|
|
|
|
phaedrus
Aug 5, 2004, 10:12 PM
Post #1 of 20
(6890 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 3046
|
Got this from an Access Fund Action Alert Email:
BLM RELEASES INDIAN CREEK RECREATION PLAN
PUBLIC COMMENTS NEEDED BY AUGUST 31
The BLM just released its Draft Indian Creek Recreation Plan (http://www.blm.gov/.../monticello/ICEA.pdf), which presents alternatives for managing camping and climbing at Indian Creek. The BLM's "preferred" Alternative B provides for self-management with a one-year no fees trial period. In areas where more developed facilities and services are provided, fees would be charged. These areas include Hamburger Rock Campground and the new Shay Mountain Vista Campground. If you support less management and no fees write the BLM by August 31 and urge them to select Alternative B for the Indian Creek Plan.
This will be the last time the public has an opportunity to comment on and influence the BLM's decision-making on how Indian Creek should be managed.
Preferred Alternative B
Climbing Management
Actual climbing restrictions are few. No climbing would be allowed on routes that may impact cultural resources. The BLM would also seasonally close and post climbing routes which adversely impact nesting raptors. The establishment of new routes and placing of bolts and anchors would be allowed.
Camping
Undesignated dispersed camping within the Indian Creek Corridor would be allowed. As needs are identified, closure of areas to dispersed camping would be addressed through revisions to the Resource Management Plan (RMP) or emergency closures. Such areas may include: areas which can only be accessed by crossing private land, areas in which camping is found to be in conflict with cultural resources, and/or areas in which camping is found to be in conflict with natural resources. Campfires are restricted to fire rings where fire rings are available. Where fire rings are not available, and in dispersed camping areas, fires would be subject to "Leave No Trace" standards. Wood collecting would be prohibited throughout the entire Indian Creek Corridor planning area.
The "Bridger Jack" and "Creek Pasture" camping areas would be designated and developed according to formal site plans. Facilities at these sites may include the installation of fire rings, educational kiosks or signs, delineated parking areas, and campsite marker posts, and toilets. A one-year trial pack-in/pack-out policy would be enforced for handling human waste issues. If waste problems persist or increase, portable toilets would be required or restrooms would be installed. No fees would be charged for use of these areas unless it is determined that restrooms are needed. At that point, options for covering the cost of installation and maintenance of restrooms would be explored.
Dispersed camping at the "Cottonwoods Camp" and "Superbowl" camping areas would be allowed, but not encouraged. No facilities or services would be implemented, and therefore, no fees would be charged. A one-year trial pack-in/pack-out policy would be enforced for these areas. If at the end of the trial period, this policy were not found to be effective, a recommendation would be made that the Resource Management Plan close these areas to dispersed camping.
Sanitation and Garbage
A one-year trial period pack-in/pack-out policy would be enforced for all areas without restrooms and garbage receptacles. If problems with human waste persist or increase, portable toilets would be required or restrooms would be installed in these areas. Dog waste must be buried or disposed of properly.
The following standards would be applied and enforced during the trial period:
• Adherence to the Leave No Trace standards is required.
• Provision and use of a "wag bag" system or portable toilet is required.
• Use of cat holes for human waste is prohibited.
• Leaving or burying toilet paper is prohibited.
• Packing out all trash and garbage is required.
• Screening or filtering of grey water is required before dumping.
The pack-in/pack-out policy would remain in place as long as both the public and BLM think that it is working. If at any time in the future the BLM determines that the pack-in/pack-out policy is no longer effective, permanent restrooms would be installed and fees would be charged to cover the costs of construction and maintenance of the restrooms.
Donnelly Canyon
Donnelly Canyon would also be developed according to a formal BLM site plan. Adequate parking and restroom facilities may be installed depending on yet to be determined land ownership boundaries. The Donnelly Canyon site plan may also include the installation of educational kiosks or signs, and the establishment of recreational access trails. No fees would be charged for use of this area.
* * *
Alternative B is a really good deal for climbers, especially considering what might have been proposed. It is clear that the Monticello BLM seeks to establish a model land management plan where public preferences are emphasized. We control the future of Indian Creek. While a few "improvements" will be made to designated camping locations at Bridger Jack and Creek Pasture, the thrust of Alternative B will allow climbers to self-manage themselves by requiring folks to pack out their own waste. Nearly all of the dispersed camping will be retained and there will be no fees charged for access to or camping at Indian Creek, at least until the BLM determines that facilities are needed to mitigate unacceptable human sanitation and garbage impacts. In short, Alternative B has very few restrictions while still providing a vision for limiting future user impacts. The community that uses Indian Creek (climbers) will be able to control the level of BLM management by showing that we can take care of the area without fees or restrictions. As long as we take care of the place it will remain largely undeveloped and free.
So, if you support self-regulation, less BLM involvement in your Indian Creek experience (while still retaining access to your favorite camping sites), no fees, and a plan for preserving the existing primitive character of the area, write the BLM and urge them to select Alternative B for the Indian Creek Plan.
Comments should be sent by August 31 to the Monticello Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management: Attention, Scott Berkenfield Supervisory Outdoor Recreation Planner, Box 7, Monticello, Utah, 84534 or by email at Scott_Berkenfield@blm.gov.
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Aug 6, 2004, 12:01 AM
Post #2 of 20
(6890 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
Just opened the same email from them... I was gonna post it, but you did first. Good job. :wink:
Probably gonna make this the TOW after Aug 11, when the cut off date for the Fized Anchor ban in Tahquitz passes for comments.
|
|
|
|
|
phaedrus
Aug 6, 2004, 12:09 AM
Post #3 of 20
(6890 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 3046
|
Cool... yeah... I was thinking it should be, too.
|
|
|
|
|
sevrdhed
Aug 12, 2004, 8:07 PM
Post #4 of 20
(6890 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 5, 2004
Posts: 923
|
At first, when I was reading that, I though you were against the alternative B, and I was thinking "You know, that actually sounds pretty good". I'll be sending in my persuasive arguements.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
diesel___smoke
Aug 16, 2004, 2:19 AM
Post #5 of 20
(6890 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 9, 2003
Posts: 507
|
Please do not support any part of this proposal... reject it in it's entirety.
If you'd like a template to send these parties - please PM me and I'll make one up for you.
|
|
|
|
|
okieterry
Aug 18, 2004, 5:52 PM
Post #6 of 20
(6890 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 11, 2002
Posts: 273
|
In reply to: Please do not support any part of this proposal... reject it in it's entirety.
Diesel___smoke, why??? It seems like a pretty good deal for those of us who like free and "undeveloped" camping in the canyon.
|
|
|
|
|
diesel___smoke
Aug 20, 2004, 10:49 PM
Post #7 of 20
(6890 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 9, 2003
Posts: 507
|
Hmmm, the post Okieterry is referring to is yet another one of my posts that have been deleted by one of RC.com's spineless, circle-jerk minions that in no way violated the precious TOS. I have not been contacted with an explanation about the deletion of this post because, it appears, the moderator wishes to remain behind a veil of secrecy. At this point, I am only left to suspect it was Skibabeage since I've been warned of her and her many inconsistencies.
Ok the reason I said not to support and part of the proposal...
First, why does there need to be change? Why regulate the area more so? Second, if we compromise to this, it shows a weakness to the heavy-handedness of the government, regardless of how 'reasonable' this proposal may appear. Once you start, regulation will only continue, it's perpetual.
I only have a couple of minutes so let me write a short template for anyone that supports my opinion for them submit to the necessary parties.
"Subject: Proposed Indian Creek Recreation Plan
As your constituent, I urge you to oppose any restrictions of access, use, or otherwise, or any revisions to the current plan, of Indian Creek, Utah. Which is now under current consideration of a proposed act by the BLM. Please reject this proposal in it's entirety. While I completely support 'Leave No Trace' ethics, I do not believe any government involvement is necessary in this situation and any action would only serve to be counter-productive and cause unnecessary resentment amongst climbers towards the regulating authority.
Once again, I urge you to oppose any consideration of this proposed plan and leave the current plan intact.
I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this matter.
Sincerely,
(Your name)"
Since I don't suspect this post will remain unless I take some precautions to preserve it due to the possible unreliability of this forum's moderator, I am PMing some admins/mods I believe to be trustworthy to show them I have done nothing that violates the TOS is this post and there is no reason for it to be edited or deleted.
|
|
|
|
|
atg200
Aug 20, 2004, 11:13 PM
Post #8 of 20
(6890 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 4317
|
have you ever been to indian creek diesel__smoke?
i'm no fan of unnecessary government regulation, but something does need to be done. the camping around bridger jack is getting trashed. a hundred or more people can be camped there in a very busy weekend, and with no bathroom facilities of any kind the area is taking a beating. the crypto soil is thoroughly stomped, and the whole area is a dookie minefield. same thing with the area around the base of donnelly/supercrowded buttress.
this is an incredibly fair proposal. claiming no action is needed is dangerously naive.
|
|
|
|
|
madmax
Aug 23, 2004, 5:55 PM
Post #9 of 20
(6890 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2003
Posts: 354
|
Tricky issue. On the one hand, I agree with diesel in that once we allow some regulation it will gain momentum and potentially get out of our control. No one wants to see the Creek become regulated like the Valley. Part of the beauty and lure of the Creek is its undeveloped and remote feeling.
On the other hand, I agree with atg200 in that the Bridger campground is getting trashed. Morning bowel movement is also known as turd mining, and it's only gonna get worse. Toilets would be a great relief on the environment. I would be willing to pay a small fee for toilets. Toilets might help relieve some of the damage to the crypto, as well. But, as mentioned, once we start paying a "small fee" (determining that amount is another issue), we allow the potential for that fee to increase and increase and...
Phaedrus wrote, "the thrust of Alternative B will allow climbers to self-manage themselves by requiring folks to pack out their own waste." While self-regulation sounds like the best solution, climbers ain't gonna pack out their poop. It's just not practical. Toilets seem to be the solution. Can we have toilets, but no designated camp sites and other amenities?
To me it seems like the poop is the crux of the bisquit.
As the main users of the Creek and the people responsible for the largest impact, we climbers need to take action one way or the other. Silence will only hurt us all.
|
|
|
|
|
rockprodigy
Aug 23, 2004, 7:36 PM
Post #10 of 20
(6890 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2002
Posts: 1540
|
The only way that the Indian Creek Corridor can continue to be un-managed is if climbers like all of us decide to stop going there. The glory days are over, the place is getting more and more crowded, and if some management isn't instituted, it will be destroyed. Despite all the
"LNT" bull$hit that we climbers preach, we are a very destructive user group. We seem to think we have the right to $hit wherever we want, or that somehow we're better at hiding it (we're not). And despite our collective contempt for OHV's we think WE have the right to drive over whatever vegetation we want if it shortens the approach a bit.
The place needs bathrooms, and the roads need barriers of some kind. We have proven that we can't police ourselves, so for lack of anything better, I welcome the BLM's assistance.
|
|
|
|
|
beesty511
Aug 23, 2004, 8:22 PM
Post #11 of 20
(6890 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2004
Posts: 336
|
I couldn't agree more rockprodigy. In fact, I'll go one step further: I think climbers should be banned from Indian Creek. As a group they've trashed the area, and they should be kicked out. They have broken all the rules to suit their own conveniences.
In my experience, "Leave no Trace" is almost universally ignored by climbers. I think the motto should be changed to "Leave a Trace": i.e. when you see tape, gatorade bottles, power bar wrappers, pieces of sling, or plastic chalk containers lying around, pick them up. That way you will leave a trace--the area will be cleaner than when you arrived.
I don't get the preserve-access-for-climbers-at-all-cost mentality. If the primary consideration is to preserve the land, and if climbers have a major negative impact, then they shouldn't demand access--it's hypocritical. Part of maturing as a person and being able to live in a community with other people involves making choices that don't necessarily benefit you.
|
|
|
|
|
cliffhanger9
Moderator
Aug 23, 2004, 8:27 PM
Post #12 of 20
(6890 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2002
Posts: 2275
|
In reply to: Hmmm, the post Okieterry is referring to is yet another one of my posts that have been deleted by one of RC.com's spineless, circle-jerk minions that in no way violated the precious TOS. I have not been contacted with an explanation about the deletion of this post because, it appears, the moderator wishes to remain behind a veil of secrecy. At this point, I am only left to suspect it was Skibabeage since I've been warned of her and her many inconsistencies. .... Since I don't suspect this post will remain unless I take some precautions to preserve it due to the possible unreliability of this forum's moderator, I am PMing some admins/mods I believe to be trustworthy to show them I have done nothing that violates the TOS is this post and there is no reason for it to be edited or deleted.
chill dude. its prolly just a bug..
http://www.rockclimbing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=68777
..the whole world is not out to get you. :roll: :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
atg200
Aug 23, 2004, 10:12 PM
Post #13 of 20
(6890 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 4317
|
In reply to: In fact, I'll go one step further: I think climbers should be banned from Indian Creek.
in that case, you every bit as big a nut as diesel__smoke. the place is not and never has been a wilderness - no place with a working cattle ranch is. the creek just needs a lot of work to fix the crappy braided trails, put in bathrooms, set some boundaries about where camping is cool and where it isn't, and people need to treat it with respect. most people do - there are always just a few in the crowd that spoil things for everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Aug 23, 2004, 10:53 PM
Post #14 of 20
(6890 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
The unfortunate fact is... If we cannot regulate ourselves, then we show that we need to be regulated.
A lot of climbers now-a-days do not seem to know how to act at the crags and on public land that we share with non climbers also.
I once saw/heard a teen at JTree cussing up a storm because he couldn't stick a V5 move... A grandfather, hiw wife, and grandkids were walking through closeby, and the grandfather politly asked the teen, "hey son, can you please not curse ??? I have my grandchilders here." To which the teen yelled, "Fuck You old man !!! And I'm not your son." Who do you think is more likely to write their congressman about use of public lands ??? My frinds and I tore him a new one after they left.
At JTree again, I saw a hippy with dreads who had driven his VW van over some bushes to get next to the table inside a campsite, come out of the desert with an armfull of JTree limbs he had ripped from a tree for his fire. I asked him if he was a climber, and he replied, "yeaaaa duuuuude... Isn't this place rad ???" I explained that it took lots of climbers like me donating $$$ to the AF to try to undo the damage done by idiots like him.
|
|
|
|
|
diesel___smoke
Aug 24, 2004, 12:35 AM
Post #15 of 20
(6890 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 9, 2003
Posts: 507
|
Government action isn't the only way to accomplish what it is that needs to be done with Indian Creek, yet you people seem to whole-heartedly believe it is. Something should be done, but why must it always involve the government? I am sure the Access Fund would also favor having private regulation/improvement of this area, rather than government involvement for realization of the momentum effect of restrictions that inevitably follow such action.
It all comes down to most of you aren't willing to do half of what you preach. How many have even bothered to send emails or letters expressing your opinion(s) to officials, whichever way you lean on this matter? Has anyone considered opening a trust account for Indian Creek? How many would consider editing the proposal and submitting it back to the BLM?
Once you invite government regulation, you must realize that it starts being run for the interests of those overseeing it and removal of these people from the matrix is almost impossible. It's like that for a reason. You're are swinging a double-edged sword - don't expect it not to ultimately cut you the deepest in the end.
E.g. - Do you think if during the 'golden age' in Yosemite that if the limitation of stay would have been aggressively fought that there would now be the requirement of ID to register in Camp 4, and computer tracking? Seemingly a little targeting, eh? How many have sent emails or letters, or proposed ideas over that issue also? Do you think if all restrictive issues had been rabidly fought there would be anywhere near the regulation there is today? Can you predict the same type of regulation in the future at Indian Creek, or has that never crossed your mind? Do you see climbing being banned in the Valley altogether in the future? It's possible, and most likely probable if things continue to go unchecked.
And yes - I have visited Indian Creek, Andrew. What saddens me is that I have little desire to climb there, but apparently have more desire to protect access in any degree than those who frequent the area, and am more than willing to do what I can, even though I doubt I'll ever bother to fully enjoy all the rewards that the Creek offers. But considering the majority opinion, I guess it should come as no surprise to me that the government is as strong as it is given it's almost unrestricted opposition, yet it always does... Eventually it appears that there will be so many fascist-minded restrictions on climbing that to pursue it would be worthless and tiresome in the US, along with every other pursuit.
The over reliance on the government is unbelievable. Each of us was born with a backbone. It's ok to stand alone; you don't always need the crutch of the government to support you.
A sad day...
|
|
|
|
|
rockprodigy
Aug 24, 2004, 2:44 PM
Post #16 of 20
(6890 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2002
Posts: 1540
|
Climbers have had plenty of time to take action at Indian Creek, and do you know what we've done so far? We put up an "information kiosk"! Whoopty-doo! The place needs $hitters and it needs law enforcement. I don't know of many private groups that will take on the long term maintenance of toilets, and nobody but the government can enforce the laws.
I actually sent in comments on this proposal way back in April when it first came out and the Access Fund was begging people to respond. I'm not surprised that you haven't spent much time at the Creek because I think that if you had, you would realize that it has gotten out of control. Every time I go to Battle of the Bulge, and wander a few feet off the trail, I always discover a new pile of $hit poorly hidden in the talus. I'm getting tired of it.
As for yosemite, I think it's about time they enforced the one week restriction (which has been on the books for years). Yosemite is a sought after destination, and many people should have the opportunity to enjoy it. I'm sorry if it interferes with your "endless summer", but why should climbers be allowed to stay longer than anyone else? If yosemite had been allowed to evolve unregulated over the past 40 years, I think it would look like a giant moonscape by now. You would have people camping, driving and parking all over the meadows, chopping down the trees for firewood and feeding black bears out of their hands.
Government can serve a good purpose in some cases. As the population grows and places get more crowded, we have to accept some regulation in order to preserve resources for the future.
|
|
|
|
|
madmax
Aug 24, 2004, 4:44 PM
Post #17 of 20
(6890 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2003
Posts: 354
|
So, for the sake of arguement, let's say shitters are installed and campsites are designated; what would be an acceptable fee to pay? Should the fee be car or person based?
|
|
|
|
|
atg200
Aug 24, 2004, 5:02 PM
Post #18 of 20
(6890 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 4317
|
You are an alarmist ass diesel__smoke. Have you been to Zion or the Black Canyon? The government has done an absolutely outstanding job of protecting the environment, preserving access, and catering to climbers in those areas. The government should take the lead in protecting Indian Creek because it is mostly BLM land.
It must be exhausting making tinfoil hats and hiding from the black helicopters all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
madmax
Aug 24, 2004, 5:35 PM
Post #19 of 20
(6890 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 23, 2003
Posts: 354
|
The Black is an excellent example of good government management, atg200. The North Rim campground is simple and unobtrusive, and I don't know of any efforts to further regulate it. Hopefully it stays like that. While the North Rim campground may serve as a good example of the kind of regulation we might hope for at the Creek, the Creek has one factor that the Black doesn't have: hoards of people. The committing and remote nature of climbing in the Black tends to keep away a lot of people and thus lessens the impact of climbers on the environment; while the sport cragging of the Creek attracts a wide variety of people, some who are insensitive to their impact on the environment.
The solution is to be heard as a climber. If we remain active and communicate with those in charge of regulating the Creek, then we should get what we want. If we remain silent, then we get what others have decided.
This discussion makes me think of Hueco. Back in the hey-day, Hueco was getting trashed. No, it wasn't just climbers, but as the largest user group, we climbers were certainly responsible for a large portion of the impact. Look where Hueco is today. Some people might argue (diesel_smoke, perhaps) that the government has completely taken away the park from climbers and that it is regulated to the gills. There is some truth to that point of view, but there is also as much truth to the perspective that the regulations have had a positive impact on the environment.
|
|
|
|
|
climber_chick
Aug 30, 2004, 8:27 AM
Post #20 of 20
(6890 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2001
Posts: 278
|
In reply to: The unfortunate fact is... If we cannot regulate ourselves, then we show that we need to be regulated. A lot of climbers now-a-days do not seem to know how to act at the crags and on public land that we share with non climbers also. I once saw/heard a teen at JTree cussing up a storm because he couldn't stick a V5 move... A grandfather, hiw wife, and grandkids were walking through closeby, and the grandfather politly asked the teen, "hey son, can you please not curse ??? I have my grandchilders here." To which the teen yelled, "f--- You old man !!! And I'm not your son." Who do you think is more likely to write their congressman about use of public lands ??? My frinds and I tore him a new one after they left. At JTree again, I saw a hippy with dreads who had driven his VW van over some bushes to get next to the table inside a campsite, come out of the desert with an armfull of JTree limbs he had ripped from a tree for his fire. I asked him if he was a climber, and he replied, "yeaaaa duuuuude... Isn't this place rad ???" I explained that it took lots of climbers like me donating $$$ to the AF to try to undo the damage done by idiots like him.
You are my hero. I've never quite had the guts to go confront assholes like that. Someone needs to teach people a few lessons, but I can't say that I am a very intimidating person. Most likely, I would get the shit kicked out of me first. Yeehaw.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
