Environmental Impact of Rock Climbing

[Evan]

Here is the link to Chris Carr's thesis: http://www.ohiolink.edu/etd/view.cgi?ac ... 1178812135 the abstract and then the link to the full text. Practically, if you had walked as much of the cliffline and bushwhacked through as much of the forest as I have you would realize how much of RRG is untouched and how little recent human activities are impacting the area.

PS: Please pray or whatever you do for Chris to recover speedily from his recent heart surgery.

This does indeed suggest that climbing would be of little impact on the RRG as a whole. Could this be because there are 320 miles of cliffline and not just a few outcrops or because the FS has a large influence on the use of the area? The amount of climbing in the RRG would seem to minimize impact in concentrated areas but I don't know about the other part.

[DriskellHR]

good thread, I think it is a balance we must strive to maintain. While the ecosystem may be better off without us running round the cliff base. We also provide awareness and often clean up after other groups who are not so conservation minded. This does not apply to all climbers but dare I say the majority. So while we do have an impact I say it is neither postive or negative but rather a coexistance that it possilbe though tryig praticing LNT ethics (not easy when you consider the bolts we put up), and being conservation minded when we visit our crags and climb. do your part, carry trash bags and clean up after yourself....

[truello]

I think that for the cliffline and climbs themselves, it's negative. I do however think its positive overall as generally climbers are more willing to donate to conservation causes, crag purchases aren't just the 1/2 acre at the base of the crag hence freeing up land from being drilled, etc.

I don't think anyone can disagree that a crag is "healthier" when nobody is using it.

[Ascentionist]

Climbing does localize impact, but if there was no developed climbing then there would be no impact vs. minimal impact.

[tbwilsonky]

first of all, there is no really real human/nature divide. there is no ecosystem that does not include human influence. there is no pristine nature untouched by the 'ravages of man'. in other words, the split between 'us' and 'it' is all in your heads. you can thank the enlightenment for that doozy.

but this is a climbing thread so i won't bore you with a bunch of 'words' from 'books'.

in my mind, the relative impact of climbing is tiny when compared to:
1) the production and distribution of fossil fuels that make getting to the crag possible. think Exxon Valdeze and mountain top removal.
2) the creation of roads that make getting to the crag possible. think about toxic runoff and animal roaming patterns cut in half by escalades.
3) the production of food that make climbing possible. think pesticides and the rapid drainage of aquifers.
4) the production of stealth rubber. because everyone knows it has to be made from baby seals.

i'm not saying we should run naked through the forest with a bolt gun and a flame thrower. hardly. i'm just saying that climbing really is a tiny tiny blip in the 'destroying nature' game.

and so it seems that a simple code of ethics should suffice: please try not to break s#*t.

for more of this 'hogwash' goto: http://bluegrassbouldering.wordpress.co ... my-ethics/

-t

[the lurkist]

The soils impact (compression, accelerated erosion) flora and fauna impacts, all occur in an exaggerated way in the micro environment of the cliff line at the hands of climbers. A popular cliff really concentrates these impacts- reference Military and the 5.9s (impacts now somewhat allayed secondary to MV and SR opening up so many good alternative moderates.)
There is no arguing that we are responsible for concentrating impacts in these areas. What these presents to us a community is an opportunity/ responsibility to be stewards of these areas and prepare cliff bases to handle the impacts. "Hardening" the cliff bases by controlling downhill erosion with erosion bars, good access trails that contour the topography, shed water, avoiding sensitive flora and fauna etc all are positive things we can and do do to control for impacts.
Bill and the FS work with LAC all address this.

On another front, I think the "environmental impacts" are vastly outweighed by the community wide fostering of a sense of proprietership that seems to generally pervade the community. That is to say, as new people come into climbing, they learn through association with the community that there is an expectation of responsiblity. These are lessons that people take with them the rest of their lives. I think we as a climbing community are an incubator for young people developing very sound environment ethical mores. This, I think, is worth the impacts.

[anticlmber]

Climbing does localize impact, but if there was no developed climbing then there would be no impact vs. minimal impact.

i disagree andrew. think of how many cliffs you have been to with a well established trail and people still bushwack or cut off the last foot of a switchback witch then erodes the piss out of the trail. the "developed" areas get pummeled and attract larger numbers then "underdeveloped" areas and lots of people equate the "its already trashed so whats it matter" mentality, especially in the southern region simply because there are oil rigs everywhere. i think if people saw the before pic of a cliff and how fast it can be beat down then they might change their mind.

the more developed crags: roadside, solar, motherlode, hell even purgatory are all trashed to hell. how many stick clips, chairs, water bottles, and thermometers must be removed nbefore fucknuts understand?? just because it was there when you got there or nobody else does anything about doesn't mean it should be left.
if it isn't a rock, stick, dirt, animal, or whatever that BELONGS there then PLEASE DO YOUR PART AND PACK IT OUT!

[Crankmas]

well put Lurkist- nice specific examples within the big picture- its the one more look over your shoulder thing on the hike out that stays with me, an avid outdoorsperson while surely having an at least minimal impact is the stronger and more stalwart steward than given credit for... for us now for those to follow to cherish tomorrow

[Andrew]

Junior, your a pessimist.

[Ascentionist]

Climbing does localize impact, but if there was no developed climbing then there would be no impact vs. minimal impact.

i disagree andrew.

I'm not Andrew.

Maybe I should have elaborated a little further (groans from the audience).

ALL climbing areas are developed. Unless you walk up to the crag, climb, walk off and leave, never to return, never to spray, never to post photos on the internet, never to name the route, give it a grade in your head, think about it while...well, anyway, you get the picture.

So my point was basically this: if there is no climbing, there is no climbing impact. That idea vs. minimal climbing impact...minimal impact is still more impact than if the activity didn't exist at all.

But I do agree with the "external" impacts associated with travel to and from the crags, our habits as living beings and where our shiny gear comes from (baby seals, so I hear).

And I also agree that man is not truly seperated form nature. My dad has always said that, that nature also includes humans. Why make a fuss about minimizing manmade impacts when they are really part of nature as well?