|
|
|
|
fredbob
Jul 23, 2004, 8:19 PM
Post #1 of 140
(31864 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2003
Posts: 455
|
"No new fixed anchors for rock climbing are allowed." This is what is being proposed for the San Bernardino National Forest (which includes Tahquitz & Suicide Rocks) according to the USFS's draft revisions to the So. Cal. Land Management Plan ("SCLMP"). The ban would include any and all climbing areas in designated wilderness in the SBNF. This ban would prohibit any new route development that require fixed anchors (bolts, fixed pitons, slings left behind, fixed nuts, etc.). It would also likely ban replacement of existing fixed anchors, thwarting efforts to upgrade old bolts and other fixed gear (some of which has been in place for 60 years!) The SCLMP is available on-line to review and comments can be submitted on-line as well. The proposal is buried in the SCLMP, a very convoluted document which is difficult to navigate and search. The Comment period ends August 11, 2004, so don't wait, ACT NOW! Here is how to make an online comment: (earlier edit by Tim now superseded by Brian's Illustrated Guide to Randy's excellent directions) (Tim; Thanks!) (From Brian @ Evolv: an Illustrated Guide to Randy's Instructions that will open in another browser window. Full original directions from Randy follow.) Go to : http://scfpr.esri.com/scfpr/builds/build947/index5.htm 1. Click on small box in upper left corner ["Select A Document": "Part 1, Co. Cal. National Forest..."] 2. Click: "Part 2: San Bernardino National Forest Strategy" [A document "Tree" will build on left] 3. Click: "Land Management Plan Strategy" [A document will appear on the right side of page] 4. Click: "Next" at top of right page 5. Click: "Prospectus" on the left side of page in the document "Tree." [A document will appear on the right side of page] 6. Click: "Next" at top of right page 7. Click: "Forest Specific Criteria" on the left side of page in the document "Tree." [A document will appear on the right side of page] 8. Click: "Next" at top of right page 9. Click: "Wilderness Standards" on the left side of page in the document "Tree." [A document will appear on the right side of page] 10. Go to bottom of page on right, then click: "[cyan]Next[/cyan]" at bottom of page. 11. Scroll down page to SBNF10. [You have arrived] 12. Highlight: "SBNF10 No new fixed anchors for rock climbing are allowed." 13. Now go to top of the web page where the header says: "Click Here To Comment" A. Fill out the info on you at top. B. Provide Comment [see below for suggestions] c. Paste the text you highlighted in the box by clicking "Capture Highlighted Text" button. Here are some suggested points you might wish to cover in your comment, or make your own points: (1) Many different climbing areas will be affected by this proposal, including Tahquitz Rock. (2) Tahquitz has been a climbing area since 1936. (3) Fixed anchors have been in use at Tahquitz for more than 60 years and are necessary for safety. (4) Fixed anchors need to be replaced or improved occasionally. (5) New routes may require some fixed anchors. (6) Fixed anchors are NOT illegal under the Wilderness Act. (7) Fixed anchors are essentially invisible except to climbers actually climbing a route . (8) They are the minimum tool necessary to provide for safe climbing for some routes. (9) This is a life or death situation for climbers. (10) Many other wilderness areas, including NPS land in SoCal, are allowing bolt replacement and actively working on ways to allow new fixed anchors while at the same time avoiding resource and social conflict. (11) The Forest Service unsuccessfully attempted a similar policy in 1997. (12) The Forest Service has not studied the issue beside a failed Negotiated Rule Making process, a process that merely considers ideology and opinion. (13) Economic studies (such as the ones conducted by Douglas Shaw of UNR) show the econonmic value of climbing in wilderness to surrounding local communities.
|
|
|
|
|
fardawg
Jul 23, 2004, 9:06 PM
Post #2 of 140
(31864 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 21, 2004
Posts: 13
|
As was said, difficult to navigate, but part of being heard.
|
|
|
|
|
indigo_nite
Jul 23, 2004, 10:17 PM
Post #4 of 140
(31864 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2002
Posts: 365
|
hi. I don't like the concept of banning fixed anchors b/c they increase safety/speed. but out of curiousity, is there much new route development going on there recently? maybe I don't know FA-ists but had the impression by the guidebook dates that most of the area had been developed.
|
|
|
|
|
artm
Jul 23, 2004, 10:26 PM
Post #5 of 140
(31864 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 22, 2001
Posts: 17990
|
In reply to: but out of curiousity, is there much new route development going on there recently? maybe I don't know FA-ists but had the impression by the guidebook dates that most of the area had been developed. Carol,In reply to: It would also likely ban replacement of existing fixed anchors, thwarting efforts to upgrade old bolts and other fixed gear (some of which has been in place for 60 years!) fixed anchors eventually wear out and many of the existing fixed gear (think pitons, knifeblades and old scary leeper hangers) can be suspect.
|
|
|
|
|
fredbob
Jul 23, 2004, 10:54 PM
Post #6 of 140
(31864 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2003
Posts: 455
|
In reply to: ... but out of curiousity, is there much new route development going on there recently? maybe I don't know FA-ists but had the impression by the guidebook dates that most of the area had been developed. Actually, Bob Gaines (and a few others) have put up quite a few new routes in the last few years. I doubt the area will be "climbed out" for a while yet. And nearly ever new line in the last 15 years required (and any new ones will require) fixed anchors. But this ban will affect all Wilderness areas in the San Bernardino National Forest (Both the San Jacinto Mts and San Bernardino Mts). There is an incredible amount of unclimbed rock in these two mountain ranges. Every comment does count and will matter in determining policy. Don't be left on the sidelines or wishing you had taken a few minutes away from some flame war to voice in on this matter.
|
|
|
|
|
thegreytradster
Jul 23, 2004, 11:30 PM
Post #7 of 140
(31864 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2003
Posts: 2151
|
Got mine in but the site is particularly iritating to navigate. I'd sugest copying the instructions in Randy's original post into notepad, print it , (or open two windows and then go to it! link to site. http://scfpr.esri.com/.../build947/index5.htm :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: This is important folks! Please take 10 min to do it. International comments would be effective also. Mention the historical nature of Tahquitz.
|
|
|
|
|
fardawg
Jul 23, 2004, 11:42 PM
Post #8 of 140
(31864 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 21, 2004
Posts: 13
|
In reply to: I simply kept this page up and viewed the other site in another browser (you can open more than one you know) using this page for reference made the task a bit easier. _________________ I'm a little bastard artm, good idea, I'm sure glad somebody thought up this whole windows thing, I mean dos was good but... okee dokee now Seriously, bolting restrictions are a big deal. these issues need to be delt with at every level. Let's keep it open.
|
|
|
|
|
bones
Jul 23, 2004, 11:43 PM
Post #9 of 140
(31864 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2003
Posts: 253
|
Thanks for the heads up and the navigational directions. I just put in my comments.
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Jul 23, 2004, 11:56 PM
Post #10 of 140
(31864 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
metoo:
In reply to: Confirmation No: 10000384
|
|
|
|
|
leec
Jul 24, 2004, 12:07 AM
Post #11 of 140
(31864 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 13, 2001
Posts: 81
|
C'mon people. THIS NEEDS YOUR ATTENTION NOW! Unless you get off your ass and take action we'll lose another ooportunity to safeguard our freedom to climb. Stuff like this MATTERS. Not just for ourselves but for the generations to come. Each and everyone of us has a right to protect the environment - not just from ourselves but the misguided morons masquerading as environmentalists. :evil:
|
|
|
|
|
krga20
Jul 25, 2004, 3:18 PM
Post #12 of 140
(31864 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 27, 2004
Posts: 71
|
just added my comment opposing USFS proposal; maybe it should be re-posted as "tahquitz fixed anchor ban" maybe it will get more attention.
|
|
|
|
|
indigo_nite
Jul 25, 2004, 4:59 PM
Post #13 of 140
(31864 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2002
Posts: 365
|
comment has been made Confirmation No: 10000394 a link to this post has been made on rec.climbing (posted this morning w/ google groups so it will probably get on that site in several hours or a day)
|
|
|
|
|
paganmonkeyboy
Jul 25, 2004, 6:57 PM
Post #14 of 140
(31864 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 30, 2003
Posts: 663
|
hmmm mozilla seems to not submit the form once you are done, off a mac anyways...anyone else have this happen ? please tell your non - rc.com friends about this too and get them to post - we need to be sure this doesn't go through...
|
|
|
|
|
pbjosh
Jul 25, 2004, 7:07 PM
Post #15 of 140
(31864 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2002
Posts: 1518
|
Randy, Thank you TREMENDOUSLY for the effort of guiding people through the steps required to submit comment. You continue to do an excellent job of climbing stewardship in Southern California! People - please comment on this issue, it is not terribly difficult and is quite important to the future of climbing in Southern California. I just submitted my comments and in the past 2 days the confirmation number counter has only incremented by 15 from when tim recieved conf #10000384 to my #10000399.
|
|
|
|
|
stizrizzo
Jul 25, 2004, 7:22 PM
Post #16 of 140
(31864 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2002
Posts: 72
|
Here's mine. Please make your voices heard!
In reply to: Dear Administrators, I would like to voice my objection to proposed Wilderness Standard "SBNF S10" for the San Bernadino National Forest. This standard would prohibit the addition of, or replacement of fixed anchors for use in rock climbing activities. (http://scfpr.esri.com/scfpr/builds/build947/doc46/section10_20_35_20.htm) Implementing this standard would likely affect a significantly more dangerous environment for rock climbers, who comprise a large recreational user group of the San Bernadino N.F. This is an unnecessary situation, as modern bolts (fixed anchors) are camoflaged, and create minimal visual impact -- indeed, less than the anchors that they typically replace (colorful slings and cord). Rock climbing has become a popular activitiy an America's national forests, and climbers often bring a needed economic boost to surrounding towns. In addition, climbers tend to be a very environmentally conscious group, active in the preservation and maintenence of natural areas. To prohibit fixed anchors in the SBNF would be an unjust and unnecessary step in addressing Forest Service goals. The minimal impact of fixed climbing anchors simply pales in comparison to the environmental trauma caused by logging, mineral extraction, OHV use, and pack animals. Please reconsider the inclusion of this obscure fixed anchor ban in the Forest Service plan. Thank you,
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Jul 25, 2004, 7:23 PM
Post #17 of 140
(31864 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
Conf # 1000400 I would not have made it through that mess without your help. Good job. d.
|
|
|
|
|
stizrizzo
Jul 25, 2004, 7:29 PM
Post #18 of 140
(31864 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2002
Posts: 72
|
In reply to: Conf # 1000400 I would not have made it through that mess without your help. Good job. d. Ditto... And thanks for bringing this to everyone's attention Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
fredbob
Jul 25, 2004, 7:48 PM
Post #19 of 140
(31864 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2003
Posts: 455
|
Here are some additional excellent points that might be mentioned, as posted by Eric on climbingjtree.com:
In reply to: 1. Many other wilderness areas, including NPS land in SoCal, are allowing bolt replacement and actively working on ways to allow new fixed anchors while at the same time avoiding resource and social conflict. 2. The USDA Forest Service unsuccessfully attempted a similar policy in 1997. 3. The Forest Service has not studied the issue beside a failed Negotiated Rule Making process, a process that merely considers ideology and opinion. 4. Economic studies (such as the ones conducted by Douglas Shaw of UNR) show the econonmic value of climbing in wilderness to surrounding local communities. I believe, after having close relationships with a variety of federal land agencies, that these initiatives are ill conceived, and are sometimes products of a lack of information, creativitiy, and interest. Climber comments are critical. The FS needs another wake up call. Thanks to all who have commented.
|
|
|
|
|
thegreytradster
Jul 26, 2004, 3:14 PM
Post #20 of 140
(31864 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2003
Posts: 2151
|
I was up at Tahquitz Saturday and of the 10 - 12 people I spoke with not one knew anything about the proposed ban. They do now! The word obviously hasn't go out very far. Has anyone got any plans for possibly distributing some information to climbers up there in written form? PM me if you need some help with this. What about the Idylwild Camber of Coimmerce and the Historical society there. They may be valuable allies also. Anyone have any contacts with them? If you aren't a local don't think this won't effect you also. This line is probably boiler plate in every forest service administerd areas management plan. They will eventualy get to your favorite area also.
|
|
|
|
|
fredbob
Jul 26, 2004, 8:37 PM
Post #21 of 140
(31864 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2003
Posts: 455
|
17 Days Left to Submit Your Comments! Each comment is very important. Please take the time to let the Forest Service know your thoughts about this proposal. Also, I have prepared a flyer that you can print out and provide to other climbers or leave copies at your local gym. PM with your email address and whether you want the flyer in Word or Wordperfect format. Get the word out! Thanks, Randy
|
|
|
|
|
toonarmy
Jul 26, 2004, 9:31 PM
Post #22 of 140
(31864 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2003
Posts: 133
|
10000426
|
|
|
|
|
soulsurfer
Jul 26, 2004, 10:35 PM
Post #23 of 140
(31864 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 28, 2003
Posts: 84
|
Confirmation No: 10000429 Thanks for the step-by-step info Randy
|
|
|
|
|
mandrake
Jul 26, 2004, 11:53 PM
Post #24 of 140
(31864 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 7, 2004
Posts: 188
|
Confirmation No: 10000430 C'mon people, let's get some comments in! The instructions in the first post worked perfectly. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
namascar
Jul 27, 2004, 12:24 AM
Post #25 of 140
(31864 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 6, 2003
Posts: 55
|
Confirmation No: 10000431 Thanks Randy.
|
|
|
|
|
|