to just maintain access.

As far as the ATV thing goes, well, I'm a SUWA supporter. I think sometimes they can be a tad over the top, but, the "other side" can as well, and between the two extremes is probably where most of us lie. I don't own or ride an ATV, but, I do have a 4wd, and, I'll admit to raising a bit of Cain driving at breakneck speed in Salt Creek in Canyonlands (yeah, I'm a bad person). Even had a few folks yell at me, which, would have bothered me more but I was having a hard time wiping the grin off my face and was hoarse from yelling "yee haaaw".

Boils down to access. If your allowed to ATV where ever, then go for it. Just like some climbers, there's some ATV'ers who give the sport a bad name. I'll admit to watching "At Your Liesure" a bit, just to see where the "other side" is coming from. Interesting to me. They are very much into the lobby thing, but, I also see a TON of wise use type stuff, which is pretty darn neat, and folks are out having fun so good on 'em. I've never had a bad encounter with an ATVer (can't say the same for a few snowmobilers) and go out of my way to be pleasant and usually have a great conversation with folks who are really more kindred spirits that anything else. We just choose different recreation. But, its outside, its fun, and there ya go.

Anyhoo, here I am in Bend after a great day of climbing, in a nice state park (Smith Rocks), at the American Alpine Club annual meeting and mountainfest, besides another Deschutes beverage, what could be better?

Cheers,

-Brian in SLC

[Iceaxe]

Stolen from the Super Topo Climbing News, but it does a nice job of stating what climbers should be asking for and why they should be writing a letter.

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:

1. The BLM asked for this same sort of input a couple years ago in reference to Indian Creek. They truly wanted to know who the users were, but in the initial round of discussions comments they only received around 30 letters from climbers, they got over 600 from 4wheelers. That’s pathetic, lets not let it happen here. (FYI-climbers got on it in the second round and we were factored in, showing that your opinions can make a difference).

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.

5. If we don’t ask for permission, we can’t get mad when we don’t get it.

.

[Iceaxe]

And here is the direct link to submit your comments:

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/commentForm.cfm?parkID=25&projectID=18335&documentId=18425

:cool2: