|
cadaverchris
Jun 3, 2007, 2:59 PM
Post #26 of 38
(2191 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 12, 2003
Posts: 323
|
thanks John.
while its easy for us to discuss our opinions on the matter. fact remains that its a state law.
|
|
|
|
|
jia
Jun 3, 2007, 4:10 PM
Post #27 of 38
(2179 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 9, 2004
Posts: 39
|
and its a law (actually state park regulation) that can be changed but folks have to get involved. 
|
|
|
|
|
mrdeadpt
Jun 5, 2007, 11:55 AM
Post #28 of 38
(2151 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 22, 2006
Posts: 85
|
Is the subject of the installation of two-bolt fixed anchors being discussed with NJ Parks authorities? It seems the majority of NJ climbers would be in favor of this. If the Federal gov't. policy re. fixed anchors is not heeded by NJ State folks, what about the park policies in other states--what about the Gunks? Are these being discussed as examples with NJ State authorities? Again, I would suggest that the majority of NJ climbers would be in favor of some two-bolt fixed anchors at popular crags like Allamuchy. Is this consensus being conveyed to the NJ Parks authorities by those who advocate for climber access?
Mr. D
|
|
|
|
|
jia
Jun 6, 2007, 3:57 AM
Post #29 of 38
(2133 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 9, 2004
Posts: 39
|
yes the issue has been discussed w/ the NJSP folks. why should the state of nj follow the lead of the NPS (thankfully NJ does not so NJ does not have a curry village type set up in its parks).
the consensus being conveyed to the parks is that there are perhaps less then a dozen folks who are active in working on access in nj and that there is a large e-mail list of folks who will send emails but otherwise don't really get involved. the parks know from actions of climbers that we are a diverse state wide group.
rather then speaking to the NJSP folks need to cultivate relations w/ state level elected officials and then bug these folks for climbing access and removal of the state code.
|
|
|
|
|
mrdeadpt
Jun 6, 2007, 11:53 AM
Post #30 of 38
(2130 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 22, 2006
Posts: 85
|
Okay...if the State of NJ will not follow the Federal Gov't's lead...maybe they might look at what has been done in other states--and in the Gunks. Again, what we are advocating is two-bolt anchors for toproping. I believe the majority of NJ climbers are in favor of such anchors. The question is whether such installations are being argued FOR by the people who promote climber access to NJ State officials.
Mr. D
|
|
|
|
|
mrdeadpt
Jun 8, 2007, 11:54 AM
Post #31 of 38
(2086 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 22, 2006
Posts: 85
|
That is the question. Again, I'd like to solicit comments from NJ climbers: What is your opinion regarding the installation of bolts in NJ?
I believe my opinion is in-line with that of the Access Fund: I think bolts have their place in contemporary climbing. But I don't think they should be used for running anchors where natural pro' is available. Two bolt anchors for toproping and rap stations are generally a good idea. (Good enough for the Gunks, Yosemite NP, etc., etc.) Some climbs can ONLY be adequately protected by bolts. But bolting should be done as discretely as possible. If placing bolts is "dumbing down" a climb, why place pro' at all? We should all be free-soloing naked and without chalk.
Mr. D
|
|
|
|
|
climbalpine
Jun 9, 2007, 3:37 AM
Post #32 of 38
(2063 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2007
Posts: 8
|
Mr. D.
I think this is a great question that you have posed. I support well placed 2 bolt anchors and bolts on climbs that require them or in environmentally conscious areas. I do think that it is unfortunate that Access NJ has taken a stance against bolting in NJ and would like to see this changed immediately. Maybe if it was changed there would be more activism in the organization.
|
|
|
|
|
jia
Jun 10, 2007, 6:29 PM
Post #33 of 38
(2036 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 9, 2004
Posts: 39
|
i would welcome more activism in ANJ. In NJ climbing as a whole. This way the State and County Parks will get the message that here indeed are people willing to confront, challenge and question authority by:
1. sending emails to such folks.
2. mailing letters to such folks.
3. sending a fax to such folks.
4. contacting these folks via proven ways of activism.
its the mucking law. we have to follow the law. these type of folks do not respond unless to direct action by citizens:
Hunterdon County
Legal Background on why we are pushing the Hunterdon County Freeholders and the same w/ the State of NJ. It's the States rules. We are just following the rules. It does not define how we can lobby
these elected officals:
The rules and regulations governing use of facilities or properties administered by the Hunterdon County Dept of Parks are covered by the NJ Statue (sic):
"the board of chosen freeholders may by resolution, make, alter, amend and repeal rules and regulations for the supervision, regulation and control of all activities carried on, conducted, sponsored, arranged,
provided for in connection w/ a public golf course or other county recreational, playground or public entertainment facility and for the protection of property and may prescribe and enforce fines and penalties for such violation of any such rule and regulation"
|
|
|
|
|
scoobs
Jun 11, 2007, 12:19 AM
Post #34 of 38
(2021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 30, 2007
Posts: 2
|
John,
I don't think anyone doubted the legal basis of the Hunterdon Country Board of Chosen Freeholders to make and uphold regulations in their county parks. In addition, I think people understand why it is necessary to lobby the board. What people ARE saying is that they do not support Access NJ's stated position that it supports a bolting moritorium in NJ. If you are privately in support of bolts and/or two bolt anchors, perhaps you should rethink how you show it. Publicly stating that you support a bolting moritorium, and chopping the bolts of people who do bolt, is distinctly different than stating you are ideally in support of bolts but support following the law and thus recommend not bolting at the current time. Publicly stating that you support a bolting moritorium implies that even if bolting were not illegal you would not support bolting. Access NJ's moritorium, and other comments you have made, imply that your ethics do not support the use of bolts. Combine that with you policing the placement of bolts by chopping them and its easy to see why so many people are not happy with you. I can't concieve how you state that you, by proxy of Access NJ, can wholeheartedly lobby the state that the majority of climbers in this state support bolting and two-bolt anchors. In addition, I find it disappointing that NJ's Access Fund coordinator (you) and Access NJ, the self proclaimed voice of climbers to state officials, is against the placement of bolts and two-bolt anchors.
I very much appreciate your, and Access NJ's, efforts to open climbing areas in NJ. I applaud them. Your appeals to the masses for help in lobbying NJ's state and local officials have not fallen on deaf ears, people are listening. Many people want to become involved, but they have a difficult time aligning themselves with you in light of your bolting positions. Instead, they choose to go it alone, and you may or may not be aware of their lobbying efforts.
Matt
(This post was edited by scoobs on Jun 11, 2007, 2:02 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
jia
Jun 11, 2007, 2:04 AM
Post #35 of 38
(1996 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 9, 2004
Posts: 39
|
Matt,
Heres the issue from my take. The State parks have made the placement of bolts illegal. ANJ supports the issue even while we are sitting down w/ the State parks to discuss the issue that might allow bolt placements
"Publicly stating that you support a bolting moritorium implies that even if bolting were not illegal you would not support bolting "
Which is correct. As a sweeping generalization the bolting of climbs in NJ is not warranted. NJ could easily be turned into a sports climbers paradise. This would destroy fragile ecological areas in the State. Are fixed anchors valid, perhaps. Are bolts appropriate on certain climbs, perhaps.
Bolting is determined by the first ascent party and by a climbing sites tradition.
I am not policing the placement of bolts. Bolts are illegal on State Lands. Either we as climbers police this ourselves or rest assured the State Parks will do it for climbing. The State Parks (have stated they) will close climbing access if climbers disregard rules and regulations.
As for fixed anchors. There is a time and place for such anchors and the first thing is that the State Parks has to allow such placements. Until they amend or further change the official State policy and management issues of said anchors are addressed then bolts should not be placed.
The first thing that has to reached is overturning the State Code that makes climbing illegal. This requires people getting involved.
And I see from the responses about the State Code that around 12 or 13 people responded to the issue to send letters to the State DEP on this critical access issue. I also know for a fact from running ANJ that their should be greater involvement from climbers on access issues.
The number of times that people have offered to directly help ANJ on issues w/ lobbying the State or Hunterdon County Parks is small. Very small. I know this because I am given the number of responses by the the respective land managers.
As for going about this alone. It is more then common knowledge that I have been looking for someone to take the reigns of ANJ for close to 2 years. There have been no takers. Having the same person running an organization leads to stagnation of an organization.
Its a shame that bolting is what motivates people and not addressing laws that make climbing and bouldering illegal.
JIA
ps: HC is now classifying bouldering w/ controlled dangerous substances. Wheres the hue and cry over this ?
|
|
|
|
|
jia
Jun 11, 2007, 2:09 AM
Post #36 of 38
(1993 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 9, 2004
Posts: 39
|
Access Fund Comments:
AF comments on the CRI. Changes are being written into the State Parks CRI. Comments on CRI have been asked for from NJ Climbers and to date I've had 1 response.
JIA
Hi John,
Thanks for the opportunity to provide feedback on your power point presentation. It is obvious that a lot of hard work has gone into this and that it is in its final drafting stages, so the comments provided focus on points that might (or do) misstate Access Fund’s position. The area in which the Access Fund has feedback is in regards to statements made about fixed anchors and bolting. Below are statements that stood out for us:
» Do not bring the rock to your level using bolts, chopping or gluing holds or otherwise damaging self-serving ideals. Such environmental destructive practices are not welcome nor encouraged here in NJ. (pg. 11)
» ANJ is against any bolting of climbs and for fixed anchors anywhere in the State of New Jersey. Having said that statement ANJ recognizes that the least impact of mans footprint at NJ’s climbing areas maybe indeed be a fixed anchor. ANJ follows the position of the Access Fund and the State of New Jersey State Parks on bolts and bolting of climbs. (pg. 17)
» Access Fund Bolting Two Bolt Anchor Initiatives
A low impact bolting initiative has been adopted by the Access Fund, the National Parks System, the Mohonk Preserve, and other environmentally concerned organizations. This use of fixed bolt anchors is successfully managing the climbing resources of other East Coast locations such as at NY’s Shawngunks, NJ’s Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area and Rumney, NH, too name a few sites. (pg 17)
» Sport climbing will rely almost entirely on bolts, while traditional climbing typically requires only widely dispersed use of fixed anchors, and bouldering requires no fixed anchors at all. Sport climbing is discouraged in NJ.(pg 20)
A few points of clarification to note. The Access Fund does not have or espouse a “two bolt anchor initiative.” So this will need to be eliminated or changed.
Also, the CRI states “ANJ follows the position of the Access Fund . . . on bolts and bolting of climbs.” This is following the statement, “ANJ is against any bolting of climbs . . .” The Access Fund’s position on bolting can be found at: http://accessfund.org/advo/irres.php, and is, in part, “The Access Fund recognizes that bolt safety anchors have been used as climbing protection for over sixty years, and believes that bolts should generally be allowed where climbing is permitted.”
The Access Fund also states: “[T]he Access Fund strongly encourages climbers to place bolts discretely and in a manner appropriate to local climbing tradition.”
I have noticed in a number of places statements such as, “Sport climbing is discouraged in NJ.” “Do not bring the rock to your level using bolts, chopping or gluing holds or otherwise damaging self-serving ideals. Such environmental destructive practices are not welcome nor encouraged here in NJ.”
These statements concern the Access Fund for a number of reasons:
1. For one Access Fund Affiliate or RC to label bolting as an “environmental destructive practice” can have ramifications for other climbing organizations and the Access Fund across the country. The Access Fund does not view bolting as environmentally destructive per se.
2. The Access Fund does not advocate on behalf of or against bolting. The local tradition is the consensus of the community, not one individual or one organization.
The goal of the Access Fund Affiliate program is to unite climbing organizations that advocate on behalf of all climbers and all types of climbing; and the expectations of our Regional Coordinator program are, in part, to espouse the positions of the Access Fund. If you have a personal feeling/attitude toward bolting, I completely respect that. I think it would be a good idea for you, myself, and Jason to have a call about why the Access Fund has the position it does.
Thanks again for the opportunity to provide comments.
Take Care, Deanne
Deanne Buck
Programs Director | The Access Fund
303-545-6772 x112
|
|
|
|
|
jia
Jun 12, 2007, 2:19 PM
Post #37 of 38
(1957 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 9, 2004
Posts: 39
|
Hunterdon County.
Now is not the time to be nice.
Folks should feel free to add comments on the HC issue on these list servs:
Hi,
Welcome to the Common Ground listserve. This listserve, consisting only of non-profit organizations, is one of two groups created to replace the commongroundforparks@outdoorrecreationalliance.org listserve. I have created a separate group (keepitgreen@list4.ga3.org) that includes non-profit organizations as well as members of state and local government agencies, the press and interested individuals and can be used for broader distribution of non-sensitive information.
This new listserve, the Common Ground listserve, provides a forum for non-profit organizations to discuss the collaborative Keep It Green Campaign efforts to secure a long-term stable source of funding for capital projects, land acquisition and operation, maintenance and stewardship of New Jersey’s state and local parks, natural areas and historic sites.
Please review the below guidelines regarding the use of this listserve:
Messages must be directly related to the main purpose of the Keep It Green campaign.
Discourse must remain civil and respectful.
Given email volume which plagues us all, please try to use this sparingly.
The moderator reserves the right to remove members from the listserve if they are unable to follow these guidelines.
You can send an email to the list by using this address:
commonground@list4.ga3.org
To unsubscribe from this listserve, you can send an email to:
unsubscribe-commonground@list4.ga3.org
Newmembers can join the listserve by sending an email to:
subscribe-commonground@list4.ga3.org
In addition to the two groups mentioned earlier in this email, I have created a third group for the GSPT Campaign Committee members that meet weekly in Trenton (campaign_committee@list4.ga3.org). This is an open and inclusive group; please contact me if you would like to be added to the group and for meeting details.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Joanna Wolaver
Conservation Policy Coordinator
Trenton Policy Office
New Jersey Audubon Society
142 West State Street, 4th Floor
Trenton, NJ 08608
Office: 609-392-1181
Cell: 609-712-3622
Fax: 609-392-1182
joanna.wolaver@njaudubon.org
|
|
|
|
|
nightrider
Jun 14, 2007, 1:28 AM
Post #38 of 38
(1920 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2007
Posts: 2
|
If climbers are for an anchor, and seeing numerous topics on this site over the years validates that climbers are pro anchor. I say contact the park and tell them an anchor is necessary and in favor of the climbing community as a whole (old-school climbers who still use Titons and rigid-stem friends not included).
If people would put their archaic ideals aside and leave their personal crusades out of the good climbing communities business, the state of NJ may actually loose some of its bad-rap--excuse the pun--sterotypes.
Seriously, the climbing community is pro anchor for Allamuchy. Start a petition, burn bras, and do what needs to be done--my guess is a simple call to the State Park.
Good night and good luck
J
|
|
|
|
|
|
