RRC Archives

:-) wrote:I admire your willingness to fund raise climb2core. However, you might spend $50k+ on impact studies for a particular wall only to learn it's an early Adena Culture burial site. I recommend an approach that hits multiple walls, or the whole forest, at once. Spread the risk around.

Yes, I would attempt to hit an entire region and I think I could easily raise the $50k (or more) if the situation was right. I have some in mind in the southern region that are quite a ways out to minimize impact.


Mind sharing your identity? It'd be great to know who this wealth of information is.

Is smiley a Forest Service representative?

You don't need an impact study to open an area. Impact studies have been done. The impact study is just another way of saying no to climbing. Look around at the plethora of climbing areas in the gorge and use them as motifs to minimize impact.

caribe wrote:You don't need an impact study to open an area. Impact studies have been done. The impact study is just another way of saying no to climbing. Look around at the plethora of climbing areas in the gorge and use them as motifs to minimize impact.

I am very happy to tell the professor, that you know naught which you speak of.

"The Revised Plan of 2004 specifically says no one can authorize new climbing routes in Clifty."
Where can we access this revised plan?

Why are climbers walking around different from all the other hikers that pass along the cliff on foot?

caribe wrote:Why are climbers walking around different from all the other hikers that pass along the cliff on foot?

They are and they aren't. The 2004 Final Environmental Impact Statement talks about "Cliffline Community," which the statement defines as being "from 100 feet above the cliffline to 200 feet below the cliffline," so long as the cliff is more than 10 feet tall. The Cliffline Community is noted for unique biological and cultural resources. Think White-Haired Goldenrod and most of the paleo-Indian sites.

It's not that hikers don't visit "Cliffline Communities." I'd conjecture that the distinctions are two-fold. First, climbers disproportionately visit (and linger for hours) along the bases of cliffs. Second, hiker traffic is more likely to be confined to official trails. Only a few FS climbing trails are official, such as Pebble Beach and Military approach trails. Most are like Long Wall or Fortress, unofficial muddy eroded messes. Official trails are less prone to erosion because they're designed with appropriate grades and drainage. Well designed trails can handle much higher traffic with less impact. FS also seeks to close user defined hiking trails, and anyone hiking out to Indian Staircase or Grays Arch can't miss the many signs and ropes closing off unofficial campsites.

In short, both hiking and climbing can be low impact with a proper trail, while both hiking and climbing can be damaging when there is no proper trail. Most official trails were built in pre-climbing days. FS hasn't caught up with the user shift from hikers to climbers. I suspect that's partly because they're grossly underfunded.

caribe wrote:Where can we access this revised plan?

https://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/dbnf/lan ... ev3_032595

There are two types of hikers: backpackers who follow mostly established trails and day trippers and weekenders who will go and camp anywhere. Just check out the hike to Wall of Denial on a nice Saturday and you probably see a couple illegal campsites. My name is Jac.

So trad climbing in the Clifty Wilderness is illegal?