nope
But I would agree to seasonal closures of certain crags to all recreation(read no hiker or climbers). If that was presented as an option to minimise impact at the cliff.
chalk ban
Now get in the kitchen and bake me some bread!you bunch a wangers
chalk or no chalk its more climbing...if you wanna chalk just stick to your pride and go somwheres else. gawd. I thought climbers were a community of givers and supporters, instead we are just all a bunch of wangers. woo hooo...
superfly
I think it is important to remember that the forest service is not concerned with what goes on up on the cliff face. They are concerned with what goes on at the base of climbs, ie staging areas and trails. In many other climbing areas in this country, owned by different people and groups, the cliff face is a major concern and so chalk would be a concern at those areas.
If we are going to have discussions about what impacts we have on cliff faces and we are going to talk about that in the context of what rules the "gate keepers"(DBNF) might impose of us. Then first we should educate ourselves on what the Forest Service's concerns are.
If we are going to have discussions about what impacts we have on cliff faces and we are going to talk about that in the context of what rules the "gate keepers"(DBNF) might impose of us. Then first we should educate ourselves on what the Forest Service's concerns are.
"Climbing is the spice, not the meal." ~ Lurkist
I bet your a sandbagger now to, bastard, with all your 5.9 holier then tho shit.Zspider wrote:I climbed for years without chalk. But, of course, nothing harder than
5.8. Now, with chalk, I've been able to climb to 5.9.
ZSpider
"there's a line between self improvement and self involvement"
"Dogs are nature's pooper scoopers ."
"Dogs are nature's pooper scoopers ."
This is an interesting poll because it shows mindset of many climbers. Some of the responses are distressing and they do not paint a positive image of climbers as a whole. This hypothetical situation is actually a requirement at several national parks out west.
I was surprised to see that given the choice of being allowed to climb (as long as chalk was not used) that more people would be unwilling to make that compromise. From the "hypothetical" point of view of the Forest Service and future climber relations that would probably not look too promising.
For example, Arches National Park has a chalk ban. Climbers are still free to climb there, but they must use a colored chalk or no chalk at all. For those who are unhappy to follow this regulation does it mean that you would rather not climb there at all? Or, worst yet, violate their rules and risk further problems with climber access issues? I'm not trying to start an argument here, I'm just curious...
I was surprised to see that given the choice of being allowed to climb (as long as chalk was not used) that more people would be unwilling to make that compromise. From the "hypothetical" point of view of the Forest Service and future climber relations that would probably not look too promising.
For example, Arches National Park has a chalk ban. Climbers are still free to climb there, but they must use a colored chalk or no chalk at all. For those who are unhappy to follow this regulation does it mean that you would rather not climb there at all? Or, worst yet, violate their rules and risk further problems with climber access issues? I'm not trying to start an argument here, I'm just curious...
"Those iron spikes you use have shortened the life expectancy of the Totem Pole by 50,000 years."
--A Navaho elder
--A Navaho elder