|
|
|
|
cintune
Jan 3, 2007, 6:44 PM
Post #1 of 17
(2530 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1293
|
What a bummer. Paclimbers e-mail:
Since initiating the recreational lease of the Governor Stable property, the
Pennsylvania Alliance of Climbers has been acutely aware that we were entering
into a temporary, year-by-year arrangement with the landowner in order to allow
climbing access. Due to concerns of the landowner, he has chosen not to renew
the lease upon its expiration. Citing concerns of impact to the deer population
and the general environment of the property as a result of the increasing number
of climbers visiting the boulders, the landowner feels that ending the lease is
in the best interest of his family and their property. While all of us at the
Pennsylvania Alliance of Climbers are disappointed by this development, we
support the landowner's decision. As a result, there will be no Governor Stable
Bouldering Competition in 2007, and access to the boulders will cease on March
1, 2007. While it is a loss to the climbing community to no longer have access
to GS, we must remember the five successful years that we have worked with the
landowner to promote the climbing there. We extend our deepest gratitude to the
owners of Governor Stable for the time that they have given us to enjoy their
wonderful property. The Pennsylvania Alliance of Climbers will continue to stay
in contact with the Governor Stable landowner in the event that his family's
wishes change in the future.
Any questions should be directed to info@paclimbers.org.
|
|
|
|
|
gblauer
Moderator
Jan 3, 2007, 7:25 PM
Post #2 of 17
(2507 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2002
Posts: 2824
|
wow, that is truly unfortunate. While SE PA doesn't have much in the way of roped climbing, it does have some stellar bouldering.
Just wondering if (more) money would be a motivator for the family.
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Jan 3, 2007, 7:43 PM
Post #3 of 17
(2496 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
thats sad...
but, seriously, impact on deer population? i guess they dont allow hunting either, huh?
(This post was edited by overlord on Jan 3, 2007, 7:44 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
bent_gate
Jan 3, 2007, 7:48 PM
Post #4 of 17
(2491 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2004
Posts: 2620
|
I've never been there, but I know several who have, and I'm sorry for the climbers who will no longer have access to that resource. And it was generous of the landowners to allow access for the time that they did.
But I've got to ask if anyone can explain this to me:
cintune wrote: Citing concerns of impact to the deer population and the general environment of the property as a result of the increasing number of climbers visiting the boulders...
Deer Population? Are you kidding? Do they feel there's not enough deer running loose in PA? You can't drive more than a mile on the east coast without a deer trying to jump into the grill of your SUV (or truck with reinforced deer ramming grill). Really, like there's not enough hosts for deer ticks already?
Hey, if they want 'em, myself and many others have plenty of deer that we will be happy to dump on there property. I fully understand the other impact concerns, respect the landowners rights, and think it was generous of them to allow the access for the 5 years they did. But impact on the deer population?
Wait until I re-introduce my personal favorite species the Grey Wolf, and we really get things back in balance... The only deer I want to see running across the road is one with a pack of wolves behind it.
|
|
|
|
|
jkarns
Jan 3, 2007, 7:57 PM
Post #5 of 17
(2482 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 542
|
Clearly you folks are not that familiar with Governor Stable. The primary reason that the landowners keep the land is for their personal use as a hunting preserve.
They feel that the quality of the hunting on the property has been declining, and they believe that it is a result the crowds of boulderers who have been visiting.
(This post was edited by jkarns on Jan 3, 2007, 7:58 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
cintune
Jan 3, 2007, 8:04 PM
Post #6 of 17
(2474 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1293
|
Still sounds like a pretty specious argument. More likely the suburban sprawl that's gone on in the surrounding area over the past 10 years, if anything, has sent the deer packing. But it was nice while it lasted. Now the crowds will have to go to Gretna to get their diabase fix.
|
|
|
|
|
fulton
Jan 3, 2007, 9:12 PM
Post #7 of 17
(2450 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 26, 2004
Posts: 210
|
Dear friends of the local climbing community,
Let us not take for granted the landowner's unique generosity in allowing the local climbers, through the PAC as our representative, to have access to these boulders over the past five years.
Our access to the boulder field was a land-management experiment that unfortunately illustrated the truly high impact nature of the act of bouldering as well as the impact of legions of climbers moving about the property.
The boulder field has always been their property, at least as long as climbers have been interested in it. The landowners are not climbers, but they are enthusiasts of hunting in just as genuine a way as climbing is for us. The landowners are fellow naturalists and it has been good of them to share with us what we all can recognize as a treasure.
I harbor no feelings of ill will or suspension about the landowner’s wanting to preserve/conserve the naturalness of their per-historic backyard.
The fact of the matter is that we climbers have made the boulder field our own. The improvements to trails, bridges, and boulder-complexes are quite aesthetic but nonetheless quite unnatural. These improvements have both encouraged ourselves as well as others to visit GS disproportionately to our old haunts, and we apparently have left more than footprints.
Rather than dissing the landowners, or dissing the punk kid boulders, or any other group, the cooperative community of climbers and activists should learn from this closure lessons about what else is required of a successful land management campaign beyond limiting a landowner’s risk of liability.
I extend a big THANK YOU to the landowners for allowing all of us to enjoy their property with our friends and our families in pursuit of an activity/calling/passion which is so central to our lives and happiness.
As for what might come next – Safe Harbor is always on the backburner of initiative, as well as preserving those old haunts that we’ll all have to learn to love again.
Sincerely, another local climber
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
Jan 3, 2007, 9:31 PM
Post #8 of 17
(2434 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
I guess it has been a couple of years since I hunted, but I might be a little more informed on the hunter's thinking then others.
Typically suburban sprawl actually increases deer population because gardens and yards have good food. Thick brush develops between homes for good hiding. Finally, no one is able to hunt in the suburbs because of the fear of shooting people.
A second point that plays into this is that the big bucks get their choice in spots. They will chase off the other smaller deer. So, the big bucks in the area are now in the safe suburbs instead of in the busy GS area. It is very possible that the GS area has a ton of deer that are not trophy bucks.
If the GS area is less busy, then the big bucks will possibly come back into the area.
I have not been to GS, but maybe this helps others understand the deer issue.
Oh, one other thing that should be obvious, but often is not:
Hunters have to buy tags for the deer they get. They will take only a few of the deer they see every season. Therefore, they often try to take the biggest deer possible. Typically bucks are taken because they are bigger bodied, won't be carrying babies, and have racks for bragging.
|
|
|
|
|
bent_gate
Jan 3, 2007, 11:56 PM
Post #9 of 17
(2403 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2004
Posts: 2620
|
Any private landowner that allows the kind of access you describe does deserve a big THANKS. And thanks for providing some additional explanations (of their argument).
fulton wrote: the cooperative community of climbers and activists should learn from this closure lessons about what else is required of a successful land management campaign beyond limiting a landowner’s risk of liability.
I am interested in learning "from this closure lessons about what else is required" to prevent this from happening in other private areas I know of. So I would appreciate input from anyone that can answer, Regarding:
fulton wrote: The improvements to trails, bridges, and boulder-complexes are quite aesthetic but nonetheless quite unnatural. These improvements have both encouraged ourselves as well as others to visit GS disproportionately...
So is the lesson that trail improvements should be limited? Or made less obvious because of the unnatural look? Or because the increased traffic resulted in more people going off trail? Do you think there was an existing tolerable level?
fulton wrote: ...and we apparently have left more than footprints.
Trash? Human Waste? Matted Vegetation? Did too many boulder pads cause a problem? Did the trail improvements or publishing routes cause increased traffic that the existing cooperative climbing community couldn't manage?
There are usually limited "Stewards" that through free-time and effort try to manage areas, and it is important for me to learn what seemingly innocent activities can cause an area to develop beyond their efforts of control.
The fact that it was open for five years tells me a lot of things were done right. It would be a shame to not pass those things on to others.
Regarding the deer, I know people here in Virginia who are hunters that have had that "problem" on their private land. Someone I know said they noticed some declines in the deer on their private land. However, with minor changes, they were able to significantly increase the deer on their land.
I've seen significant results on a friend's private land who took specific action supplementing feed. Perhaps if when climbers visited they left feed behind in an area, you would see a significant boom in deer. Likewise certain plantings have attracted and maintained deer as well.
Does anyone know: was the Governor's Stable landowner concerned about the quantity of deer or the quality (size) of deer on his/her land? Like [microbarn] said, most hunters are interested in attracting and maintaining large Bucks.
Of course the more industrious climbers could always Tranquilize a deer on the way to the crag and dump him on the property. 
On a unrelated note:
fulton wrote: Rather than dissing ... the punk kid boulders, or any other group, 
Seriously though, again, the fact that it was open for five years tells me a lot of things were done right. It would be a shame to not pass those things on to others. I did search on the internet for more answers on this but found nothing, so any (preferably non-flaming but I'll take what I can get) dialog would be appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
jkarns
Jan 4, 2007, 1:07 PM
Post #10 of 17
(2384 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 542
|
Ultimately what saved us is what killed us. As this property was managed under a recreational lease, there were significant costs involved in keeping the place open, both paying the lease and an associated insurance policy. I became active in the organization two years into the lease, and we were facing a cashflow problem at that time. In order to raise the funds to keep the area open, we needed to raise the profile of the area to attract more members and donors. As GS is kind of the closest-best boulderfield to DC and Baltimore and pretty close to Philly (plus all the smaller towns in between), we gradually became too popular of a climbing spot for our own good. Plus, the costs of staying open have been (and probably would continue) to increase. In order to raise the necessary money, we would have to attract even more climbers. It was a vicious cycle, as they say.
There was never ever a trash or human waste issue. There have been some other environmental impacts such as soil compaction around the boulders and unnecessary trails. Additionally, the place was an absolute jungle when we started climbing there. The transformation between then and now is very noticeable if you ever visited GS in its pre-popularity days. While it was stipulated in our lease that we could clear the brush from around the boulders, I imagine that this looked different to the landowners in real life than in person. I stress the word owners plural there also. The property is deeded to a number of relatives, and each had some of their own reasons for choosing not to renew the lease. There was no single one reason.
Ultimately, this is a family's plot of land that they have owned for ages. They were willing to share for a while, but now they would rather not. It is certainly their choice.
While some of you raise some interesting ideas, this is a done deal. The relationship with the landowners has grown strained for about a year now. The area was almost closed last year, but we were able to negotiate one more year at that point. This year they are not interested.
|
|
|
|
|
cintune
Jan 4, 2007, 3:35 PM
Post #11 of 17
(2358 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1293
|
Thanks for the background, Josh. In hindsight, there was an uneasy sort of vibe at last year's comp, which makes sense now.
So, what's next? Is there any real possibility of establishing some kind of legit access at Safe Harbor and Holtwood? Since the paclimbers message boards got spambombed, would it be useful to get a new thread going here to discuss options? Seems like the organization needs a new mission of some kind if it's going to remain relevant.
|
|
|
|
|
fulton_pa
Jan 4, 2007, 5:10 PM
Post #12 of 17
(2337 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2006
Posts: 2
|
It is noteworthy that the Game Commission and the Lebanon County Court of Common Pleas authorized a special anterless deer hunt last fall to reduce the deer herd at Governor Dick Park(Mount Gretna). At Gettysburg (Devil's Den), the National Park Service suffers both too many deer and too many climbers. Bouldering at those spots does not adversely impact the deer herd. At Safe Harbor, the deer, vultures, hawks and eagles seem content to share. The issue highlights the differences between public and private land management. And, if you're a hunter, there are never enough deer; if you're a farmer or an auto insurance company, there are always too many. I suspect that at Governor Stables, the real issue may have been too many climbers, not enough money.
|
|
|
|
|
dharmatreez
Jan 4, 2007, 6:19 PM
Post #13 of 17
(2317 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2005
Posts: 228
|
bent_gate wrote: Trash? Human Waste? Matted Vegetation? Did too many boulder pads cause a problem? Did the trail improvements or publishing routes cause increased traffic that the existing cooperative climbing community couldn't manage?
These factors should have been limited by the PAC. This area was not technically "open". You had to pay dues and become a member of the PAC in order to climb there (no one seemed to mention this yet). If these were concerns of the landowners (i don't see how they couldn't be - along with deer pop) then the PAC failed to be aware of the enviromental impact and educate and/or limit the boulderers there.
Yes, I'm sure some or most of the dues went to keep the lease active, but paying for use of private land will not guarantee that your stewardship of it will be productive in the eyes of the landowners.
How did the landowners feel about the bouldering comp?
How much impact did the comps produce?
Since there needed to be a fee paid, was there non-members climbing there (and in what numbers) "illegally"?
Were the trails built to current standards of corridor width, treadway, and structure that is in use in National Forests (and that i use) that lessen impact and are not grossly over-made highways?
For the climbers that wanted to climb there and pay dues, a big thanks needs to go the landowners for them giving them the thumbs up for using it, but now that they perceive that their rec usage of the land is diminishing because of another group (non-owners), then that decision should be respected. It is theirs and not ours afterall.
Ideas to consider at other private areas to avoid such "closures" in the future.
Happy trails and safe climbing!
|
|
|
|
|
neuroshock
Jan 7, 2007, 11:54 PM
Post #14 of 17
(2241 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2003
Posts: 680
|
damn. for the last 3 years i've skipped last-minute on going to the comp to try out the boulders because of other activities and the belief that "there's always next year." not this time.
if the traffic/crowd of boulderers was an issue, perhaps a limited access system like the SCC has for The Stone Fort/Little Rock City could have worked?
kudos to the PAC folk who did the legwork in keeping things working for all these years. who knows, maybe down the road access can be renegotiated.
|
|
|
|
|
bernard
Jan 8, 2007, 1:04 AM
Post #15 of 17
(2223 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 26, 2003
Posts: 68
|
Lessons learned......?
Maybe not hold bouldering competitions at areas where access is tenuous or where throngs of visitors may have an unintended affect on the access arrangements.
This lesson could be applicable most anywhere
|
|
|
|
|
cintune
Jan 8, 2007, 1:45 AM
Post #16 of 17
(2213 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 1293
|
Unfortunately the comp was the major fundraiser that made the lease agreement possible at all. As JK said above, it was doomed by its own success.
And unless there's been any other changes, there's still 20 more days to check it out, Sundays until Feb. 1 and Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays from February 1 to Feb. 28, when the closure takes effect. Gotta get a paclimbers membership, though, remember, http://www.paclimbers.org/...page&pageID=3036
|
|
|
|
|
neuroshock
Jan 8, 2007, 7:17 AM
Post #17 of 17
(2198 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2003
Posts: 680
|
hmmm... not sure if i'll be able to swing out that way before the closure. my weekends are decently filled up 'till then, and there's the job during the week.
a couple bonuses of comps, that i was counting on, is receiving a guide/topo of some sort and the problems are typically marked. it makes finding my way around a foreign boulderfield much more convenient. otherwise, i could spend a whole day on what ends up being 1-star uninspiring lines and never even see/find the 5-star classics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
