|
hoppinbig
Jun 19, 2003, 4:54 PM
Post #1 of 62
(7858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 409
|
Wow - this piece aired on Discovery Channel Canada this week, it's a feature on Doug Larson - a well known anti-climbing biologist in Ontario talking about the harmful effects of climbing on the cliff ecology.
http://www.exn.ca/...021022-rockclimb.asx
|
|
|
|
|
benkiessel
Jun 19, 2003, 5:04 PM
Post #2 of 62
(7858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 23, 2002
Posts: 173
|
man that sucks :cry:
|
|
|
|
|
scottcody
Jun 19, 2003, 5:07 PM
Post #3 of 62
(7858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 27, 2003
Posts: 577
|
I wonder what the tied off to when the set up the those top ropes.
You know they wouldn't have to tie off to the trees if they would just put in bolts... hehe bring on another bolting argument
|
|
|
|
|
bishop
Jun 19, 2003, 5:08 PM
Post #4 of 62
(7858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2001
Posts: 192
|
my soundcard is screwed right now so I haven't heard the audio yet... but from the visual... I've seen them climb over and disturb more plant life than any climber I've seen.
|
|
|
|
|
grigriese
Jun 19, 2003, 5:08 PM
Post #5 of 62
(7858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2002
Posts: 292
|
Let him do a show on the damage that dirt bikes / ATV's do on the environment!
|
|
|
|
|
alpiner
Jun 19, 2003, 5:10 PM
Post #6 of 62
(7858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 23, 2003
Posts: 210
|
Seemed like balanced reporting, not a slam. The fact is, climbers do a lot more environmental damage than they care to admit.
|
|
|
|
|
hoppinbig
Jun 19, 2003, 5:12 PM
Post #7 of 62
(7858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 409
|
I understand that much of this is a publicity attempt by certain individuals to close access to our crags. Access is in great jeopardy in Ontario - perhaps its time for climbers to get more involved here in access issues (Darkside has been fighting this battle alone for along time).
|
|
|
|
|
trad_man
Jun 19, 2003, 5:15 PM
Post #8 of 62
(7858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 21, 2003
Posts: 95
|
man that does suck. even though i dont live in Canada im sure people will see it and say o yea iv seen those people climbing those cliffs maybe i should act like i care and tell them to get down your hurting the wonderfull weeds and snails. give me a break :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
gretchino
Jun 19, 2003, 5:15 PM
Post #9 of 62
(7858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2003
Posts: 393
|
Wow...I haven't been to this area, but are there really hordes of people running to the rock in huge groups like that? If so, then why weren't they on the walls they showed in the film? It made it look like a pack of rabid children racing to the walls to destroy it with crayons and elmers glue.
Obviously there are idiots out there that don't understand bring out what you bring in, respect the enviornment, etc...but is there really a need for a video like this? I don't think so...
|
|
|
|
|
lix
Jun 19, 2003, 5:22 PM
Post #10 of 62
(7858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 9, 2003
Posts: 13
|
Well, from looking purely at the information presented in the TV spot, it doesn't seems as though this is as objective as it first seems. The damage to the cliffs that have been climbed on that Larson and his researcher use in comparison to the unclimbed cliffs is a point of contention. In the comparison presented, it seems to be assumed that unclimbed cliffs and climbed cliffs were identical other than the fact that some see climbing activity and others don't. However, as climbers, we know that some cliffs are vegetated pieces of crap that are better looked at than climbed (and thus would have a higher rate(?) of diversity/species population that larson sees as beneficial), while others seem clean and climbable from the first look. So I would say Larson is wrong in assuming that getting rid of climbing on certain cliffs would make the climbed cliffs as "lush" as the unclimbed ones. Perhaps there were qualities of the climbed cliffs (in their pre-climbing hey-day) that made them less suitable to a number and diversity of species, thus when climbing came to town, those cliffs were climbed, and the ones with the diversity of species passed by (at least until the next round of hammer and chisel wielding, cliff cleaning, sport-clippers came around). A better study would possibly compare the geographical features of individual cliffs and would study a cliff from pre-climbing to climbing. Then again, this was on TV - what the fuck do those morons know anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
soma
Jun 19, 2003, 5:25 PM
Post #11 of 62
(7858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 9, 2003
Posts: 155
|
Sure climbers do damage to the environment.. But I mean COME on!!!! Go after the huge corporations, ie logging and mining companies.
What a load of crap..
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
bishop
Jun 19, 2003, 5:31 PM
Post #12 of 62
(7858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2001
Posts: 192
|
In reply to: Wow...I haven't been to this area, but are there really hordes of people running to the rock in huge groups like that? ......It made it look like a pack of rabid children racing to the walls to destroy it with crayons and elmers glue.
That one segment was on a crag called Rattlesnake Point. And yes RP is really like that.. it's close to TO so they do a lot of beginer trips there for "the outdoor experience" lots of TR going on.
|
|
|
|
|
kam_ill_eon
Jun 19, 2003, 5:31 PM
Post #13 of 62
(7858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2001
Posts: 168
|
I'm all for ecological protection to a certain degree. The problem I have is when extremist like these try and shut down areas to protect snails and plants. I realize there needs to be a balance, but where do you draw the line? Are we going to start closing ourselves into a box? God gave us these beautiful areas for our enjoyment. How are we going to start putting restrictions on God's gifts to man? I say find ways to help the ecology but keep the areas open!
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jun 19, 2003, 5:32 PM
Post #14 of 62
(7858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
The problem with Larson's position, as I understand it, is the extremist nature of his espoused philosophy. I didn't hear him say anything about balancing the recreational (climbing) interests against the protection of natural cliff species. All I hears was how much damage climbers do to the environment.
This is not a battle unique to Canada, by the way. At Hueco tanks, there are similar extremists who would prefer to take the word "park" out of Hueco Tanks State Park and make the area an archeological preserve, with no access to anyone but professional researchers.
In my view, if you ban people totally from access to a given resource, exactly what are you protecting that resource for?
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
mhr2000
Jun 19, 2003, 5:41 PM
Post #15 of 62
(7858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2002
Posts: 290
|
Larson is clearly a one-sided tree-hugging extremist. I think he's creating issues just to keep the grant money coming.
But, who knows....he could secretly be climber who just wants the cliffs all to himself. hmmmm.
Somebody should really mess with him and find some water filled rock jugs and place some minnows that are only found in America in them.
|
|
|
|
|
grigriese
Jun 19, 2003, 5:42 PM
Post #16 of 62
(7858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2002
Posts: 292
|
I feel that the removal of the Wilderness Designation by the Bush Administration will have exponentially more damaging effects on the environment than the sliver of limestone the researchers focused on for that "expose". http://www.camp4.com/index.php?newsid=468
|
|
|
|
|
rob
Jun 19, 2003, 6:01 PM
Post #17 of 62
(7858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 18, 2003
Posts: 37
|
Just to play devil's advocate for a moment. A common message I'm sensing in this thread is that the world is there for us to use and abuse. Is that really much different than the attitude of a logging company?
There have been comments to the effect of 'who cares if we kill some snails or lichen' and 'what's the point of saving it if noone will see it' etc. That presents a fairly ego-centric view of the universe. Is it all here for us? Are we the pinnacle and the point of evolution in the universe? It's a scary thought, but the biodiversity of the Earth has decreased by orders of magnitude since modern man rose to prominence. More and more species are going extinct or getting placed on the endangered lists every year. To say 'who cares about some stupid snails' is a pretty short sighted and narrow view of the world. Ecosystems are a fairly delicately balanced homeostatic system - like a machine. You start pulling cogs out, it might work for a while without some of them, but sooner or later the whole thing is going to collapse.
The whole issue with the Niagra Peninsula as I read it from the video piece is that it is a unique biozone. Which means it is home to many species of plant, insect, and animal that doesn't exist anywhere else in the world. You threaten them there, you are threatening them with extinction. It's much like threatening the Galapagos Islands or the Rain Forest. Although the Niagra Peninsula may not seem or sound as exotic as either of those locations, that could be because it is more like home and seems less special because we, in North America, see sights much like it on an almost daily basis.
All that said, I think there is room for compromise. There is room for climbing and conservation, unfortunately this may mean restricting climbing in some areas or requiring permits for some areas. It may mean listening to people like Doug Larson and not writing them off as killjoy crackpots. Perhaps he gets as much out of lichen and biodiversity as we get out of climbing, what's to say it is our right to pursue our enjoyment at the expense of his -- especially when there are literally thousands and thousands of other places we can climb. Places that are not unique biozones.
0.02 from the other side..
rob
|
|
|
|
|
katydid
Jun 19, 2003, 6:08 PM
Post #18 of 62
(7858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 13, 2002
Posts: 3212
|
It would be nice to see a rebuttal article featuring our own ecocliffchick (who's doing her Master's on cliff ecology and climbing's impact on it) and perhaps darkside (active in the ACCess Committee in that area). We're talking about maybe 1/2 of 1% of the entire Escarpment being climbed on right now, if that much -- most climbers know about the old-growth cedars in the area (I love that being presented like it's some sort of new discovery, because it sure as hell ain't) and avoid them like the plague. AFAIK new routes haven't been going up at Rattlesnake for ages, either. (In large part because there's likely not any more to BE put up.)
So, like Mount Nemo, it looks like a toproping ban is going to be put into place.
There's going to be nowhere for beginning climbers to go in Southern Ontario except gyms pretty soon. It's a real pity.
And we're not talking about climbing on the entire Escarpment, here. Rattlesnake Point is a tiny fraction of the whole thing. Dude makes it sound like climbers want to napalm the whole thing and use it as a 700-km-long gym, and the biased presentation of the Discovery article didn't help any, either.
Mad, mad, mad.
k.
|
|
|
|
|
hoppinbig
Jun 19, 2003, 6:18 PM
Post #19 of 62
(7858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 409
|
Thanks for everyone's feedback. Katydid and others made valid points - along the entire 700km escarpment there are 5 (give or take) crags for climbers to use - the other 680+ kms are untouched. I have climbed every crag in the escarpement and know each area well enough to know that this is not an accurate piece of reporting. This is a totally unbalanced, unfair segment with one goal - the total closure of climbing on the Niagara escarpment.
I have never said climbers don't make an impact - sure we do - at places like rattlesnake where beginners are bused in to toprope the is undoubtably going to be trail erosion and soil compaction. There has to be a fair middle ground between paving over all the trees and bolting the entire escarpment on one end - and totally closing it to climbing on the other.
I am not a tree hugging liberal nor am I pro eco destruction - I have a problem with pieces of reporting such as this - aired under the flag of unbiased reporting by the media.
|
|
|
|
|
climberpunk
Jun 19, 2003, 6:21 PM
Post #20 of 62
(7858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2003
Posts: 171
|
as absurd as this is, the worst part isnt the extremist nature of his 'solution' but the fact that he is ingoring much much much worse aspects of society as pertaining to destruction of wilderness. Many climbers are activists, or at least environmentally concerned, and lots always pratice leave-no-trace. Of course there are many that dont, and make a mess of the place, but compare the state of wildlife in say your local over-climbed, crowded, trashed crag, the worst that climbers have done, to the areas of national parks being opened to loggers/oil drillers by Bush. OF COURSE climbers have a negative effect on nature, but SUV's have done more to damage the earth already than climbers EVER WILL....these are the issues that need to be addressed, not closing cliffs to climbers.
|
|
|
|
|
pamccart
Jun 19, 2003, 6:30 PM
Post #21 of 62
(7858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2003
Posts: 4
|
I agree with hoppinbig. I used to live in buffalo and have been to the escarpment many times. I do not think that Larsen piece is fair or accurate. Granted the escarpment is very close to Toronto and does see a lot of beginners, I think he has extremely over exaggerated it's problems.
|
|
|
|
|
kman
Jun 19, 2003, 6:38 PM
Post #22 of 62
(7858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 16, 2001
Posts: 2561
|
SAVE THE LICHEN!!!!!! :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
michell_e
Jun 19, 2003, 6:58 PM
Post #23 of 62
(7858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2002
Posts: 49
|
there is another discussion on this topic going on at Gripped.com. People have offered some logical, valuable arguments and there is contact information for the many groups involved in this issue - check it out and make your voice heard to the people who make the decisions! we need to support responsible access solutions.
http://www.gripped.com/forum/toast.asp?sub=show&action=posts&fid=8&tid=533
|
|
|
|
|
keinangst
Jun 19, 2003, 6:59 PM
Post #24 of 62
(7858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2003
Posts: 1408
|
I still see something like this as one group's attempt to go after another group (climbers) to effect some kind of change or restriction--knowing full well that they don't have the might to go after 99% of the biodiversity killers in the world.
This stuff seems like it should be #4,618 on the priority list of environmental ills that need to be addressed. As mentioned above, climbing is not the exclusive reason that there is lack of vegetation and fauna--we usually spot the areas that are pretty bare, thus reducing our overall impact.
And don't forget, kids, Mount Krakatoa did more damage to the world's environment in a week than mankind has done in the last 120 years, including CFCs :shock:
|
|
|
|
|
hunter
Jun 19, 2003, 7:04 PM
Post #25 of 62
(7858 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 3, 2002
Posts: 121
|
Conservation versus preservation is an old debate. Folks often find themselves leaning towards preservation till it happens to conflict with something they want to do. What preservationist’s conveniently overlook is that they in some way change the environment each and every day. We weren't put on this planet to treat it like a zoo. We were put on it to live on it and make use its renewable resources.
Earth First! We'll log the other planets later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
