RRGCC & Forest Service News

Post by **TrueNorth** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 8:40 pm

The offer also holds true here. Our dining area can handle 50+ and the layout is a little more open if the response becomes larger than what you think you can handle.

I would like to see Rick W also involved.

Shouldn't this be a non RRGCC organized event with RRGCC members invited, along with everyone else? I would prefer this be an open venue where ideas could be shared. Hell, some may even suggest a second group be formed to promote the area, insure political activism and events. Anyone and everyone would be invited. I interested in hearing from those who are currently involved, were involved or tried to be involved.

Let’s just make sure, if the enthusiasm exists, that we capture it and not stifle it. If people are willing to show up, we need this meeting to be productive. We have one shot at this.

And the worse thing that could happen is, that nothing happens after the meeting.

Post by **captain static** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 9:37 pm

If you need some closures for some impetus here is the latest: http://www.rrgcc.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=235

Thanks RRO & TN for the offers to host informational / input meetings. I think we can definitely make that happen. I look forward to seeing everyone tomorrow at the Crag Day & will stop by to speak with you TN if you are not able to participate in the event.

Post by **J-Rock** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 9:47 pm

Now Hen's Nest too?

Can we write a letter to somebody at the Forest Service? Why were they closed? Are they permanently closed? What's next?

Post by **RRO** » Fri Aug 05, 2005 11:44 pm

Bill just let me know when.

TN I agree with you. This needs to be a meeting where issues and concerns can be brought up, given an honest answer but cannot turn into a "fussing" session. TN, like we talked about earlier, we need to have a plan, assign tasks and get it done. The RRGCC has done the homework and has the knowledge, now its time to organize and accomplish.

Bill,
What resource is being protected with this closure ? Is this a permanant closure or is there hope of reopening ? Does this have anything to do with the new "labels" that the area has been given ?

Post by **haas** » Sat Aug 06, 2005 8:15 pm

Damn it! I love Hen's Nest, those routes closed were the best ones there

Post by **captain static** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 10:00 pm

J-Rock wrote:Now Hen's Nest too? Can we write a letter to somebody at the Forest Service? Why were they closed? Are they permanently closed? What's next?

They were closed due to a conflict with cultural resources (arch sites). Shannon has post a more lengthy technical response on the RRGCC site: http://www.rrgcc.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=236

Post by **tomdarch** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 10:36 pm

These kinds of limited archeological closures don't strike me as too terrible - as long as they are reasonably justified (and policing that may take a fair amount of work)

Am I crazy to think that progress is being made towards getting the FS to approve new routes? Is that just hopeless currently?

Post by **J-Rock** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 10:40 pm

One thing I don't understand though is how it can be reasonably justified to close an area that is "potentially significant" without anymore of an explanation than that.

Post by **tomdarch** » Tue Aug 09, 2005 10:40 pm

Also, Bill, what the heck is the deal with the "Limits of Acceptable Change" thing? I deal with a fair amount of bureaucracy at work, but the stuff I've read leaves me scratching my head! What is it and what does it matter to climbers? Thanks!

Post by **captain static** » Wed Aug 10, 2005 10:42 pm

tomdarch wrote:Also, Bill, what the heck is the deal with the "Limits of Acceptable Change" thing? I deal with a fair amount of bureaucracy at work, but the stuff I've read leaves me scratching my head! What is it and what does it matter to climbers? Thanks!

Without getting into a thesis, LAC is basically taking an inventory of existing conditions, setting standards for acceptable conditions, and determining management actions that will be taken if existing or future conditions exceed what is acceptable. All of the later focussed on outdoor recreational impacts. What will become of all this in relation to climbing is still open to question. What has happenned previously (Black Canyon of the Gunnisson) was the drafting of a Climbing Management Plan. Just what RRG climbers have been seeking ever since the FS came out with their Climbing Management Guide that ended the bolting ban.