|
|
|
|
roughster
May 31, 2007, 8:10 PM
Post #1 of 9
(5558 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In trying to keep everyone up to date with whats happening, below is a summation of the meeting/discussions:
After arriving and signing in, I mingled a bit and then grabbed seat (I was a tad early) and kept an eye out for "obvious" climbers. I saw John Robinson (who I have previously met) and Brad, along with some other "suspected" climbers. I sat with John and Brad and we chatted a bit about the process up till now. Before too long, the meeting started with Jim Micheaels (Park Planner) giving a slide show highlighting key issues facing the SRA and its creation of it's general usage plan. Of course climbing was one of the key issues identified, and for that a big thanks goes out to all involved to getting this issue on the table!
I won't bore you with the details of everything, but the issue related to climbing was summarized in 4 proposed path forwards to later be fleshed out in the Genral Plan:
A) Status Quo aka no rock climbing (boo...hiss..)
B) Allow rock climbing through all the SRA with no/few restrictions (of course this is the perfered from our perspective)
C: Allow rock climbing through the SRA but prohibit any further bolts from being placed. ( Not good considering the rock quality in the SRA)
D: Allow climbing only at the Quarry but continue to allow bolting in the Quarry itself.
Obviously all but A is an improvement over current access aka no access at all. After the presentation there was break outs for each issue with poster boards for feedback.
As it turn out Jay Galloway, who is the SRA manager, was in charge of "our" station. This was great news as it turns out Jay is an actual climber and ultimately he will be the person responsible for managing climbing once recognized. He seemed very positive about the future of climbing in the SRA and went so far to say he could see no reason that climbing would not be allow...in some capacity.
...in some capacity... - This really seemed the theme from our discussions with Jay and Jim, which were lengthy, on the benefits of limiting restrictions on climbing since it mitigates all liability from the SRA and should be coupled by the idea that climbers as a whole are pretty self regulated and "good steward" user group. Jay and Jim both seemed receptive to these ideas and discussion and promised consideration to all ideas/issues brought forth.
The climbing station definitely had the most "attention" and produced the largest collection of comments (some 5 pages worth) unanimously in favor of allowing climbing. Big thanks to all who showed up and made comments. The people I knew who came, but there were more that I didn't get a chance to chat with: SCUclimber, Matt (?), Gordon, John, Brad, Glowering, a few other who I appologize for not remembering your name (my excuse is I am sick as you hard from all my coughing).
IMPORTANT NOTE! One of the key things conveyed at the meeting though is right now through the end of JUNE, Jim is accepting feedback from ALL SOURCES concerning the proposals. This is a great chance for climbers as a whole to come together and provide feedback and guidance to the direction climbing management will take.
I STRONGLY encourage everyone reading this (and hell get anyone you know involved) to send an email to:
Jim Micheaels
JMICHE@parks.ca.gov
With a CC to:
Jay Galloway
jgalloway@parks.ca.gov
and
Shay Lutje
s.lutje@circlepoint.com
Cover the following topics (in your own words):
#1- You strongly support allowing climbing in the Auburn SRA, not just at the Quarry but throughout the entire park unit. Most of the SRA has not been explored to the potential for climbing because of previous restrictions. Other developed climbing exists at Murderer's Rapid below Mammoth Bar and further potential exists below the confluence at other cliffs.
#2- Climbers are considered a "Good Steward" user group and are very self regulated when it comes to issues. The "self regulated" approach is the approach most often taken by other land managers dealing with climbing in other state and federal land management agencies. This is also consistant with recommended policy in California State Parks Departmental Notice: 93-26 Subject: Rock Climbing
http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/734/files/dn93-25.pdf
#3- Climbers are willing to work the SRA should any climbing related issues arise on a case by case basis and represents the best utilization of the SRA resources.
#4- Talk about how excited you are by the opportunity to climb at a local resource that will be available during the winter months when most of the Sierra's is snowed in.
#5- Any other issue you feel strongly about :)
All in all it was a very positive meeting. We even tried to suggest a "temporary" lift of the climbing restrictions until the plan came out, but they didn't seem to keen on that as the BoRec has asked that climbing not be allowed into incorporated into the plan.
Here is the timeline path forward:
- End of '07, another round of focus group meetings. Will include a few climbers whcih will be coordinated through Access Fund, etc... This will be our 1st preview at the "draft" General Plan.
- Beginning '08, another Public Workshop (like last nights) where all climbers are encouraged to come to see the plan and make comments.
- Early '08 will be the environmental assessment of the proposed plan.
- Implimentation last Summer/Early Fall '08 (aka climbing is LEGAL!!!)
PLEASE, PLEASE write the email and send it in before the end of June. This an easy way for us to play a role in guiding HOW and TO WHAT EXTENT climbing is allowed in the SRA.
SPECIAL OFFER!!! Any person who writes the email, sends it, then forwards a copy to me Roughit3@aol.com (please don't CC me on your direct email), I will put you on the Auburn Email contact list. Once we get climbing legit, I will send you an up to date 100% PDF topo of all developed climbs in the quarry for free. Yuppers, the guide details almost 50 climbs, including 2 multipitches (both sport).
I'll keep you guys up to speed on any further info I find out!
Aaron
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
May 31, 2007, 8:24 PM
Post #2 of 9
(5554 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
Good work roughster, and big thanks to all the climbers who were able to attend!
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
May 31, 2007, 9:56 PM
Post #3 of 9
(5523 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
up
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
May 31, 2007, 11:19 PM
Post #4 of 9
(5512 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
bump
|
|
|
|
|
slablizard
Jun 1, 2007, 12:28 AM
Post #5 of 9
(5490 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 13, 2003
Posts: 5558
|
Good job Roughster! Will email.
|
|
|
|
|
scuclimber
Jun 1, 2007, 1:48 AM
Post #6 of 9
(5482 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2003
Posts: 1007
|
Aaron (and others),
Good summary. I felt like through talking Jay and Jim, they were very receptive to climbing in general, and their main concerns were the following:
1. Liability
2. Bolts everywhere... maybe the idea of shiny "rock pollution"? (and then, of course, the idea of camoflaged bolt hangers came up)
3. Just general apprehension that I think stems from simple lack-of-familiarity with the sport and how it is managed in other places. I'd expect the Access Fund will help greatly in this area. Jim mentioned he'd received a rather large packet of material from them about management stuff.
I'll get around to writing Jim something in the next week or two.
Cheers,
Colin
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Jun 11, 2007, 7:51 PM
Post #7 of 9
(5404 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
Bump. If you haven't wrote your letter yet, please do! Emailing Jim should take very little time. Please help us out. Due by the end of June!
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Jun 18, 2007, 4:05 AM
Post #8 of 9
(5377 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
Roughly 2 weeks left to send your comments. Please do :)
|
|
|
|
|
scuclimber
Jun 29, 2007, 3:40 AM
Post #9 of 9
(5096 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2003
Posts: 1007
|
roughster wrote: Roughly 2 weeks left to send your comments. Please do :)
Bump
|
|
|
|
|
|
