|
el_layclimber
May 2, 2006, 2:50 PM
Post #26 of 35
(3632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2006
Posts: 550
|
In reply to: Did you miss the whole point of the rap stations? It's to preserve the beauty of the area by not killing the trees. If we had put rap stations at the Overlook there would still be a beautiful juniper at the top of the cliff. The person who put the rap station in camoflauged it so it couldn't even be seen by someone who wasn't specifically looking for it..
Walk. The Overlook can be approached by walking in; any route in Elden can be descended by walking out. Between bolts, dead trees and footprints I will do a few less routes in a day in order to avoid the former two if possible.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
May 2, 2006, 2:55 PM
Post #27 of 35
(3632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Interesting. If there IS a walk-off and its sane, then these bolts would be all about convenience, wouldn't they?
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
md3
May 2, 2006, 3:40 PM
Post #28 of 35
(3632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2004
Posts: 172
|
From what I understand, some types of trees die from having all of the ground around their base compacted to the point where their fine “hair” roots can’t function. Using a tree for an anchor doesn’t, in itself, cause it any harm unless you are repeatedly pulling ropes from below around the trunk, which can wear a slot into the bark. From what I have seen most people don’t pull rap ropes at the Forks. Given that everyone always dumps their stuff at the top and hangs out at the top, the trees at the Forks might benefit most from a better defined, limited path and something on the ground around the key trees to keep people from sacking out under them and to prevent further soil compaction. Maybe some jumbled sharp rocks? Mulch is a good start, but its unrealistic to think that it would be maintained, and as it disappears people would just start tromping all over the ground again. The idea of a rap station at each of the main areas with a defined little path from the top of each rout to that rap station sounds good, but the reality is that most people who lead and top out or top-rope are going to tromp back to use trees for anchors, disregarding any paths. There would also need to be some sort of limited path or stepping stones back to the trees used most often as anchors so that they could be slung without compacting the area around their bases.
Please don’t put a concrete slab out there.
|
|
|
|
|
bighigaz
May 2, 2006, 5:14 PM
Post #29 of 35
(3632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2002
Posts: 696
|
Wow, great arguments on BOTH sides.
Looking at the issue at large, I think we all have to face the fact that no matter which methods we use, there is going to be some damage to the natural beauty of the area as long as we keep climbing! I don't think anyone on this site is going to suggest that we stop, nor do I think we will ever come to a solid agreement as too which is a better solution...
Fact is, trees will die, and we don't want to speed that up.
Fact is, bolts are ugly, but will help save the trees.
Fact is, bolts will "die" and need to be replaced, and someone will probably drill new holes, meanwhile the trees will get used until the new bolts are in.
Fact is, even with the bolts, people will still use the trees.
Fact is, even if the forest service denied access to the rim, only allowing people to hike/downclimb into the canyon from accessible areas, every climb would probably see anchor bolts! (But the rim would be beautifully preserved...)
I think we need to look at this SINGULAR situation, and that is a SIMPLE thing to do.
The majority agreed on the anchor bolts, so there was a general consesus. (This was a good thing) The chopper, however, was SNEAKY about it for a reason, obviously taking matters in to his/her own hands and making the decision her own. (This was wrong, or we would know who it was.) When something is done correctly, it is not generally necessary to hide it, (unless you live under the rule of a facist dictator, which we don't)... no wisecracks about the forest service please. :wink:
I'm not taking sides on the whole issue at the Forks, but in this one scenario, the chopper made himself wrong by hiding from the rest of the climbing community.
|
|
|
|
|
xgretax
May 2, 2006, 5:28 PM
Post #30 of 35
(3632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 23, 2001
Posts: 248
|
The following is a very generalized and simplistic attempt to resolve any issues surrounding the physiological status of the trees involved in this debate. If you would like my professional opinion surrounding the ethics of placing fixed hardware and alternatives to protect natural resource 'x', pm me. I don't really want to get into the classic RC.com pissing match.
For those who wish to know more about the physiological responses of trees to a variety of stress (soil compaction, root injury, water stress, xylem vessel cavitation/embolism, phloem injury/girdling, etc), please refer to the following text:
Kozlowski, T. T. and S. G. Pallardy. 1997. Physiology of Woody Plants. 2nd Edition
Or you can PM me for a more complete professional opinion (beware, I'll ask you a bizillion questions) than I'm about to give.
It is entirely likely that the tree is stessed from the following factors:
--soil compaction and subsequent root damage (from trampling)
--xylem cavitation/embolism due to water stress from the inability to uptake water (damaged roots) and transport resins.
--drought stress (resulting in the above as well). I have worked in many areas were bark beetles were incorrectly blamed for tree mortality--it was really drought induced stress that incurred tree death.
--phloem damage: ropes, slings, etc can apply forces to areas of the tree where they come into contact. Therefore, phloem tissue can be damaged by compression and wear--this is girdling. This negatively impacts the tree's ability to uptake and transport assimilates such as nutrients/carbohydrates/resins. you get the picture.
--greta
A Forest Ecologist/Entomologist who studies trees and bark beetles. I also like to climb.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
May 2, 2006, 5:32 PM
Post #31 of 35
(3632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
In reply to: Someone went to a lot of trouble to put a really nice, camoflauged rap anchor at the top of Deception Left in Flagstaff, AZ and someone went and chopped it. If this person happens to read this post, I would love to have a discussion with you about why that rap anchor was put in and why it is valuable to have there. I'm sure you would be opposed to rap stations at Paradise Forks as well, and I would love to chat with you about those too, because we are hoping to make them a reality and I would like to see them stay there. Maybe we could go climb out there sometime and discuss the alternatives to rapping off the trees because we need to stop rapping off them. The large pine at the top of the Prow wall is going to die and end up at the bottom of the canyon if something is not done soon. Again, I would like to have a mature conversation about all this with you and anyone else who would be opposed to rap stations at Paradise Forks. Please PM me or respond to this post. Thanks, Aimee
There goes my last trophy for the day. Aimeerose, I salute you for attempting to elevate the discourse in an awkward and testy situation, instead of resorting to sabre rattling rhetoric. This thread, though it may bear no fruit directly, is a model for how to approach this situation. I sincerely hope that those who would place bolts and those who would chop them follow your example. If only one of either party does, then IMO, it is a rip-roaring success. :D
|
|
|
|
|
sed
May 2, 2006, 5:53 PM
Post #32 of 35
(3632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2003
Posts: 356
|
I'm really confused about why this should cause so much discussion. It seems that people feel that have to have opinions about everything, and not only opinions but strong opinions. Realistically it won't matter (except to people) if you place rap/anchor bolts on top of the forks. The trees will still be used and their roots trampled. paths will increase erosion, garbage and human effects will accumulate. None of that will change whether you place the bolts there or not. The fact is we like to climb and hike and look at pretty scenery and therefore we will have a detrimental effect on the area. Intelligent management is necessary but the bolts in question here won't make a difference to the plants or animals of the area because people (climbers included) are already impacting the area in so many ways and that won't change just because people do or don't put in rap anchors. Therefore my official opinion is: I don't care. I will climb there with or without the bolts.
|
|
|
|
|
steelmonkey
May 2, 2006, 7:36 PM
Post #33 of 35
(3632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 10, 2002
Posts: 145
|
In reply to: I'm really confused about why this should cause so much discussion.
That's easy. A lot of people have deep feelings about climbing and the Forks.
For myself, I'm not convinced that the added bolts at the Forks will have any benefit at all to the trees. Heck, you cite several reasons as to why I feel that way. If it isn't going to help the trees, then why pound a bunch of metal into the area? I'm not saying categorically that the bolts won't help, but if we don't talk about the pros and cons, then whats the point of a "discussion" forum?
Lets not forget that, even if you put bolts on all the routes and ban people from the rim, all the damage from climber use will then be transferred to the bottom of the canyon. I kinda liked listening to the frogs croaking down in the Silver Pond last weekend...
As with all solutions regarding nature these days...the real solution seems to be removing humans from the area altogether.
|
|
|
|
|
epic_ed
May 2, 2006, 8:37 PM
Post #34 of 35
(3632 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4724
|
This is an excellent and worthwhile discussion. I hope you'll post more info about the next NACC meeting so we can get as many in the climbing community involved as possible in hopes of arriving at a consensus that we can all respect and live with.
It's going to be a hard sell to most of the community that bolts belong, for any reason, at a place like Paradise Forks. I'm all about convenience, which is why I usually throw an anchor around one of the trees at the rim to rap in. I could be persuaded to use the 5.easy section of the cliff to enter/exit if I'm down in that area, but I'm not likely to use it if I'm climbing up-canyon. So, I'll continue to use the trees like all climbers have for several decades.
In my personal opinion the "damage to the trees" argument is over-played. There are a few dozen trees around the rim of the canyon that will be used for anchors -- there are thousands of other "life giving" trees in just a couple of square miles that surround the area, and all of these are going through some sort of life cycle that is leading to their ultimate death, too. These trees will all meet their eventual fate regardless of whether we are there or not. Bolting rap stations at the top of the popular walls will have minimal effect at reducing human impact. I don't support placing bolts in an area that has a long, rich history to traditional climbing ethics just so a few of us can feel better about reducing the "stress" level the trees are experiencing.
Just my opinion. Please continue the discussion -- it's a good topic.
Ed
|
|
|
|
|
pk_davidson
Jan 23, 2007, 11:38 PM
Post #35 of 35
(1300 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 6, 2006
Posts: 7
|
Hey, you hike into the Forks via the Silver pond.
There's no need to rap off the trees.
At Elden, you can walk down in a variety of places.
Some of them involve 3rd class.
Need to rap into the Forks ?
Put in anchors in the rock at the top of the silver pond.
Rapping in is a
habit that was started by climbers
too lazy to enjoy the place. Or in too much of a
hurry to tick routes before their time.
And please, don't rap bolt the top of the Prow.
The first ascencionists most certainly did not
and would not approve of that.
I would know... I was there that day.
Yes, it will be a shame when that big old yellow jack dies and falls. But the Forks is a living breathing place that is in constant motion. The base of the Prow has seen at least one pillar go, as has the base of Sail Away.
And it was a huge shock to visit the Overlook only to have the majectic Juniper gone.
Christ, it's 10 minutes of walking to the East
to get to the base of Orange Out. And as long
as you're not dead drunk, I imagine that walk
down is a lot safer than any rap.
Walk down, save the trees, save the top.
The top of the Forks is trashed relative to it's original state and it's probably 99% due to top roping.
NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE, used to TR at the Forks.
Of course, when there are, what, 10 of you climbing there, you can have it your way. Up until TT's era anyway. And I can't say I minded that too much.
But almost all the classic lines were put in ground up, no hang dogging. If you couldn't lead it on that try, you came back later. Yes, we did YoYo routes, but never w/ hanging... We worked up to Sail Away style routes by starting with Girls Route. yep, that's the first route ever done there and why, because it looked easiest. Scott and Ross got a rude awakening that day. As does just about anyone who climbs there, moi included.
Ok, soap box put away....
What's the rush. You're only going to pull a muscle. Use a walk to start a warm up. Use the Silver Pond down climb to get your head together.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
