The Kentucky Wall

[caribe]

- That is a lot to process.
- As stated any climbing progressive interaction with the FS has not happened ... no successful negotiation. I think Terry managed one before he departed. Wasn't Government Cheese at Military negotiated?
- Who talks to whom about development? It seems it is all the Wall of Denial.
- Predictions of droves of people visiting public land largely fell flat with most of the Red River Gorge being internationally known for private land! Imagine that! Partially because people come here from foreign lands not to visit the DBNF and partially because... well you know ... Republicans ... funding has withered. Since the demand was grossly overestimated, the FS must be willing to revisit climbing management.

[caribe]

"The FS is worried about even 1970s level climbing"
You are talking about individuals either retired or dead.

[climb2core]

These are quotes from Drew Stevens that occurred during a disucssion on Facebook. Drew works for the Natural Bridge State Park.

"The goal of Natural Bridge State Resort Park is to protect and preserve the natural, cultural, and historical resources at the park, while creating meaningful connections between park visitors and these resources. As it stands, Natural Bridge State Resort Park sees and estimated 350,000 visitors each year. The stress that many people hiking places on the park's resources is already hard to manage."

" On the subject of economic impacts, according to the 2016 study by Eastern Kentucky University, an estimated 7,500 unique climbers visit the RRG region each year. While many of those climbers certainly visit the area multiple times a year, when you compare those population numbers to other visitor use statistics, you begin to realize that climbing is only a fraction of the area's adventure tourism industry. On a peak October Saturday, Natural Bridge Arch sees as many as 4,000 unique visitors in just one day."

So, in his words, climbers are negligible part of the mix of visitors that impact the Red. Additionally, the majority of those climbers climb on private land... ie. RRGCC property, Muir Valley, Roadside, Zoo.

Considering the vast amount of cliff line and opportunity for climbing that is off the beaten path (read less traffic) you will be hard pressed to convince me that sport and trad climbing could not exist within the LAC in the DBNFS. It just needs to more than 5 minutes from the road.


I would be willing to spearhead the fundraiser necessary to raise the $$$ to cover the study required of a such a suitable possibility for a crag as I know funds and manpower are limited.

Ian

[rappm]

I didn't intend to accuse you of doing anything that untoward, smiley face man. From my perspective, calling out a person and accusing them of wrongdoing on a public internet forum is tantamount. Is participating in an internet forum thread in that way going to make things better?

In terms of ensuring access to climbing areas, I do agree with you that supporting the Access Fund and the RRGCC is the way forward. The only way to ensure access to the crag is to own the crag. The forest service does not need any reason or justification to ban climbing permanently. They can simply do so.

[caribe]

"
I would be willing to spearhead the fundraiser necessary to raise the $$$ to cover the study required "
The study had been done twice ... and repeated.

[:-)]

I think Terry managed one before he departed. Wasn't Government Cheese at Military negotiated?

The Revised Forest Plan of 2004 is the current controlling document. The Military negotiations happened earlier, from around 2000-2002.

[caribe]

"when you compare those population numbers to other visitor use statistics, you begin to realize that climbing is only a fraction of the area's adventure tourism industry."
I have to call bullshit here. When you compare the popularity of Nat. Bridge State Park to Miguel's during climbing season, sorry, but Miguel's has them beat, and that is just a part of the total climbing visitors who are there to spend more than a day trip. Natural Bridge State Park is definitely not why the Red is internationally famous. A handful of climbers put KY sandstone on the international scene.
Much of this has been largely sport. Trad is a different story.

[:-)]

- Who talks to whom about development? It seems it is all the Wall of Denial.

The Revised Plan of 2004 was signed off by the then Regional Forester Robert Jabons from the FS Region 8 Southern office in Atlanta. The Revised Plan says the local district rangers can implement an authorization plan for new route development, as long as it's not in the Clifty Wilderness (and a couple other areas in DBNF but outside RRG). Remember, it was literally an act of Congress that designated Clifty as federally protected under The Wilderness Act of 1964. The Revised Plan of 2004 specifically says no one can authorize new climbing routes in Clifty. That would require an amendment to the Revised Plan. That includes climbing a crack and walking off, even if you don't leave behind so much as a chalky fingerprint. Like the environmental impact study says, it's foot traffic that's the main concern. I say just set aside for now dreams of new development in Clifty. Let's hope the newer Mariba Fork routes do not end up on MP or in any guidebooks until the law is changed. Forest managers really, really don't like it when you screw with federally designated Wilderness.

As for the non-Clifty Wilderness section of RRG, which is the bulk of RRG and includes Kentucky Wall, the Revised Plan does factor in recreational climbing. Some of the local rangers are climbers themselves and sympathetic to climbing as a legitimate use of the FS land. But, that doesn't change the law they must follow and we must follow. I believe a climbing management plan must be approved at the regional office before the district ranger has authority to approve new routes. But, once approved, it won't be a boltathon like Miller Fork circa 2014. Similar plans in other federal lands requires new walls undergo a formal local review process first to make sure your new route isn't over an archaeological site or endangered flower.

[climb2core]

"
I would be willing to spearhead the fundraiser necessary to raise the $$$ to cover the study required "
The study had been done twice ... and repeated.

No, each potential crag will require an environmental impact assessment. This has not been done.

[:-)]

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.