RRC Archives

so, what you're saying is that there is no cultural or archaeological significance to the site, yet the forest service closed it anyway? i don't get it. seems like there would be zero ammunition for said "firefight", if what you say is true.

do you have any documentation to back up that claim? something doesn't add up...

Yes, it doesn't add up. The fear of having to defend a decision that would be criticized by a native american advocacy group and drawing scrutiny from the media, from FS superiors, and in general bring the FS into disregard all make opening the Military Wall area up an anathema to the FS in Winchester.
The FS has been stung hard by Ky Heartwood for being called on mis-steps. http://kyheartwood.org/
Avoiding a potentially unpopular decision by not opening the Military Wall area, regardless of the logic, is an easy call.

Charlie-

Thanks for the years of effort, most of which I have no idea of. This is the first I've heard. It seems noteworthy though that it was during your reign that the PMRP became secured if not entirely wrapped up.

about Military: so, with no evidence to support the hypothetical case, the FS is taking no action because the empty threat of a lawsuit?

even without clarity, i see no advantages in chopping blots just because the uncertainty and frustration are tiresome.

All kidding to Charlie from me aside - I really think that routes that were bolted and then closed with a promise to one day reopen - such as Ison et al made back in the day - should be left up - if anything as an historic reminder of how things can go if we don't support access issues. I remember the speech Cecil Ison made to the to us at a long ago Derbyfest where he quoted Lincoln saying that that the "past must be preserved for the future." Well, to me, that applies to our cultural past as well. Sometimes govt archaeologists get so wrapped up in history that they forget the other Lincoln quotes about "government by the people, of the people, and for the people" and forget who the "people" are. This is a great way to at least symbolically remind them. Corn holing their daughters is another but that makes us look bad.

Chopping a route like Thirsting Skull would be a pointless and pessimistic act.

the lurkist wrote:The fear of having to defend a decision that would be criticized by a native american advocacy group and drawing scrutiny from the media, from FS superiors, and in general bring the FS into disregard all make opening the Military Wall area up an anathema to the FS in Winchester.
The FS has been stung hard by Ky Heartwood for being called on mis-steps.

While I don't disagree one iota with Lurk's premises, it is more than just a fear and more than just KY Heartwood driving this. It is the archaeological community who worked to get the Red River Gorge designated as an Archaeological District and it is Mr. Ison who pushed for the LAC process to be declared "An Undertaking". The end result being that the Forest Service is now bound by a Memorandum of Agreement concerning the management of Heritage Resources.

If the climbing community wants to see any movement on these closures we are going to have to back it with willpower, staying power, and of course money. The Forest Service had made considerable progress on plans to conduct a restoration project at Military for the areas outside of the closures. Then they couldn't come up with the funding to conduct an Environmental Assessment of the proposed work and it died on the vine. After we pay off the PMRP in a couiple years I hope that people will see the importance of maintaining the current level of fundraising that will be needed to meet the challenges ahead to maintain and potentially even expand access on Forest Service land.

Well in any case, the bolts will have to be replaced once the routes are re-opened, I am guessing they are the original bolts from 1990?