RRC Archives

I do belong in the climb and spray group. Did you see I won the golden sombrero for the week. You can check the latest routes sent and see for yourself.

Andrew wrote:but think of all the people who helped cut trees down this week.

DOn't you mean "people who cut DOWNED trees"?

For the Red River Gorge the environmental impact from climbing is negligible. The measured area of climbing impact from the Forest Service resource inventory was 73,509 square feet (1.69 acres) in a total forest area of 42,000 acres. There is about 320 miles of cliffline in Red River Gorge. Also, where people climb in RRG there sometimes is no vegetation at the base or on the cliff. Where there are sensitive species (white-haired goldenrod, virginia big eared bat) the USFS has closed those areas to all recreation.

If it would be helpful I could send you a file of Chris Carr's Masters Thesis about climbing impacts in RRG. Send me an e-mail, Bill Strachan - bill(at)rrgcc.org

MOB wrote:I'm also looking for info such as, total amount land secured for climbing (conservation) in Red River Gorge through organizations such as RRGCC, Access fund...

If you consider "secured" to be where climbing is explicitly allowed:

Public Land

42,000 acres - Red River Gorge (Limits of Acceptable Change Area)

Privately Owned Land

750 acres - Pendergrass-Murray Recreational Preserve (RRCGG)
400 acres - Muir Valley Nature Preserve and Climbing Arena
80 acres - Graining Fork Nature Preserve (Roadside)
80 acres- Torrent Falls
1,310 acres - Total

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

45percent wrote: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.

so parking areas aren't included? or the climber trails? I'd find it hard to believe that our footprint was "neglible".

Only recreational impacts were measured. Parking areas are not included because they were not created from an outdoor recreational activity. Climber trails were not broken out separately from other user created trails. In the long term scheme of LAC the user trails accessing major climbing areas would be upgraded to Forest Service standards and incorporated into the approved trail system.

BTW, user trails were measured as having the greatest impact in RRG - 1,383,360 square feet or 31.76 acres. Less than 0.08% of the 42,000 acre Gorge.

MOB, you are such a science FAGGOT!

captain static wrote:For the Red River Gorge the environmental impact from climbing is negligible. The measured area of climbing impact from the Forest Service resource inventory was 73,509 square feet (1.69 acres) in a total forest area of 42,000 acres.

that means we "impact" just 0.0040% of the total forest area. that's a very small number.

and hikers "impact" 0.0386% of the area?! so therefore hikers are causing 9.65% more "impact" than climbers. and we're the bad guys?!

(btw - what is the definition of "impact" for this study)

piggie - i think that our "impact" is negligible when compared to the overall volume of land. obviously a parking lot impacts the area as do the trails. i'm assuming though since parking lots are used by both climbers and hikers, they can't be counted in both groups. (would be interesting to know which lots are assigned to which groups) and most climber-only parking "lots" (think phantasia, tower rock, fortress, etc.) are really exceptionally small pull off areas. especially when compared to the larger gravel lots, picnic areas, fire rings, grills and occasional restrooms for the hikers/campers.

but i think when the big picture is considered, this data would lead me to believe climbers are not some giant destructive force as they are typically portrayed.

i think it'd also be interesting to consider the volume of climbers vs. the volume of hikers to get a sense of the impact.

Josephine wrote:that means we "impact" just 0.0040% of the total forest area. that's a very small number.
and hikers "impact" 0.0386% of the area?! so therefore hikers are causing 9.65% more "impact" than climbers. and we're the bad guys?!

Josie, you need to play with numbers more cogently.
0.0386/(0.0386+0.0040)*100=90.6% rounded => 91%

so hikers "impact" 91% of the climber + hiker impact and climbers impact only 9% of the total impact from both climbers and hikers!

However, I am not sure about these numbers because climbers hike to crags.