RRC Archives

Ha ha ha...

Ha ha Clevis doing what he does best... Bring Clevis. I think that Clevis should become a verb... You see that guy go Clevis on his ass?

the lurkist wrote: We are the best, most well behaved, least impactful user group with the most positive impacts on the greater society and local economy of any user group that recreates in the area.

I couldn't agree more. After spending the weekend camping in the gorge region and seeing the destruction caused by drunk campers I have to laugh when roadside gets shut down because 10 feet of erosion at the base of the wall and claims of dogs digging holes. Have you seen how the rest of the gorge is treated? Climbers are a funny group that takes themselves a little too seriously sometime, reducing impact is of course a worthwhile cause but how about focusing on actual environmental issues here because I fail to see how climbers peeing in the bushes at RS is having some huge irreversible environmental impact.... This isn't a fragile desert SW environment, its a jungle out there. Wasn't the entire gorge cut down for lumber not to long ago?? And we are seriously closing a climbing area due to a 10 foot strip of eroded dirt? Really?

Clevis Hitch wrote:So shut it the fuck down. And while you're at it, shut yourself down.

Joe: groups of 4 are discouraged. Groups of 8 are forbidden. With these rules in place to touch the land more lightly, put yourself in Grant's shoes while walking through the cluster fuck that he found up there. You'd be pissed; I'd be pissed. There really is no way around it. I think they are working on more aggressive measures to control the numbers.
"Fags?" Are you really anti-homosex? It is 2011 dude. seriously. . .

I'm not anti-homosexual. I'm anti-fag! there's difference.

These guys come down here and buy land, then what? You can't make money because if you charged they would climb elsewhere. So then what are you left with. A backyard that the whole world comes to to take a shit. Rattle some chains, make people take notice that you are the owner. To what end?

I mean what does his highness actually want to happen? more trails? More ass=-kissing? Pleese. Shut it down.

jusst to make sure you know my position on this.

To all you motherfuckers: Fuck You. Shut it down and lick the sweat off a dead mans balls!

oh yeah, I almost forgot.


Fags!

It doesn't matter what I think about the impact.
It doesn't matter what you think about the impact.
It does matter what the owners think about the impact.

As for the rest of the Gorge--I'm constantly amazed that we are still allowed to climb there. After all, the base of every cliff is potentially an archeological site, and we impact cliff bases more than any other recreational group. As much as I love it, I'm truly surprised that the Forest Service hasn't shut us down. You might think they are reluctant because of the money climbers bring to the area--but, frankly, even as crowed as things may seem at the cliffs, climbers are just a small portion of the visitor base...and not spending a lot of money.

Nit wrote: As for the rest of the Gorge--I'm constantly amazed that we are still allowed to climb there. After all, the base of every cliff is potentially an archeological site, and we impact cliff bases more than any other recreational group. As much as I love it, I'm truly surprised that the Forest Service hasn't shut us down. You might think they are reluctant because of the money climbers bring to the area--but, frankly, even as crowed as things may seem at the cliffs, climbers are just a small portion of the visitor base...and not spending a lot of money.

dear rockclimbers and/or ex-rockclimbers,

please stop using this forum to shoot us all in the collective face. offering up hysterical reasons to ban climbing, low-balling the economic impact of climbing, and being 'amazed' that we're still allowed to climb is counterproductive to.... climbing.

you like climbing? then please fucking stop.

Agreed. The anti-climber spray coming from a couple "climbers" on this thread is incredibly stupid and damaging to the cause. DBNF officials and other land managers do occasionally read through these forums. The last thing we need is your ill-formed and poorly researched opinions providing fodder for closure. Yes, recreational use does involve some erosion... it's hard to avoid if you have feet and gravity is turned on that day. This is the case at popular crags around the world.

Now please do us all a favor and erase your idiotic posts and move on to a non-climbing website with your pointless self hatred. I just spent the weekend working for free on your behalf & the steady trickle of self-defeating bullshit on here is starting to piss me off.

the lurkist wrote:The biggest concern isn't trash (there is very little b/c we individually pick up after our selves). It isn't impacts of flora and fauna. We avoid the T and E species with no oversight from anyone. The issue is soil compaction. The base gets compacted and over time erodes back from the cliff line variably, depending on how stable the base is intrinsically. So at the 5.9s the base has over the last 15-20 years crept back maybe ten feet? At RS the base of the slabs (on less stable soil ) has erodes down the hill 15 ft?

with regards to the soil compaction... would it be a feasible solution to build platforms at the bases of these heavily impacted areas??

this is not my original idea, so i can't take credit for it... but i overheard someone making this suggestion (and i haven't seen anyone mention it on the forum, so i figured i'd bring it up...) and it seems like a feasible solution to me

also, i've heard that they do this successfully in smith rock, oregon and it has worked out for them... but, i've never been there, so i can't verify this from my own experience...