Thursday, April 7, 2011

Cleaning up Our Act

A recent controversy in Boulder got me thinking about the connection between climbing and the environment. A professional mountain biker, Mike West, was caught by rangers riding an illegal trail down the north side of Flagstaff Mountain. News of this event was published on the day before a major vote on a plan for Boulder's open space, a plan that continued to exclude mountain bikes from the so-called West TSA. This is essential the mountain backdrop to Boulder between Eldorado Springs and Mount Sanitas. Mike West initially claimed to be unaware of any restrictions, a highly unlikely possibility as there is literally not one square foot of public land in this area that has allowed off-road biking in over 20 years.

What was even more surprising were the reactions in the message boards of mountain biking sites and the local paper. A surprising number, perhaps even a slim majority, applauded the actions of West and derided the actions and policies of OSMP. His sponsor, Yeti Cycles, immediately dropped him, however. Much of the impulse to defend him seemed rooted in a feeling that Boulder OSMP had not provided sufficient riding opportunities and that illegal trails and riding were inevitable as a result.

Which led me to wonder. How would climbers feel if the same kind of restrictions were in place for climbing? Not merely a bolting ban, which in fact went into place in the Flatirons around the same time as the biking ban but in fact a simple ban on climbing on certain formations or times of day, unrelated to birds or other environmental concerns? How about a simple ban on the use of chalk? It's hard to say. Despite the presence of substantial bird bans in the Flatirons, Eldorado and Boulder Canyon, climbers seem very disinclined to climb in posted areas and I have not heard of any well-known climbers getting into trouble with rangers for illegal climbing or other problems.

However I have recently heard of things happening on nearby public land that do not reflect well on climbers as stewards of the land, especially altering environments to make problems feasible. I wonder if in 2011, something is changing in climber attitudes that is making it acceptable unilaterally to use tactics that substantially modify the very landscape we are bouldering in so that we might squeeze a few more moves from a problem or create a "new" one altogether.

I think that the climbing community's place as a welcome user of public lands in the vicinity of Boulder is secure. There is a huge constituency, expert political advocacy (the Access Fund is based in Boulder), industry presence, and of course a huge array of climbing possibilities that disperses climber presence and impact effectively. But I wonder if we take that relationship a bit too much for granted, or even believe that as climbers we are, like Mike West, entitled to go where we like, when and where and how we like, justifying our behavior because climbing feels important to us.

I am pleased to see the work being initiated by the BCC on Boulder Canyon. Please read this proposal to find out more about this much-needed initiative to repair the effects of laissez-faire management and climber practices.

Mountain bikers have their faces pressed against the glass when it comes to public land access around Boulder. There may be very good justification for restricting their ability to ride in the West TSA and given the current political climate, I doubt that the efforts of the BMBA will come to anything substantial for many years if ever. The appearance of a pro rider on an illegal trail in the middle of a heated debate certainly didn't help the cause. But climbers shouldn't rest easy. Climbers should instead be redoubling their efforts to proactively anticipate problems, environmental or social, that arise from the practice of the sport and not rely on flying under the radar for much longer.

8 comments:

Kris said...

Welcome to North Carolina! Yes we have a ton of amazing climbing in our state. However, I would venture to guess that the majority of the rock in our state is off limits. We have some wins under our belt, like the recent purchase of Laurel Knob near Cashiers, but we are currently fighting to expand climbing access in Chimney Rock State Park. Anyway, all you can do is organize and fight for change! One of the better climbing shops in the state - Looking Glass Outfitters had "Rock Climbing is not a Crime" tees printed up...

Peter Beal said...

I agree that climbing is not and should not be considered a crime. But if we don't climb in ways that could be perceived as criminal, it makes everything much easier. Good luck with the access efforts!

Anonymous said...

We are lucky. Burnout is in a HCA. So are most of the ones from Lost back in Eldo. So are others. I sure hope all the pro climbers that hit these areas get the free permits... Otherwise, I could see another Mike West type of situation.

Peter Beal said...

You may not know this but the area of Eldo West with the bouldering is mostly private property. I have been emailing with Mike McHugh and the Access Fund about it.

Anonymous said...

Peter, really? What map are you using? Last time I looked (OSMP WMP Map), the Eldo Boulder was in Eldo Park, while the Lost Boulder, Suspension, The Whale, The Overlook, Y2K, and all the rest are in an HCA. The only private property are the few boulders directly below the Musicals. The Meta-Musicals, and everything up the wash are in Eldo or OSMP.

Burnout is clearly in an HCA, and climbers have been busted there, but seem to keep going back. So is the Honeymaroon Boulder, which just had another "pro" ascent...

Peter Beal said...

Let me amend my comment. According to a ranger in Eldo who escorted a boulderer from the vicinity of Midnight Frightening, he was on private land. Do you have a URL or other info about the map you used?

I will contact OSMP about starting a project that identifies all the major bouldering spots that are in HCAs. I am not sure they really know yet.

Anonymous said...

Wow, that is the first I have heard that the Musicals are on private land. There is no good map that I know of, but this one by the OSMP is OK, and shows where the HCA line sits (right on the Eldo boulder): http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/openspace/pdf_offtrail_permits/map3_eldoradocanyon.pdf The Honeymaroon Boulder sits right on the line: http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/openspace/pdf_offtrail_permits/map4_eldoradomountain.pdf

Burnout is in another HCA that I can't find the map for right now.

Chris said...

I think the climbing community does need to be concerned about access issues in the Boulder mountain parks, and not just in terms of the current HCA system. Just last week Will Toor commented in a Daily Camera article something to the effect that perhaps it was time to consider banning all off trail travel in the OSMP. That means all 'official' trails, of course, which doesn't include many or most crag and bouldering access trails. The power of the preservationist groups is evident and I expect that they would applaud the banning of off trail travel.
Certainly I agree with Peter's point that we need to act as responsible stewards - as the climbing community has generally done for decades. Any obvious alteration of landings, bushes, etc will likely be seen as irresponsible and pit us against the land managers. We need those folks on our side as much as possible.
As for Burnout, I wasn't aware that problem was in an HCA - if so I have to wonder if we can apply for a permit to visit the area?