|
danegerous
Jun 10, 2005, 9:25 PM
Post #1 of 48
(4432 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2005
Posts: 141
|
first, it's a question, not a statement.
are all climbers really that environmentally friendly? just wondering whether it's the loud ones that are gun-ho about nature or is it pretty much everyone?
thanks for your time...hippies
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jun 10, 2005, 9:30 PM
Post #2 of 48
(4432 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
I think we're one of the most environmentally damaging user groups out there.
Personally, I think I'm a selfish bastard who routinely puts my own fun interest ahead of environmental matters. I try my best to limit my impact, but not at the expense of where and how I want to climb.
That's about as honest as I can be.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jun 10, 2005, 9:31 PM
Post #3 of 48
(4432 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
I think we're one of the most environmentally damaging user groups out there.
Personally, I think I'm a selfish bastard who routinely puts my own fun interest ahead of environmental matters. I try my best to limit my impact, but not at the expense of where and how I want to climb.
That's about as honest as I can be.
|
|
|
|
|
keinangst
Jun 10, 2005, 9:40 PM
Post #4 of 48
(4432 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2003
Posts: 1408
|
I think that everything in nature can serve some use to man, but it's up to us how we limit the extent. There's a fine line to walk between moderate use/stewardship and total, nonrenewable rape.
To keep it in perspective, I think the couple of summers of sewage overflows that precipitated (bad pun) the 2 Glacier Point/Apron rockfalls in Yosemite have done far more damage than 50+ years of climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
darkside
Jun 10, 2005, 11:03 PM
Post #5 of 48
(4432 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2001
Posts: 1687
|
Why climb outdoors if not for the environment? The ecology, flora, and fauna are all part of the experience. You don't have to be an eco-freak to appreciate it all and you don't have to gush about it every time but......
If you can't at least respect the environment, then just stay in the frigging gym and stop causing access problems for the climbers who know what they have.
I'm not talking about prancing around every woodland flower as if it's sacred, or being afraid to walk down a trail in case you erode it. Try to create the least impact you can and be aware of how other users see climbers and you go a long way to protecting our climbing areas.
|
|
|
|
|
ihategrigris
Jun 10, 2005, 11:11 PM
Post #6 of 48
(4432 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 6, 2005
Posts: 757
|
In reply to: I think we're one of the most environmentally damaging user groups out there.
Oh yeah, cause all those golfers, off roaders, power boaters, hunters, skiers, bus loads of tourists, BBQing red necks etc. are frigging wonderful for the environment. Shame on us, we should definately learn from these groups :P.
-JP
|
|
|
|
|
renohandjams
Jun 10, 2005, 11:48 PM
Post #7 of 48
(4432 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2005
Posts: 616
|
I used to work for the forest service, it makes you love the outdoors and take care of mother nature.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-kenny
http://www.TradRack.com
Free Email Account, yourname@TradRack.com, click on the link below to see if the name you want is available:
http://www.tradrack.com/...atalog/freeemail.php
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jun 11, 2005, 12:36 AM
Post #8 of 48
(4432 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
In reply to: In reply to: I think we're one of the most environmentally damaging user groups out there. Oh yeah, cause all those golfers, off roaders, power boaters, hunters, skiers, bus loads of tourists, BBQing red necks etc. are frigging wonderful for the environment. Shame on us, we should definately learn from these groups :P. -JP
:lol:
OK, point taken. We're not the worst.
But if you step back a moment and take a look at an area where climbers are really the only user group, the environmental damage we do is obvious. Walk along the shore of Summersville Lake, WV on a sunny Saturday in the fall and force yourself to look only at the imact we climbers have had. Trails, ladders, chalk, bolts, impacted ground, entire swaths of wall scrubbed free of lichen, a dead zone ten feet wide that runs almost the entire length of the cliff... It's astonishing and it's more the norm than an exception. There are hundreds of crags all across the US that are swarmed with climbers every sunny weekend and their effects are the same.
I'm not saying we have to be stopped, and this should not be taken as a cry for any type of action on our parts. I'm just saying that most of us do our fair share of damage, no matter how badly we want not to.
I won't speak for anyone else, but I partake because I value my experience more than the bits of habitat that I've trampled. It doesn't mean I hate nature. It just means that I'm willing to accept a certain degree of environmental damage. There are lines I won't cross, just as I suspect there are for all of us. It's up to each of us and the communities in which we climb to decide where those lines are. When we make them too liberal for land managers, they decide for us.
|
|
|
|
|
crshbrn84
Jun 11, 2005, 12:41 AM
Post #9 of 48
(4432 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2004
Posts: 223
|
really renohandjams, i currently work for the forest service and i chop down trees and brush. I loved the outdoors before i became a wildland firefighter, but thats just how i was raised.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Jun 11, 2005, 1:16 AM
Post #10 of 48
(4432 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
This question comes from the guy who posted a pic of bouldering on rocks with petroglyphs.... Oh, what sweet irony.
|
|
|
|
|
tlacey
Jun 11, 2005, 1:18 AM
Post #11 of 48
(4432 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 17
|
In reply to: ...If you can't at least respect the environment, then just stay in the frigging gym and stop causing access problems for the climbers who know what they have. I'm not talking about prancing around every woodland flower as if it's sacred, or being afraid to walk down a trail in case you erode it. Try to create the least impact you can and be aware of how other users see climbers and you go a long way to protecting our climbing areas.
Agreed, and I like "prancing around the flowers", it's good exercise. It is a bummer to see trash left lying around, although that's not always left by just climbers, plenty of other folks who spend time outdoors leave their trash too. We pack-it-in/out and pick up stuff that's been left by others.
For the most part the places I've climbed in AZ are still pretty clean, but I also tend to go to places that are more off the beaten path. To me it just makes sense to take care of the environment because it feeds my soul and my habit. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
micronut
Jun 11, 2005, 1:45 AM
Post #12 of 48
(4432 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 11, 2002
Posts: 1760
|
people can debate the impacts of cleaning cracks, trundling the base of climbs and boulders, bolts, chalk, litter.....these are minor enviormental issues, almost more a question of asthetics.
the major impact is in the buying of the new rope, the gore-tex shell and the lycra top, the stealth C4 sticky rubber, hot forged caribiners, CNC'd cam stops, poly underwear, and then driving to the rock.
so let's face it, we are all total enviorment abusers. for me, it's just a question of trying to minimize my impact through good planning and logistics.
|
|
|
|
|
phaedrus
Jun 11, 2005, 1:57 AM
Post #13 of 48
(4432 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 3046
|
I honestly don't see how one can be a climber and NOT care about the environment... which leads me to wonder why there aren't more Adopt-a-Crags being done and more climbers participating in them, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms....
|
|
|
|
|
wjca
Jun 11, 2005, 2:01 AM
Post #14 of 48
(4432 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Posts: 7545
|
In reply to: In reply to: I think we're one of the most environmentally damaging user groups out there. Oh yeah, cause all those golfers, off roaders, power boaters, hunters, skiers, bus loads of tourists, BBQing red necks etc. are frigging wonderful for the environment. Shame on us, we should definately learn from these groups :P. -JP
Hunters actually are a group that give back to the environment. They create habitat in places where the habitat is dwindling. They keep down populations of animals that have been concentrated due to the sprawl of human development. E.G. too large of a concentration of deer leads to starvation and inbreeding, which leads to weaker animals that are suseptible to disease.
Off Roaders, yes, very destructive.
Bus loads of tourists? Imagine all those tourist arriving one or two per car. The buses help reduce emissions.
BBQing rednecks? F-ck you, I happen to be a BBQing redneck, and am very light on the environment. I have never drilled a bolt, I take my pro with me (because that is what climbers should do), I am as light as I can be with the chalk, I pack out other peoples garbage, and I even recycle junk mail.
|
|
|
|
|
sbaclimber
Jun 11, 2005, 2:12 AM
Post #15 of 48
(4432 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 3118
|
In reply to: Hunters actually are a group that give back to the environment. They create habitat in places where the habitat is dwindling. They keep down populations of animals that have been concentrated due to the sprawl of human development. E.G. too large of a concentration of deer leads to starvation and inbreeding, which leads to weaker animals that are suseptible to disease.
:lol: this sounds like an attempt at a hijack (not purposely of course) :wink:
I think climbing can be bad for the environment, but tends to have various impacts depending on the local ethics/rules. Back in the Daks in NY, there were no protected plants (to my knowledge at least) growing on the cliffs. So, if you needed to clean a hold or a crack for some gear, you did it. Here in Chch, NZ, there are so many protected plants around, most places have some sort of policy that doesn't allow you clean much of anything! Thankfully I have never been anywhere where litter was a big problem (most of us climbers, if they we litter left by someone else, cleaned it up too), but trails and erosion will always be a problem no matter what.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jun 11, 2005, 2:27 AM
Post #16 of 48
(4432 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: I honestly don't see how one can be a climber and NOT care about the environment... which leads me to wonder why there aren't more Adopt-a-Crags being done and more climbers participating in them, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms....
Sounds like the same subject to me, and self-contradictory at that!
Cheers bro
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
sick_climba
Jun 11, 2005, 2:41 AM
Post #17 of 48
(4432 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2005
Posts: 508
|
Um yeah I think we deffinatly do put our part into envriomental destruction with our hiking, and to those climbers who use chalk, but I think we generaly care about it and do what we can to ensure that it stays healthy so we can give back to the earth for the good times it gives us.
|
|
|
|
|
flawrence
Jun 11, 2005, 2:43 AM
Post #18 of 48
(4432 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2003
Posts: 19
|
Use, not abuse.
There is always going to be some impact, the rest of the animals using this planet impact it also, that's part of the balance.
I do most of my climbing in a National Wildlife Refuge so we play by stricter rules than a lot of places but I like it that way.
|
|
|
|
|
veep23
Jun 11, 2005, 3:01 AM
Post #19 of 48
(4432 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 15, 2002
Posts: 125
|
"Hunters actually are a group that give back to the environment. They create habitat in places where the habitat is dwindling. They keep down populations of animals that have been concentrated due to the sprawl of human development. E.G. too large of a concentration of deer leads to starvation and inbreeding, which leads to weaker animals that are suseptible to disease."
Sorry man... but that is b.s. Hunters tend to kill the strongest males (10 point buck on the wall) of a population thus weakening the gene pool. And if hunters weren't killing the predator species, they wouldn't "need" to keep down the population of deer. Nature has a pretty good system of taking care of itself. So... while people may enjoy hunting, and thats fine, they should just admit why they like it and quit justifying themselves as "friends of the environment".
|
|
|
|
|
pleaseclimbveryhard
Jun 11, 2005, 5:46 AM
Post #20 of 48
(4432 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2005
Posts: 11
|
Props to Veep for what he said...
It is also important to note that most sport hunters (i.e. hunters not hunting for profit) are interested in preservation of environment and ecosystems so that their prey will have a strong population for future hunting. Aldo Leopold, a prominant environmentalist in the 20th century, was a sport hunter for most of his life. That being said,
sport hunting sucks.
AHMEN
|
|
|
|
|
tree
Jun 11, 2005, 6:25 AM
Post #21 of 48
(4432 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 6, 2005
Posts: 15
|
In a since its like there are three types of "environmental abusers". Its impossible not to have an impact on the environment, its just a matter of how much/how little and what your motives are I think.
The first is the group who genuinely loves and appreciates the esoteric values of the environment. They love being in it, using it, making a conscious effort to protect it, but still want to have some fun. I believe most rock climbers tend to fit in this category. ( Tend to = room for fluff). The second type of group I think would be the people who love the outdoors but treat it badly. People who leave crap everywhere, and are flat out disrespectful to their surroundings. They reek the benefit but don't give anything back. And then there is the third type that doesn't like the environment at all. They see its value as means of a place to dump chemical waste etc.
All three groups value the environment, but in different ways. The first values it and uses it responsibly. The second doesn't use it responsibly. The third doesn't care at all what happens.
This is just my observations, I know there there is a lot of room for debate and what not with this observation, I'm not trying to cause all that, its just kind of what Ive noticed.
Personally, I like to think I fit in the first category. Although, I find that i tend to go in the second ~ I drive when I could sometimes bike etc. But the important thing is that I realize that I value the environment and work to make the effort to protect and use it. Which is why i want to study environmental engineering woo hoo.
Oh an yes...I'm one who enjoys to frolic in the flowers....
|
|
|
|
|
danegerous
Jun 11, 2005, 12:15 PM
Post #22 of 48
(4432 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2005
Posts: 141
|
the question i have now is, how many of you take a gorcery bag to the store, or practice "more than average" means of environmental friendliness? i recycle, and i dont litter...anyone go a little further? andyone go crazy?
|
|
|
|
|
bandidopeco
Jun 11, 2005, 12:50 PM
Post #23 of 48
(4432 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 17, 2004
Posts: 257
|
Personally I try to be as thoughtful as I can. I usually go climbing in a pair of cargo pants and I dedicate one big pocket for trash. I use this to carry out my own and some of what I see on the ground on the return from the crag. To me seeing a piece of litter when in nature is kind of like having a scratch on a good CD: it kind of ruins the moment.
Like most things you can't really generalize. There are some conscious climbers and some thoughtless pricks, but for the most part I think we're better then average. For example when I was going to school in Santa Barbara my friends and I went out to Red Rocks (the Santa Ynez ones) for some climbing and swimming in the river. While setting up the top-rope and climbing these ass holes were taunting us and before we left they started having fun by throwing empty beer bottles at the rocks (not at the ones we were on). I've never seen any climbers do anything like that.
Our sport places us in nature and we can be considerate if we choose to be. We will have some impact, but most climbing areas are still recognizable as nature, what other sports can you say that for? (besides surfing and rafting)
my 2 cents
|
|
|
|
|
bandidopeco
Jun 11, 2005, 1:00 PM
Post #24 of 48
(4432 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 17, 2004
Posts: 257
|
One more thing. I'm living in Japan right now so I'm kind of a forced good recycler. I have to sort my garbage into no less then 7 categories: burnable, non-burnable and recyclable groups A, B, C, D, and E. There are 4 different types of trash bags I have to buy and they have to be from my city. Also I have to right my name on them. It's a bit of a pain in the ass but I can see the point. One bad thing is that this actually encourages littering. I go for jogs, and when I get on little-used roads their sides are littered with 10 year old abandoned TVs and cars filled with "gomi". But what can you do?
|
|
|
|
|
shanedms
Jun 11, 2005, 2:36 PM
Post #25 of 48
(4432 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 23, 2005
Posts: 39
|
In reply to: In a since its like there are three types of "environmental abusers". Its impossible not to have an impact on the environment, its just a matter of how much/how little and what your motives are I think. The first is the group who genuinely loves and appreciates the esoteric values of the environment. They love being in it, using it, making a conscious effort to protect it, but still want to have some fun. I believe most rock climbers tend to fit in this category. ( Tend to = room for fluff). The second type of group I think would be the people who love the outdoors but treat it badly. People who leave crap everywhere, and are flat out disrespectful to their surroundings. They reek the benefit but don't give anything back. And then there is the third type that doesn't like the environment at all. They see its value as means of a place to dump chemical waste etc.
More internal classification. Just what rock climbing needs.
-shanedms
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
