Nice Outside Online arcticle on Muir Valley

[TradMike]

I would stay away from saying something is safer statistically. Fear is good.

[tradotto]

[jordancolburn]

I'm not a huge fan of a lot of Muir's (not Miur, unless you are thinking about Miuras? Those shoes kick ass) approach– the manicured trails, signs, bolt spacing; everything about it is basically making a developed city park that caters to the lowest common denominators of climbing. However, I still climb there on occasion, and give the Webers cash every year.

Not trying to be critical of you (especially since you give back when you climb there), but I've never understood the "How dare they attempt to make climbing convenient or safe" attitude about developing new areas. If you want more runout areas at the end of long bushwacking hikes, those types of climbs are out there, so go climb them instead. But, that doesn't make the climbing any better or any worse at muir. The convenience does draw more people, which might keep me away on busy weekends, but it doesn't make the climbing there a joke as a lot of the trolls on this thread have insinuated. If you climb there, you should donate (applies to the PMRP too). If not, then don't donate, but you don't have to sit and troll, criticize, complain and be a generally bad human being to people you are actually probably going to see out climbing sometime. But who am I kidding, this is the internet.

Anyway, I'm grateful the Webers and FOMV for having such a great convenient area with enough moderates to take people and introduce them to this great sport.

[tradotto]

sit and troll, criticize, complain and be a generally bad human being to people

Isn't that what the internet is for?

[camhead]

But have you done Dreamthiever, Renegade, Tradisfaction, No Bones about It, and In a Pinch, Paul? And seriously, some of the best 5.12-5.13 sport routes in the Red are found at the Sanctuary, Midnight Surf, Solarium, and (shameless plug) Ivory Tower...

Yeah, I agree, Dustin, there are amazing routes in MV (Dreamthiever gave me a severe ass-whoop as soon as it got wide). I'm more saying that the very way that Muir is set up attracts crowds, and the very types of crowds that I try to stay away from. There's nothing wrong with this at all; I personally think that it is a good thing to have a place like Muir to funnel all the "we've got a van from the university outdoor adventure center, and one trip leader who leads 10a in the gym"- types. It's just not really my scene, even though the place serves an essential function for the greater RRG.

[camhead]

Not trying to be critical of you (especially since you give back when you climb there), but I've never understood the "How dare they attempt to make climbing convenient or safe" attitude about developing new areas.

Damn, double post on here.

Jordan, just to clarify, I don't think that there is ANYTHING wrong with how Muir is managed and developed (though it is ironic that the least "wilderness" area of the RRG is named for John Muir). And stylistic preaching to others is fucking lame; I actually just climbed for three days with a friend who is the precise demographic that you usually see at Bruise Bros on a busy weekend. I am the furthest thing from "how dare you bolt something closely!"

To reiterate: it is AWESOME that there is a place like Muir to draw beginning sport climbers. All I'm saying is that the atmosphere that Muir fosters is not the one that I personally seek out. That's all.

[jordancolburn]

Jordan, just to clarify, I don't think that there is ANYTHING wrong with how Muir is managed and developed (though it is ironic that the least "wilderness" area of the RRG is named for John Muir). And stylistic preaching to others is fucking lame; I actually just climbed for three days with a friend who is the precise demographic that you usually see at Bruise Bros on a busy weekend. I am the furthest thing from "how dare you bolt something closely!"

To reiterate: it is AWESOME that there is a place like Muir to draw beginning sport climbers. All I'm saying is that the atmosphere that Muir fosters is not the one that I personally seek out. That's all.

Hey, def. not trying to preach to you. I completely agree with your post above about appreciating muir, it serving a niche, but just being a "scene" or "atmosphere" on busy days of mostly new climbers thats not appealing to you (although on look at my send list shows that I have happily been, and probably still am to some degree in that category). That was mostly in response to reading a few pages of people actively being jerks just because it doesn't appeal to them. Sorry I quoted you to make the point, but it really wasn't trying to be preachy and especially not to you as I agree with what you're saying.

[lena_chita]

I'm not a huge fan of a lot of Muir's (not Miur, unless you are thinking about Miuras? Those shoes kick ass) approach– the manicured trails, signs, bolt spacing; everything about it is basically making a developed city park that caters to the lowest common denominators of climbing. However, I still climb there on occasion, and give the Webers cash every year.

Not trying to be critical of you (especially since you give back when you climb there), but I've never understood the about developing new areas. If you want more runout areas at the end of long bushwacking hikes, those types of climbs are out there, so go climb them instead. But, that doesn't make the climbing any better or any worse at muir. The convenience does draw more people, which might keep me away on busy weekends, but it doesn't make the climbing there a joke as a lot of the trolls on this thread have insinuated. If you climb there, you should donate (applies to the PMRP too). If not, then don't donate, but you don't have to sit and troll, criticize, complain and be a generally bad human being to people you are actually probably going to see out climbing sometime. But who am I kidding, this is the internet.

Anyway, I'm grateful the Webers and FOMV for having such a great convenient area with enough moderates to take people and introduce them to this great sport.

I don't think it has anything to do with "How dare they attempt to make climbing convenient or safe" attitude.

It is a private land of Rick and Liz. If their vision involves manicured trails, convenient benches to sit on, route tags, nice bathrooms, well-maintained gravel roads and bridges, etc. etc. then so be it, it is the end of story.

But you can't fault people who don't agree with this vision, either.

After last year's trail day (yes, I was there, I was actually leading one of the groups that worked on the trail), I climbed at PMRP the following day. As I was hiking to Shady Grove, I couldn't help but think that the trail I worked on IMPROVING at Muir Valley the day before, actually looked to be in a better shape, even BEFORE we started widening and leveling it, than the trail to Shady Grove. Yet the trail to Shady Grove is by no means difficult, long, or involving tedious bushwhacking of overgrown vegetation. It is a perfectly serviceable trail that is easily navigate-able by everyone who is able to walk on two feet, including toddlers. So was it really necessary to spend time, money and resources on improving that trail at Muir Valley?

The dichotomy of "if you don't like nice trails, go bushwhack somewhere else" is a false one, bc there is a very large range of what would be considered perfectly serviceable trail.

In my case, I don't think it WAS necessary to improve that particular trail. I personally think that all those 100s of feet of benches and stairs at Bruise Brothers are excessive, too.

BUT... back to where we started. It is not my land, it is not my vision, it is Rick and Liz's vision. And I am there to help because I appreciate the fact that they open their land to climbers. That's what the donation is for, in my mind. The bottom line is that when I am there to help improve the trail, it is not because *I* think that this particular trail needs improvement, or these particular benches really need to be built, but because THEY think that it is.

[jordancolburn]

[
The dichotomy of "if you don't like nice trails, go bushwhack somewhere else" is a false one, bc there is a very large range of what would be considered perfectly serviceable trail.

In my case, I don't think it WAS necessary to improve that particular trail. I personally think that all those 100s of feet of benches and stairs at Bruise Brothers are excessive, too.

BUT... back to where we started. It is not my land, it is not my vision, it is Rick and Liz's vision. And I am there to help because I appreciate the fact that they open their land to climbers. That's what the donation is for, in my mind. The bottom line is that when I am there to help improve the trail, it is not because *I* think that this particular trail needs improvement, or these particular benches really need to be built, but because THEY think that it is.

That's what I'm saying, if an area doesn't appeal to you for whatever reason (crowds,trails, bolts, tags, benches) go to one that does, but in general you should support the areas you do go and not go out of your way to criticize or tear down the ones you don't. That's like going to a party at someones house and yelling at them for painting the living room blue when you clearly would have preferred off white.

**again, to avoid confusion, not directing these comments at you (lena) or anyone else, but just as a talking point in response to the ongoing 5 pages of discussion (can we get to 10 if I bring up hammocks or dogs?)

[Crankmas]

Has anyone ever collected on the steak dinner for getting a photo of a bear on Muir Valley land?