Military Wall Scoping Letter

Post by **captain static** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 8:56 pm

This is a last reminder and plea for individual climbers to submit e-mail comments by the deadline of Friday, January 14, 2005 to the Forest Service about the Military Wall project. What is at stake is whether or not the route closures will be lifted or made permanent. If you know climbers that don't frequent this bbs but would still be interested in commenting, contact them now and hook them up to the info posted on the rrgcc.org site. I just posted some additional information and a portion of the DRAFT official RRGCC comment letter that should help climbers focus in on what to say http://www.rrgcc.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=145 Don't miss this chance to tell the Forest Service that you support the parts of this project that would allow the route closures to be lifted.

Post by **Yasmeen** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 10:21 pm

Thanks, CS! I just sent a letter to the email address you provided on the other forum. I'll PM you what I wrote.

Post by **captain static** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 10:38 pm

Thank you Yasmeen! Individual climber comments like that really strengthen the message that climbers care about Military. You don't have to write them a thesis. Just a few points that you feel are most important. It really takes just a short amount of time to send an e-mail and take a stand for the future of RRG climbing.

Post by **Yasmeen** » Wed Jan 12, 2005 10:42 pm

CS asked me to post my letter, so here it is, for the masses:

I wrote:To Whom It May Concern,

I would like to take a few moments of your time to comment on the Military Wall Scoping Letter, as presented to the RRGCC by the Forest Service. As a climber who frequents Military Wall, I strongly support the proposed hardening of Site 2, which would allow climbing to resume in this area that is currently closed to climbing.

I would rather not see the routes at Site 1 closed, especially if there is something that we, as climbers, can do to respect the history at that site while continuing to climb the routes there.

It would be wonderful if the routes at Site 3 were to remain open-- from the proposal, it appears that they will.

Thank you for working with the RRGCC to insure that a conclusion may be reached that will please all involved parties.

Sincerely,
Yasmeen Fowler

Post by **captain static** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 5:14 am

Is there anyone else on this bbs following Yasmeen's excellent example?

Post by **captain static** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 10:02 pm

Late breaking news. Shannon just talked to the Forest Service & then called me about the climbs that might be closed with permanent fencing at Site 1. The climbs that might be closed are Subatomic Fingerlock, Left Turret, and possibly Right Turret. Upon further scrutiny of the Bronaugh Guide, Johnny specifically mentions that the stone wall is a protected archaeological site. The guidebook also mentions the wall in the descriptions of these three climbs. Porter put up the two Turret routes in 1991. It might be argued that in a period of over 10 years of climbing, no impact has occurred to the wall and the cautionary note in the guidebook has been sufficient to protect the wall. So why is a permanent fence needed? Maybee a sign would do? If anyone has had a chance to look at the RRGCC draft letter, I used the sort function in the on-line guide to support my statement that statistics show Subatomic Fingerlock to be one of the more popular climbs at Military. Hopefully this helps you get some talking point ideas for your comments.

Post by **Meadows** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 10:08 pm

Dang, I just sent my letter before getting this.

Post by **captain static** » Thu Jan 13, 2005 10:17 pm

Thanks for your effort. It will make a difference.

Post by **J-Rock** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 4:37 am

Hello, my name is Jared Hancock from Indiana. I'm proud to say that I am a regular Red River Gorge climber. First of all, I would like to thank the Forest Service for their kindness and generosity in allowing us to enjoy our unusual form of outdoor recreation in such a beautiful setting and taking the time to listen to the climbers' concerns.

Certainly it must be difficult to balance recreation with preservation. As a whole, I strongly believe that climbers are a group that care considerably for the natural environment. We do not wish to do behave in a manner that would endanger our ability to climb in the outdoors and enjoy our experiences in the forest.

All over the country climbing areas are in constant threat due to various access issues. Sometimes this may concern endangered species, historical sites, mining and timber rights, etc.

I am sure that decisions concerning how to best manage the natural resources are a constant concern to climbers and the forest service. Knowing that the Forest Service is willing to listen to its various user groups is very reassuring and fills my heart with hope that we can all develop a feasible solution that will benefit all of us.

The Red River Gorge climbers are a great group that would be willing to help with projects that would protect our natural environment and insure that our climbing areas would remain protected as well. The RRGCC is always willing to help lend a hand and do whatever it takes to preserve our access to this wonderful area.

As for the proposed closures at Military Wall, I'd like to suggest the posting of an informational sign. This sign could be instructional and discuss what makes these areas special: complete with some historical reference and background. For example, near the abandoned Niter Mine there could be an informational sign that discusses the importance of these mines such as why they were used, how, and when (maybe even include some drawings or old photographs).

I couldn't imagine why any climbers would want to harm or destroy a cultural resource such as this and I feel that with some education (such as the sign) that we would be able to better understand its significance and become even more inclined to protect it.

Thank you,
Jared Hancock
RRGCC and CAC member