Environmental Impact of Rock Climbing

[MOB]

awesome forum! i'm glad to see that the subject spurred some critical thinking. Group input helps everyone look at things from different angles, this is how impacts can be reduced.

[der uber]

I haven't been on the climb yet, but I find the comments in the online guide to be helpful if you need beta on moves, route length, location, etc.

Please don't leave trash around Environmental Impact.

[mpittdawg]

Your poll should probably include a "no impact" option. I think any impact is negative.

Would you consider a Forest Service approved hiking trail to be an impact and thus negative? A hiking trail creates a narrow strip through the forest that is devoid of vegetation. In the RRG resource inventory the measured impact of approved trails was 707,520 square feet or 16.24 acres.

There are numerous climbs in RRG where there was no measurable impacts according to USFS guidelines. And from what impact was measured I think it can be argued that climbing creates no significant impact in RRG.

You can't make the argument that climbing has no significant impact on the environment at RRG, because everyone views the term "significant" differently. Some may think that the unavoidable loose rock that comes down from establishing a route is "significant" and others may not have any problem with it.

You can quote as many numbers as you want but having an impact on the environment is more than just how many acres we change from establishing a trail or a climb. I'd be willing to bet that that the USFS study didn't take into account all the chalk marks created on the walls that we climb. Or, the amount of noise pollution (or just plain pollution) that we climbers create near the cliffs. For example, just look at Torrent. Why do you think it was closed to climbing for over a year?

Now don't get me wrong, I love climbing at the Red and all other places but it is naive to think we climbers don't have some negative impact on the environment.

[ynp1]

MOB, your so gay...

[captain static]

You can't make the argument that climbing has no significant impact on the environment at RRG, because everyone views the term "significant" differently.

Yes, I can make that argument because I am using the term "significant" as it is understood by the Forest Service according to the National Environmental Policy Act.

Chalk marks and noise are not environmental impacts they are social impacts. Social impacts were included in the Forest Service study but they are different from environmental impacts or what the Forest Service calls resource impacts.

[charlie]

Keep your eye on the ball people, land use and impact is judged as significant solely by the landowners. Torrent is not Muir Valley is not PMRP is not USFS land which is why when Bob tells you to not cut down a tree or Rick tells you to stay on the trail your opinion should defer to theirs.

As far as I know the USFS mission is not to eliminate all human impact, it's to balance their properties in terms of sustainable land use (including recreational land use) and conservation for future generations. How well they do that is of course up for discussion but the LAC efforts are the current processes. They welcome your feedback.

http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/mission.shtml

The mission of the USDA Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.

Motto: Caring for the Land and Serving People

The phrase, "CARING FOR THE LAND AND SERVING PEOPLE," captures the Forest Service mission. As set forth in law, the mission is to achieve quality land management under the sustainable multiple-use management concept to meet the diverse needs of people........

[anticlmber]

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.

sorry, hadnt had my coffee yet and i hate andrew.

[Ondrej]

Without a doubt the impact of dogs at the crag or boulders. Not as important at crags like RRG, but they reek havoc in drier areas. Leave the pooch at home.

[the lurkist]

Without a doubt the impact of dogs at the crag or boulders. Not as important at crags like RRG, but they reek havoc in drier areas. Leave the pooch at home.

good job- way to derail a decent thread.

[ynp1]

i think dogs are cool at the crags... the biggest problem are female climbers and their little wads of toilet paper they leave everywhere... i think it would be good to keep dogs and ban females. i dont like this because i would way rather watch a girl climb then a dude, but if is better for the enviroment then i guess i will have to live with it. so LEAVE THE GIRL AT HOME!