After reading the thread about Pocket Wall I was kind of disturbed by all the knee-jerk reactions to Wilson Francis' attitude towards climbing. Like it or not, there HAS been real scientific research done about climbing impacts and it has been published in peer reviewed journals. Now, I don't think that scientists are without their own biases, but I'm also not going to dismiss what they have to say without looking at their research. I think we're making a mistake if we atomatically think that anyone who thinks climbing has negative aspects towards the environment is stupid or full of shit or whatever. And some of the attacks against Francis here make weird assumptions about what he thinks about Natural Bridge. What makes you think he supports people carving their names in the rock? I've seen park officials ticket buckeyes for that before with my own eyes and give them lectures on why its bad. I also don't know that he personally loves the hotel and all that developed shit. Do you love eveything about where you work?
I'm sure I'm going to be attacked for looking criticly at parts of climbing, which is why I usually lurk here and never post. I personally think we should forget about Pocket Wall and focus on the Murray Property and the Forest Service. But what do I know...
Climbing impacts and science
-
jonlloyd1818
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2003 7:07 pm
Since I know this is coming, here are a few links concerning ecological research and climbing that I found on a google search. Now, I'm not saying that I think they are all gospel, but I think they are work considering. And I'm also not egotistical enough to think that I know more about science than a science professor, nor do most of the other climbers I know, despite what they might think!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 072635.htm
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20030412/fob4.asp
http://www.aibs.org/washington-watch/wa ... 99_07.html
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/envi ... 520326.htm
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/ ... 377.x/abs/
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/servle ... limbing%29
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 072635.htm
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20030412/fob4.asp
http://www.aibs.org/washington-watch/wa ... 99_07.html
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/envi ... 520326.htm
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/ ... 377.x/abs/
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/servle ... limbing%29
thanks..if we turn a blind eye, or say who cares, then we are shooting our own foot....I've always said, as a user group, we as climbers are a very selfish lot. Its fun and esoteric to think of our "natural" sport, when in reality we are abusers of certain natural phenomenon...my problem is, I don't really care enough to do anything about it...but I do appreciate your input.
Positive vibes brah...positive vibes.
Hmmm.... Almost all of the articles are based on the same U of Guleph group. I only read the stuff that you linked to, not the original papers, but it seems to leave open a very, very big methodological hole. They are comparing 'climbing' cliffs to 'non-climbing' cliffs. But 'climbing' cliffs are climbed for specific reasons, primary among them is that they are 'cleaner' and less vegitated than other sections of cliff. Sport climbers in particular look for cliff faces that don't have a lot of dirt-covered ledges or plant filled cracks. I don't doubt that climbing has some biological impact, but I really wonder wether this group is comparing apples to apples.
Bacon is meat candy.
I dont know what to think about those articles...like tomdarch said, "comparing apples to apples"... i took a statistics course and learned alot about false information. They stats they give on those sites could be completely bogus and manipulative if the author of the article and those who did the study wanted them to be. It would really be easy for a group to come up with numbers that support their claim if they took samples of cliff in a biased way, which is often the case when studies are published with the intent of proving a point. So they way they determined 'non-climbing' and 'climbing' cliffs could really have a big impact on the numbers. I have learned to not trust info like that right away. Im sure that climbing does have some negative impact on the rocks and such, but then again every activity/sport that can be done almost always has some negative impact on the invironment in which it is done. Arg...im out! its saint pattys day! time to party.
The south will rise again!
I read McMillan and Larson's paper back when it came out. From what I remember, they weren't comparing unclimbed vs climbed cliffs, so much as unclimbed vs climbed sections of the same cliff. They worked with some local climber to choose vertical transects, and I think it mostly came down to whether there was or could be a line there. "Unclimbed" cliffs were vertical sections where maybe part of it was climb-able, but there wasn't a climb-able line all the way to the top. I think they quite specifically avoided faces that weren't climbed only because they were too dirty.
My biggest problem with the study was that they were working at Rattlesnake Point and a couple other cliffs that are the escarpment equivalent of Roadside or Military - heavy, heavy use - of course, there's going to be an impact on climbed vs unclimbed sections there. But they generalized their results to climbable escarpment cliffs in general - including cliffs that see only the occassional climbers who bushwhack miles to find an uncrowded crag, where the impact likely won't be as great.
My biggest problem with the study was that they were working at Rattlesnake Point and a couple other cliffs that are the escarpment equivalent of Roadside or Military - heavy, heavy use - of course, there's going to be an impact on climbed vs unclimbed sections there. But they generalized their results to climbable escarpment cliffs in general - including cliffs that see only the occassional climbers who bushwhack miles to find an uncrowded crag, where the impact likely won't be as great.
My dislike for Wilson Francis comes from my direct interaction with him. His basis for objecting to climbing was that bolts harm the patina of rock that is so fragile. I understand that logic in a desert setting, but in the Red the moisture level and exposure to elements makes for a completely different world. He was actually trying to convince bureaucrats that by placing a bolt, you pierce the delicate patina which is the only protection for the underlying sandstone layers. Thus, a bolt hole will cause the cliffs to just erode away. He could not stand any cross examination on his theory and instead deflected and misrepresented some other aspect of climbing. For example, he could not explain how his patina theory would apply in the Red that has sandstone faces absolutely chuck full of weathered pockets that by definition have pierced any theoretical patina. He's full of shit, full of himself, and full of an agenda.
That being said, there can be good studies on climbing impacts, but extrapolation of that data and the studies' conclusions can be dangerous for a land manager. I'm positive that climbing trad routes scrapes off lichens, and you can conclude that climbing damages plants/fungus/life, but you have to look at the particular life form and see if it is worth protecting. Endangered species-yes. Run of the mill lichens-no. Except for peculiar situations with peregrine falcons, some bats, and some plants, I'd bet the real climbing impacts are at the base, like other users such as campers and hikers.
That being said, there can be good studies on climbing impacts, but extrapolation of that data and the studies' conclusions can be dangerous for a land manager. I'm positive that climbing trad routes scrapes off lichens, and you can conclude that climbing damages plants/fungus/life, but you have to look at the particular life form and see if it is worth protecting. Endangered species-yes. Run of the mill lichens-no. Except for peculiar situations with peregrine falcons, some bats, and some plants, I'd bet the real climbing impacts are at the base, like other users such as campers and hikers.
Johnny wrote:My dislike for Wilson Francis comes from my direct interaction with him. His basis for objecting to climbing was that bolts harm the patina of rock that is so fragile. I understand that logic in a desert setting, but in the Red the moisture level and exposure to elements makes for a completely different world. He was actually trying to convince bureaucrats that by placing a bolt, you pierce the delicate patina which is the only protection for the underlying sandstone layers. Thus, a bolt hole will cause the cliffs to just erode away. He could not stand any cross examination on his theory and instead deflected and misrepresented some other aspect of climbing. For example, he could not explain how his patina theory would apply in the Red that has sandstone faces absolutely chuck full of weathered pockets that by definition have pierced any theoretical patina. He's full of shit, full of himself, and full of an agenda.
That being said, there can be good studies on climbing impacts, but extrapolation of that data and the studies' conclusions can be dangerous for a land manager. I'm positive that climbing trad routes scrapes off lichens, and you can conclude that climbing damages plants/fungus/life, but you have to look at the particular life form and see if it is worth protecting. Endangered species-yes. Run of the mill lichens-no. Except for peculiar situations with peregrine falcons, some bats, and some plants, I'd bet the real climbing impacts are at the base, like other users such as campers and hikers.
Johnny,
You mean the cliffs aren't going to fall over?
'Darling, may I please be excused for a moment?
I have to shake hands with a very dear friend of mine, whom I hope to introduce you to after dinner.'
The polite way to excuse yourself and take a piss.
I have to shake hands with a very dear friend of mine, whom I hope to introduce you to after dinner.'
The polite way to excuse yourself and take a piss.
I read the articles you posted. Thanks.
The Guleph study and snail study sounds like they looked at species impact on the rock directly climbed, not just the vicinity. Of course, if you use a "vertical trail" it will wipe out most delicate species. But this rebuttal was appropriate:
"The crucial question for management strategy, says conservation ecologist Robert H. Cowie of the University of Hawaii in Honolulu, is to determine how much of the snails' habitat is being severely disturbed."
Assume ther is 700 miles of cliff in the Red as has been reported by the FS. Assume a generous 1500 routes in the Red that have an impact of climbers hands and feet 10 feet wide (another generous estimate). Thats 15,000 feet (in width) of climbing impact on the cliffs in the Red. Thats roughly 3 miles or 0.43% of the cliff (this doesn't account for some routes having little or no traffic). For stationary and semi-stationary species like plants and lichens and snails, it's minimal. For raptors and bats, it could be more significant, but presence of humans is the problem, not wearing of the rock face.
The Joshua Tree study included plants on the cliff and the base together. If you separated the two, my guess is the affect on the cliff is minimal and the base affect is largely the culprit. But now we're back to basic hiking/camping/trampling issues which are not unique to climbers.
Finally, both ecosystems of JT and Niagra Escarpment are probably more sensitive than that in the Red. If nothing else, they are certainly quite different. Comparisons should note that.
The Guleph study and snail study sounds like they looked at species impact on the rock directly climbed, not just the vicinity. Of course, if you use a "vertical trail" it will wipe out most delicate species. But this rebuttal was appropriate:
"The crucial question for management strategy, says conservation ecologist Robert H. Cowie of the University of Hawaii in Honolulu, is to determine how much of the snails' habitat is being severely disturbed."
Assume ther is 700 miles of cliff in the Red as has been reported by the FS. Assume a generous 1500 routes in the Red that have an impact of climbers hands and feet 10 feet wide (another generous estimate). Thats 15,000 feet (in width) of climbing impact on the cliffs in the Red. Thats roughly 3 miles or 0.43% of the cliff (this doesn't account for some routes having little or no traffic). For stationary and semi-stationary species like plants and lichens and snails, it's minimal. For raptors and bats, it could be more significant, but presence of humans is the problem, not wearing of the rock face.
The Joshua Tree study included plants on the cliff and the base together. If you separated the two, my guess is the affect on the cliff is minimal and the base affect is largely the culprit. But now we're back to basic hiking/camping/trampling issues which are not unique to climbers.
Finally, both ecosystems of JT and Niagra Escarpment are probably more sensitive than that in the Red. If nothing else, they are certainly quite different. Comparisons should note that.