hmmmm, id agree with the ban on new fixed gear.

but preventing existing gear to be replaced is stupid and dangerous.

I'm sorry, but do you have a clue what you're talking about? Or just upping your post count?

He means that additional fixed anchors may be unnecessary, but replacing existing old bolts is OK with him.

Curt

Precedence.

To Whom it May Concern:

I would like to register my concern over stipulation SBNF S10 of the Southern California Land Management Plan Revisions. While I (and the rock climbing community) applaud all efforts to minimize recreational impact on SBNF, this measure is dangerously vague, and will liklely result in a far greater impact on the area.

When a new climb is established, the climbers generally have three options for descent: rappell from fixed gear (usually small, discrete, camoflaged bolts), rappell from small shrubs/trees (a dangerous practice that eventually can kill the flora) or bushwhack a trail from the top down. Bolts minimize the impact on a climbing area by circumventing the need for makeshift descent trails and preserving the original state of the wall.

The other problem with the measure is that it seems to prohibit the replacement of presently existing anchors. Many of these anchors are dangerously old (Tahquitz is perhaps the olest climbing locale in the United States, and much of the original gear remains in place). By forcing climbers to rely on dangerous gear, you can be assurred that an accident is likely to occur, and the victim's families would finld no comfort in the fact that the incident could have been prevented by allowing climbers to maintain the quality of the anchors in SBNF. Please, consider the following revisions to SBNF S10:

Consider compromise efforts such as mandating that all new fixed anchors be camoflaged, thus becoming invisible to the casual observer on the ground.

Or, at least specifically allow the replacement of antiquated gear presently on the wall.

Thank you frou your cooperation. By working together, land managers and climbers can ensure that SBNF is fully enjoyed by its visitors, and preserved for generations to come.

My comments were #595....almost 3/5 of the way to Randy's goal of 1000!!

I was wondering what the reasoning is behind the ban? I haven't had a chance to check out the site yet. Does it explain why?

"SBNF10 No new fixed anchors for rock climbing are allowed."

That's all it says! No explanation or justification!!!!!!!!

I just took a look at The Acess Funds site. I hadn't bothered to till now as I just assumed that they would be right on this. It does after all effectively kill climbing at the birthplace of the decimal rating system. Hard to find a place in the country more historic than that!

As of today, not one mention of this on their site or an action alert posted! :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: