RRC Archives

THB wrote:

the lurkist wrote: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.

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

I would volunteer to do whatever a crag owner wants to do about this issue, but think about it. So what if the soil compacts? So what if it erodes from the cliff? This is where we climb. It is not going to be pristine. We make trails to walk on them, so does the forest service to hike and bike on them. We all come out to enjoy nature and in general most of us tread lightly. IF WE WERE NOT INTERESTED IN THIS LAND IT WOULD BE UNDER A LAKE. If you close down climbing, hiking, 4-wheeling, rappelling etc. No one would come here and the hydroelectric dam would go up.
Without climbers interested in using the land for climbing GFNP would not have been purchased by a climber to save it for climbing. Someone else would have purchased it and I hear that the land would probably be under development. Currently GFNP is in great shape despite the fact that it is so popular. The bottom line is that the snake has two heads and the head that the self-haters are focusing on is not the biggest head with the largest fangs.

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.

Have you seen the amount of cliff in the gorge on topos? We climb on 2% of it. It was the Sierra Club and not the archeologists that saved the RRG in the 50's from the dam. These guys are interested in hiking and experiencing nature--using the land recreationally. Why should the archeologists have 100% claim to all gorge property? There are sites at Military that are cordoned off and have been for years. These areas have been respected by climbers. Routes are closed over these sites. However no archeologist is doing anything with these sites. At this pace how long would it take for the archeologists to finish getting all the information they want to out of the base of the cliffs? There is very little archeological work ongoing at the cliff base in the RRG. Your hysteria about archeological value gets pretty thin under scrutiny.

caribe wrote:

THB wrote:

the lurkist wrote: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.

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

I would volunteer to do whatever a crag owner wants to do about this issue, but think about it. So what if the soil compacts? So what if it erodes from the cliff? This is where we climb. It is not going to be pristine. We make trails to walk on them, so does the forest service to hike and bike on them. We all come out to enjoy nature and in general most of us tread lightly. IF WE WERE NOT INTERESTED IN THIS LAND IT WOULD BE UNDER A LAKE. If you close down climbing, hiking, 4-wheeling, rappelling etc. No one would come here and the hydroelectric dam would go up.
Without climbers interested in using the land for climbing GFNP would not have been purchased by a climber to save it for climbing. Someone else would have purchased it and I hear that the land would probably be under development. Currently GFNP is in great shape despite the fact that it is so popular. The bottom line is that the snake has two heads and the head that the self-haters are focusing on is not the biggest head with the largest fangs.

i agree... but, if the soil compaction is a problem... could this be a solution?

i'm just trying to suggest a solution to the problem so that we can all go on climbing on the climbs that we enjoy so much and so that we can cut out all of the worry about how much climbers "impact" the area that they climb on...

We need to support our right to continue to climb while striking a balance to minimize our impact. Hugh said it all very well regarding the general LNT that climbers in general employ. However, we do need to look pro actively at opportunities to reduce our impact. Soil erosion appears to be the major one for the Red. Discussing ways to manage our impact is not self hating....

There is already active planning underway to manage soil impaction at the base of popular walls at Roadside. Idle spray on a public internet forum from a few pessimistic blowhards (not you, Ian) about how "bad" things are at Roadside (a beauty of a crag), how "surprising" it is that crags are still open at all, how little climbers contribute to the economy of eastern Kentucky (a grossly incorrect statement), and so on is far from helpful. If you really want to contribute productively then start going to RRGCC meetings, donate some $, join the Access Fund, volunteer at Muir, and so on. Bitching about the "other people" at Roadside and how "bad" our impacts are (plainly idiotic if you honestly look at the impacts of other user groups, not to mention exploitative industries around here) on here is plain stupid and counterproductive. If it's too crowded shut the &$!@! up and go somewhere else that day! Didn't you see all the cars lined up in the parking lot??

Basically: either contribute something positive to the effort or get out of the way & stop whining in public.

climb2core wrote:Discussing ways to manage our impact is not self hating....

1) Much of the rhetoric thus far has been counter productive and autodestructive.
2) There is nothing that can be done about cliffside erosion in some places due the set of parameters at the place that mother nature hands you. Thus far the problem has been exaggerated.

Reading the responses to my last post this morning, I felt like I was on Topix. I get it--you are afraid--and we all should be. You say I'm hysterical, but ask a neutral observer to read through my posts and yours, and ask them who seems hysterical. You say I provide fodder for the Forest Service, but what message do you think Grant's initial post sends? Or Bob's in another thread? You say I'm misinformed...maybe I am--so inform me and everybody else, instead of cussing me out. You chastise archeologists for taking so long to review sites, but they hope for a better day with better staffing. Archeologists by their very nature think about the long-term.

There's a lot of rad boy, immature behavior on this site which does us all no good. Where are the mods? It doesn't help the "cause" when new folks coming here to climb read that stuff. It sets a bad tone for the entire area, and misrepresents the majority of us who climb here. You are the ones shooting us in the face. Pretending there is no cancer is not the way to cure it. We all need to face these problems and come up with believable solutions.

Nit wrote:Reading the responses to my last post this morning, I felt like I was on Topix. I get it--you are afraid--and we all should be. You say I'm hysterical, but ask a neutral observer to read through my posts and yours, and ask them who seems hysterical. You say I provide fodder for the Forest Service, but what message do you think Grant's initial post sends? Or Bob's in another thread? You say I'm misinformed...maybe I am--so inform me and everybody else, instead of cussing me out. You chastise archeologists for taking so long to review sites, but they hope for a better day with better staffing. Archeologists by their very nature think about the long-term.

There's a lot of rad boy, immature behavior on this site which does us all no good. Where are the mods? It doesn't help the "cause" when new folks coming here to climb read that stuff. It sets a bad tone for the entire area, and misrepresents the majority of us who climb here. You are the ones shooting us in the face. Pretending there is no cancer is not the way to cure it. We all need to face these problems and come up with believable solutions.

Hey, Indiana Jones. You're catching shit because anyone reasoning on this site that climbing should be closed in the RRG is not a friend.

heath wrote:...anyone reasoning on this site that climbing should be closed in the RRG is not a friend.

Sigh...I never said that it should be closed. I've loved it and climbed there a lot longer than most who post here. I'm pointing out that we all should be aware that the idea is there, and it becomes more of a possibility all the time. Threads like this one sure don't help matters much. Quit putting your own spin on my posts, please. Read through some of my other meagre posts and notice that I'm one of the ones trying to come up with solutions.