|
bitsofsod
Aug 24, 2002, 1:24 PM
Post #1 of 31
(3922 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2002
Posts: 54
|
Earlier this week there was a post about the tree slinging ban at Nemo, but now it's gone. Anybody have any news on this?
|
|
|
|
|
lemurboy
Aug 24, 2002, 4:44 PM
Post #2 of 31
(3922 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 3, 2002
Posts: 215
|
about the tree slinging ban at Nemo
I believe that there has always been a tree slinging ban at Nemo.
If you are into top roping mostly you can, just as long as you use pro to build the anchor at the top.
If you must use a tree you should try to use any tree other than the cedars.
|
|
|
|
|
darkside
Aug 24, 2002, 4:52 PM
Post #3 of 31
(3922 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2001
Posts: 1687
|
bitofsod: I am on the ACCess Committee so you can take this as reliable although I have yet to confirm details. Conservation Halton have been consulting with us on environmental damage and have decided on a number of actions.
-To phase in a ban on slinging cedars/trees. This will take different forms/dates at different crags.
-To install bolted anchors as an alternative to slinging trees. This is to be done by the ACCess Committee in conjunction with Conservation Halton and not by individuals.
-The anchor project is to be initiated at Rattlesnake and then expanded to Buffalo Crag and other crags as time and funding allows.
-Where trees have to be slung, padding must be used. (This is a long-standing recommendation of the AC). The gatehouse at Rattlesnake will have a supply of pads for loan.
-Conservation Halton understands the situation where a lead climber tops out and has to belay the second up the climb but would ask that the leader avoid the use of trees unless there is absolutely no alternative.
-The AC encourages the use of traditional gear when setting top anchors as a more environmentally protective alternative to slinging trees.
-You are asked to realize that a TR ban protects more than just the trees. It reduces damage to other vegetation, reduces soil compaction, and avoids unnecessary trampling of young saplings.
-The previous voluntary TR ban at Nemo was climber conceived but was ignored by many. Anyone having TR'ed at Nemo in the past has contributed to Conservation Halton now making a COMPULSORY TOP ROPE BAN. This TR ban will be effective as of September 2002.
|
|
|
|
|
terrainerist
Aug 25, 2002, 2:21 PM
Post #4 of 31
(3922 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 25, 2002
Posts: 36
|
It's always good to see climbers active in insuring access. Mt. Nemo is a great area with some nice sport climbs.
I've driven by Rattlesnake (not interested in TRing that much) tried some traddin at Buffalo (wasn't that enjoyable)
Anybody know what's up with putting up new sport climbing lines?
|
|
|
|
|
c_plante
Aug 26, 2002, 12:04 AM
Post #5 of 31
(3922 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 9, 2001
Posts: 265
|
Darkside:
I top rope at nemo, I haven't learned to lead yet, nor trad. I'd love to and would prefer to do it that way once I'm strong enough and at a higher level, but for now it's top roping. So if I can't top rope and I can't do trad/lead, what do I do?
christian
|
|
|
|
|
bitsofsod
Aug 26, 2002, 1:06 AM
Post #6 of 31
(3922 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 22, 2002
Posts: 54
|
Access issues are tough; I struggled with mountain bike access issues and can appreciate the difficulty your committee faces, darkside. Yours is a tough job.
The brochure you get when you give the guy in the gatehouse your $5.00 says nothing about a (voluntary) toprope ban, and I don't recall seeing anything about such a ban on the large sign at the trailhead. Too bad the voluntary ban you mentioned becomes compulsory next week.
So, no toproping, even from the fixed anchors? I guess I better hone up on my sport climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
lemurboy
Aug 26, 2002, 1:37 AM
Post #7 of 31
(3922 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 3, 2002
Posts: 215
|
II believe that the top rope ban is not no TRing at all... just make sure that no trees are used as anchors.
When I fisrt started climbing I just used several Nuts (Black Diamond odd sizes) and a couple Hexes (3,5,6). these seemed to do the trick just fine...also you can sling boulders on top.
However if you hook up with the right partner or take a course at the gym you can learn to lead. Nemo has Tons of awesome sport climbs to have some fun on !
|
|
|
|
|
krillen
Aug 26, 2002, 1:54 AM
Post #8 of 31
(3922 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 19, 2001
Posts: 4769
|
As for new sport lines there is also no new route devlopment at Mount Nemo. Although I can't really see where you'd put up a new route anyway. Nemo has always been Trad dominant, but still had great sport climbing. I hope we can all spread the word so that it can be kept open for climbing in the future. Closures in the GTA are VERY real and closer than you guys think.
Grant: I have some carpet for tree padding, where/to whom do I drop it off?
[ This Message was edited by: krillen on 2002-08-25 19:05 ]
|
|
|
|
|
c_plante
Aug 26, 2002, 10:01 PM
Post #9 of 31
(3922 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 9, 2001
Posts: 265
|
Krillen; How close to you think closures are?
And if it does happen, what happens to us?
Christian
|
|
|
|
|
darkside
Aug 27, 2002, 5:38 AM
Post #10 of 31
(3922 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2001
Posts: 1687
|
Sorry for not checking back on this thread before now guys. I'll try some quick answers.
*new routes. True there is currently a new route moratorium. Note by definition though that a moratorium is temporary. CH is wanting some form of review and approval for new routes. At this time no such system exists but the ACCess Committee will continue to monitor and try to develop something suitable to meet CH's approval.
*The ban on slinging of trees will be introduced for all CH lands eventually, hence the bolting project at Rattlesnake. People wishing to TR will still have the option to climb at crags such as Rattlesnake, Buffalo, and Kelso for now. CH has expressed a desire to eliminate TR at Nemo because of the nature of the area.
If you're not capable of leading at this time you can always become my belay slave or find some one else to climb with that is capable of doing so. This may not seem so great and I appreciate wanting to climb at Nemo but take it as an incentive to advance your climbing skills. Come to the dark side.
*Brochures and signs- the voluntary ban was climber conceived therefore no mention of it in the brochures. They are CH brochures too.
The new big sign and smaller "do not throw rocks..." were produced by the ACCess Committee but between the red tape, financing, and getting them erected by CH, they have been in the works for well over a year. CH's desire to eliminate tree slinging came to action this summer. That is why they do not reflect new regulations.
TR ban at Nemo- tree slinging ban coming elsewhere. Please note my previous post on how a TR ban protects more than just trees. The line between circumvention and breaking is a thin one that some people won't see. Even if a leader tops out, sets an anchor with gear and lowers off, others walking by may see a TR setup and take it as meaning it is OK to TR. Do you see the problem there?
Now if one person leads a sport route and then the rest of the group TR's the route from draws on the fixed anchors, the problems associated with topping out are essentially eliminated.
*carpet- not sure. you may want to contact CH with a view to leaving it at the gatehouse at Rattlesnake.
*Closures- while access is far from secure, the strong communications and relationships that the ACCess Committee share with many land owners/managers puts us in a good position to deal with access threats. By way of example look at the closures we faced with ice in the Hamilton area last year. I am proud to have been associated with the effort to keep access open even if the ice never did really form. The situation there is under review and closures could still come but I am confident we can avoid that with help and compliance from climbers.
*Reality check- it is easier to keep areas open than to lobby to re-open them.
*Reality check 2- it is the failure to protect the environment voluntarily that has lead to the new regulations from CH.
What happens to us? Simple, we lose our climbing PRIVILEDGES.
|
|
|
|
|
c_plante
Aug 27, 2002, 6:29 AM
Post #11 of 31
(3922 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 9, 2001
Posts: 265
|
That's it! We should all move to Squamish in protest
Christian
|
|
|
|
|
geezergecko
Aug 27, 2002, 1:13 PM
Post #12 of 31
(3922 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 26, 2002
Posts: 729
|
Not much of a protest if you disappear from the scene. I can think of some self righteous bolt choppers that I would like to see protest like that. Come to think of it most of them already are in Squamish.
Many thanks to the ACCess commitee for preventing an outright ban on climbing. Seems that this sport has a very tenuous hold in Ontario (pun intended).
|
|
|
|
|
c_plante
Aug 28, 2002, 7:11 AM
Post #13 of 31
(3922 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 9, 2001
Posts: 265
|
People have been chopping bolts at nemo? I can see it if the bolt is old and chossy but if it's new it seems like a waste to cut the bolt, but I guess thats a topic that's been burned to death by pretty much every climber in the universe.
My two cents: If you cut it, replace it
|
|
|
|
|
xen_monkey
Aug 29, 2002, 6:09 PM
Post #14 of 31
(3922 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2001
Posts: 217
|
Grant, we've been slinging boulders, and non cedars at the top of nemo for the purpose of setiing TR anchors on the bolts (a backup for getting close to the edge). Maybe this is a redundent question, but should we stop this practice?
But hey I don't mind switching over to one of the other crags until a spot opens up in the never ending lead course line at Grav
|
|
|
|
|
c_plante
Aug 30, 2002, 7:45 AM
Post #15 of 31
(3922 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 9, 2001
Posts: 265
|
I've got an idea, let's get some welding torches, some cutting torches, some steel and a bunch of beer. Mix and hopefully an easily placeable eco-friendly TR anchor will be born! I've seen anchors for winches for when you're pulling cars out of the muck, something like that maybe?
Christian
|
|
|
|
|
geezergecko
Aug 30, 2002, 1:14 PM
Post #16 of 31
(3922 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 26, 2002
Posts: 729
|
Now we are getting silly. Some climbs at Metcalfe have 2 bolts on the top for TR anchors. This seems to be the least intrusive solution and one I believe that they are going to adopt at the Milton crags.
|
|
|
|
|
darkside
Aug 30, 2002, 3:09 PM
Post #17 of 31
(3922 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2001
Posts: 1687
|
Yeah, silly but then again we need to get silly once in a while
Did anyone think of portable skyhooks? just hook them in the sky and away you go.
OK true bolted anchors are coming to Milton. Initial thoughts were to place them back from the edge for safety and have them extended with webbing. I'm not sure if this has been decided yet or what the timeline is.
As I have stated previously, a TR ban protects more than trees. Let me explain. When a leader tops out, they are automatically at the top of the climb. An anchor is built, the second climbs, the anchor is removed and the climbers walk back away from the edge to the path(walking down is safer than rapping and unless setting a rap station that is left and retrieved at the end of the day, more tree friendly). Now when someone looks to set up a TR, they are approaching the edge to get their bearings. Having established where they are at in relation to the climb, they move left or right to the top of the climb. Then come the usual discussions with the person below as to where to position the anchor. Once that is decided, the anchors are set, the TR rigged, and the person moves back from the edge to the path.
OK so far, everyone agree with the scenario's. Sounds familiar right. Here are some of the differences then.
*Often the anchors are never weighted in a lead scenario whereas in a TR scenario they are invariably weighted as the climber lowers down. If then, the use of a tree was unavoidable, there is less chance of damage to the tree in the lead scenario.
*A leader has a rack and is more likely to have the experience with it to avoid the use of trees. Contrast that with someone who TR's because they do not have the experience to lead YET.
*As a person moves around at the top of the cliff, every footstep has a potential impact. The more you move around the more that potential for impact increases.
*The fact that lead climbers move from the edge, to the path one way only significantly reduces that potential for impact.
*The impact can take a number of forms:
-Vegetation is trampled underfoot. While grass may recover easily, some plants are not so resiliant.
-An old growth forest relies on new growth to regenerate. New saplings are easily broken and damaged as a person walks. For this I will cite Rattlesnake which has been descibed as merely an old forest distinct from an old growth forest because of the lack of growth at the cliff edge. It is this that CH are so anxious to prevent at Nemo.
-When you step on earth you compress it. With repeated passing of feet the earth is compacted to a point that it is like concrete. Even before this, new vegetation finds it very difficult to become established in such ground. Most woodland paths remain open because of soil compaction. It can reach a point where no growth can re-establish itself ever.
-Soil compaction and reduced vegetation lead to more runoff of rain rather it being absorbed into the ground. This starts or adds to the process of erosion.
-Dirt and soil carried by erosion is deposited down the clifface. This makes for a crappy climb(attention climbers) or leads to clifface ecology problems of a nature that I am not familiar.
All this because of a single foot step you ask, have you never heard of the 'power of one'?
Now this is not all down to TR'ers and I do not want to make them the villains of the picture. Everyone at the top of a cliff has an impact, climbers, hikers, bikers, and everyone alike. A TR ban then is about reducing the impact climbers have, while maintaining our privilege of climbing.
I hope I explained the benefits of a TR ban in a way that you can now go and explain to others. It is never as simple as one may first think.
Xen: for craps sake don't stop using leashes. If you have to leash to a tree then better than killing yourself. That is really bad for access Besides, a leash is rarely loaded eh!
|
|
|
|
|
downshift
Aug 31, 2002, 2:23 PM
Post #18 of 31
(3922 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2001
Posts: 589
|
Hey Grant is there anywhere we can donate money to the Milton Anchor program?
|
|
|
|
|
darkside
Sep 3, 2002, 2:59 AM
Post #19 of 31
(3922 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2001
Posts: 1687
|
I think the next ACCess meeting is next month. PM me closer to the end of September or send me an e-mail anytime and I will ask about that, although in previous discussions we have had some offers from MEC and were hoping the schools would pay their share.
|
|
|
|
|
downshift
Sep 5, 2002, 12:37 AM
Post #20 of 31
(3922 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2001
Posts: 589
|
Ok I'll be sure to remind you.
|
|
|
|
|
ecocliffchick
Sep 10, 2002, 2:05 PM
Post #21 of 31
(3922 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2002
Posts: 613
|
I was handed a brochure when I was at Nemo both this past Sat. and Sun. (Sept 7. 8.) The handout given to me at the gatehouse did not mention a top-rope ban. Instead it recommended padding the trees if you had to sling them. To me this seemed like a GIANT step backwards. Climbers (for the most part) have complied with the voluntary ban on toproping, but now with the Conservation Halton brochures, those climbers top-roping will be able to say that top-roping is fine with the conservation authority so long as they wrap the trees. The brochures mentioned a two year plan to phase out all slings on all trees - but mentioned nothing about the ban already being in effect. The last thing anyone wants it to see Nemo turn into another Rattlesnake Point. If the ACCess commitee has any means of changing the brochures being distributed at Nemo, I'd suggest taking action soon, before word gets out that top roping is fine at Nemo so long as you pad the trees.
|
|
|
|
|
darkside
Sep 11, 2002, 5:06 AM
Post #22 of 31
(3922 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2001
Posts: 1687
|
Padding trees etc was the ACCess Committee's recommendation regarding trees prior to CH's instigation of the mandatory TR ban. Sounds like a case of ....moving at the speed of government...
They'll catch up with themselves soon
|
|
|
|
|
downshift
Sep 12, 2002, 1:57 AM
Post #23 of 31
(3922 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2001
Posts: 589
|
Hey government doesn't work slow. I work in government and I... Oh never mind. Your right.
|
|
|
|
|
ecocliffchick
Sep 12, 2002, 5:03 PM
Post #24 of 31
(3922 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2002
Posts: 613
|
I still think the brochure should mention the voluntary top-rope ban that is "hopefully" still in effect. Last weekend at Nemo was the busiest I've ever seen it. There were at least 25 climbers at the Alfred wall and 12-15 climbers along the Iguanadon area. From overheard conversations, the majority of these climbers were new to the sport (didn't know what a stick clip was, couldn't understand why the first bolts were so high, etc.) and almost all were toproping. I'm really afraid that we're going to lose our precious routes to the toproping masses. The brochure states Nemo is open to toproping - and the topropers are out in full force already....
|
|
|
|
|
loosaboy
Sep 13, 2002, 12:09 AM
Post #25 of 31
(3922 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 7, 2002
Posts: 51
|
Grant:
Big THANKS! For all the detailed information and for your work to maintain access. HUGE PROPS
See you at Nemo on Sunday, what time and where? I walked almost the whole cliff last time looking for my friends.
Eric
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
