Cochise Stronghold & Wilderness Designation

Mike,

The process and criteria that the FS used to identify potential wilderness areas is in this document:

fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DO…

After reading through this I got a bit of a feel for why the lines were drawn the way they currently are as opposed to a broader area.

As part of this process, the FS is to take into account recreational use of the area:

"The availability of an area for wilderness designation is based on the trade-offs involved in managing the area for wilderness character versus current and potential future uses." The very first of the uses in the bullet-point list below is recreation. (page 2)

In the evaluation for the Dragoons, the "current uses" identified do not include rock climbing. They mention horseback riding, hiking, camping, hunting, motorized touring, and the developed campground. As any rock climber who has been to the Dragoons knows, this is a huge omission. check it out on page 3 of the Dragoon Potential Wilderness Evaluation Report:

fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DO…

As far as I can tell to this point, a primary problem with this evaluation is that the enormous value of the recreational rock climbing resource in the Stronghold isn't well understood. This probably is a result of the FS not evaluating it fully as well as climbers not being plugged into the process while the evaluation was being done.

Regardless, at the upcoming meeting(s), we need to be clear that climbers are the biggest recreational stakeholders in the Dragoons, and that we want to take a role in determining what happens with this potential re-designation. I think it is best not to stress the number of routes, but rather that the climbing is high quality, it attracts people from all over the country, and that it has been drawing visitors for this purpose since the late 1960's.

Thankfully, I know a few members of the community are planning to attend the meeting Saturday. I am trying to rearrange my work schedule so that I can attend as well, although on the short notice that I have to work with I'm not optimistic that I can make it. I will, however, be present in the future meetings.

Scott and others have brought up a lot of good points about the pros and cons of wilderness designation for the Dragoons. I haven't decided what I think is the best path to advocate for yet as I don't have all the information yet.

However, as I mentioned, replacement of hardware would become more difficult. On the older routes, where we are pulling existing bolts, slightly enlarging the existing holes, and putting in replaceable hardware, it is all possible without power drills, although definitely not fun. Thanks to everyone who has volunteered to far to help upgrade the older routes proactively; I will certainly take you up on it.

In the distant future, it would be challenging to do a nice job replacing the modern wedge bolts that have gone in over the past 20 years or so. The two methods for removing and replacing wedge bolts (core drilling and a newer "spinning" technique) both depend on power drills. This is something we need to keep in mind as we need to be thinking long term.

There's lots to think about, but what's important for the next few days is that we have some solid folks there Saturday.

Best Wishes,
Geir

Nick,

After a number of conversations in the past few days, I have learned we have at least four directions that climbers could choose to advocate for:

1) Wilderness designation,
2) Wilderness designation, but with different boundaries than what is currently proposed,
3) Wild Backcountry Zone designation, which apparently would allow power drill use but offer some benefits to climbers with OHV and mining issues, or
4) Opposition of wilderness designation.

At this point I do not know the pros and cons of each of these paths, nor am I sure these are our only choices. I will try to become knowledgeable about all of these options and make what suggestions I can.

Thanks,
Geir

(why does the "quote" option not work sometimes?)
Geir said:
"at the upcoming meeting(s), we need to be clear that climbers are the biggest recreational stakeholders in the Dragoons, and that we want to take a role in determining what happens with this potential re-designation. I think it is best not to stress the number of routes, but rather that the climbing is high quality, it attracts people from all over the country, and that it has been drawing visitors for this purpose since the late 1960's.

There's lots to think about, but what's important for the next few days is that we have some solid folks there Saturday. Best Wishes, Geir"

I agree.

Thanks in advance to all that attend and participate in the upcoming meetings.

Red wrote:(why does the "quote" option not work sometimes?)

It's very fickle about line breaks. I sometimes have to play with it and use the "preview message text" link under the text box to see if I got it right. Typically it has to have a line break after the /quote end tag.
Sorry for the drift, carry on with this important and civil discussion...

Scott M. McNamara wrote:Christian, I understand and deeply appreciate your sentiment. It would be far better if we all spoke with one voice—but that is not the nature of our community. For me one of the great things about climbing is all the wild characters and their views. There are some really interesting people out there. I never wish to exclude the minority position, even if it dilutes my own position or the majority position. If you have a minority position, in my view, it is a good time to express it. I would guess we are beter off if the forest service sees more climbers rather than less. I would guess we will grow more as a community if we have to think about and address others views. Scott Mc

It depends on the nature of this initial meeting and how many more there will be and on the way in which the FS typically negotiates and decides these things.

Since I don't have a lot of detailed knowledge of this, I was just trying to bring up the general issue that we may have to decide between having a complete democracy along with (possibly) a complete inability to get anything done vs having a slightly more autocratic approach but with more negotiating power (ie take a vote of SACC or get AF involved and get up there and say "we are the SACC/AF and we represent x amount of climbers and this is our position" vs 20 other guys getting there up and hemming and hawing and basically saying "this is my opinion only" and the FS saying "what is with these guys, they can't even decide what they want, why should we listen to them?)

Sorry couldn't really organize this post any better, have to get back to work lol

At the Draft Forest Plan public comment meetings a few months ago, the Coronado had not recommended any of these areas for wilderness in its Draft Plan. I don't know how many times wilderness designation has moved through either Congressional wing without prior USFS recommendation, but I'd guess that it doesn't happen too often. That means that the climbing community has a chance to affect the outcome of this portion of the plan.

This is an important thing to realize: wilderness is an act of Congress, not the Forest Service.

As a conservationist, I'd like to see the entire area recommended by Sky Island Alliance and AZ Wilderness Society set aside as wilderness. With the ever growing conversion of land and subsequent loss of habitat across the globe, wilderness designation may be one of the most effective conservation management decisions.

However, that action would limit bolt replacement to hand-drilling unless some sort of unprecedented power-drilling clause was worked into the wilderness bill; such an unprecedented move is highly unlikely. Everything changes, however, and this could *could* be an opportunity for that. But don't get your hopes up. Wilderness could also mean a change in access.

As a climber, I'd of course like the best of both worlds: no ban on power drilling for replacement of existing anchors, but no future threat of development, OHV intrusions, etc. either.

To me, the best compromise outcome for both the conservation and climbing communities would be a permanent designation as Backcountry Zone and/or Inventoried Roadless Area, one that encompasses all climbing and sensitive biotic zones. Of course both of these designations are subject to administrative whims, but with SACC organizing and becoming a permanent part of the regional management community, climbers can fight any roll-backs that may come along.

The likelihood of the Dragoons or other areas recommended by the conservation community becoming wilderness anytime soon seems remote, though.

Andy,

Yes, I agree. In my view wilderness designation is possible, but not probable.

I think this is a "shot across S. Arizona climbers' bow."

Scott Mc

P.S.
Those of you who know me, if you are interested, remind me to tell you an embarrassing story about when I first heard the phrase "shot across the bow" and how I almost wound up in jail. My hands still sweat just remembering it.

VOTE! VOTE! VOTE! saccBeta.com

Here is the SACC boards "reach out" to their membership and all interested parties!

After reading this, I am voting NO to wilderness designation.

There are no compromises with Wilderness designation. We see this all over the country. They do not recognize climbers anywhere in the proposed Wilderness plan as a valid user group. That is why the availability of the area is ranked high in the Forest Services assessment plan. They identified the only conflict of interest as being helicopter animal surveys.

We need them to recognize us as users that are being highly impacted. We need to point out the faults in their survey of the area. We need to show them numbers and a unified VOICE!

WILDERNESS DESIGNATION will not decrease or improve the management of the highest impact users such as OHVs (in the current status of Wild Backcountry they must stay on current roads), grazing, expansion of horse camps (these areas are not included in the proposed area map).

Look at what is going on in climbing around us! There are other ways to maintain and preserve the Stronghold without this designation. Ways that will not permanently change climbing as an activity in the area.

More time is needed to decide how Wilderness designation effect climbing in the future.

In talking with the Forest Service personally, they have suggested that even if a "proposed" label of wilderness designation gets placed on the Stronghold it will be managed for it's Wilderness Characteristics.

Does this mean even if it takes Congress 10 years to pass Wilderness status or reject it the rules of the law of prohibiting mechanized machinery will be enforced until that time?
THESE ARE QUESTIONS TO ASK SATURDAY. The Forest Service Planner could not answer these questions with certainty.

Changing the boundaries for the proposed wilderness area to include the current areas we use for climbing is not realistic. It chops up the managed areas too much. Thereby, increasing the management demand on the Forest Service. They will probably reject it and be a wasted vote.

I see that one climber is lobbying for Wilderness to reduce numbers in the Stronghold. This is in contradiction to what the Forest Service sees as the goal of Wilderness Designation. The Forest Service believes by making this area a Wilderness designation it will drive new traffic to the Stronghold and reduce pressure on existing Wilderness areas such as Mt Wrightson and Pusch Ridge.

We must learn all that we can without personal agenda before we change this beautiful place for future generations.

Please make sure to read all the way to the bottom of SACC Facebook message linked to in the post by "cochiseclimbing" above.

The mechanism for voting is in the SECOND link provided in that message.

The first link has comprehensive background information on the problem at hand.

Thank you Cochiseclimbing for your work and posting up!

There is suggestion by some people on here that the ultimate result of designation change is remote.

Please read again where I wrote about speaking personally with a forest service planner. I was told that even if the Stronghold sat only as a proposed area in the Coronado Forest Service plan it will be managed in accordance with the laws applicable to protecting wilderness characteristics until Congress passes or turns down status change.

This is ambiguous. We need clarity because this really could mean this utopia we have in the Stronghold could end as soon as the end of the month. We may be at that precipice where we can no longer wait and see.

It seems to me that another area that could be affected is the Dry with the Whetstone, Sierra Vista RD. Please correct me if I am wrong.

The Whetstone does have a proposed area map for potential change to Wilderness designation.
fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DO…
Does this proposed boundary include the climbing areas?

Hey folks,

My name is Alex Brummer and I'm one of the current board members for SACC (my apologies for the non-descript handle, I made my account a while back with the singular goal of returning someone's gear). I'm posting simply to inform everyone that if they choose use the voting options provided on the SACC Facebook page then their votes will only count if they are current members of SACC. We can't really claim representation of the community outside of our membership. Alternatives for non-members who want have some input are: becoming a member of SACC and voting, attending the meeting as an individual, or contacting Yolynda Begay, Forest Planner, directly at yolyndabegay@fs.fed.us or (520) 388-8370.

As for Angel's comment above, I personally was under the impression that the Dry is just outside of the proposed boundary for the Whetstones. I've copied the link for the proposed wilderness area in the Whetstones below. Maybe someone with more experience in that area can comment on how close the boundary is to the Dry.

fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DO…

I looked over some maps of the area near Dry with Rodd Mondt from Sky Island Alliance the other week, and we figured out that the Dry is well out of the proposed boundary that SIA and AWS are promoting (it looks like it's actually on BLM land). If this boundary is the same that the USFS is recommending is unclear, as I still haven't seen a good map of the USFS proposals, but if it is on BLM land, it doesn't matter at this point.

As a former local that has climbed a lot in Cochise...

I vote "Yes" for wilderness designation. Here are three thoughts to consider:

We all value wild spaces and conservation. Right? It is hypocritical to me to support wild spaces only if they do not intefere with what we love to do. If you believe that wilderness designations are generally a good idea, I think it is wrong to oppose this designation just because it impacts us this time, rather than someone else. If you support wilderness, do so even if it impacts your weekends.

Secondly, many wilderness areas allow the replacing of bolts and new ones that are hand drilled. I believe that our argument should be based on allowing the replacement of old anchors and allowing new hand-drilled ones, and not a blanket "no" to wilderness. Posts regarding "loss of climbing access in Cochise" are way exaggerated.

Thirdly, hand drilling only is a great way to encourage routes that are consistent with Cochise's historic route style.

Great thoughts, everyone!

I tend to agree with Eric D and Andy Bennett. The preservation of wilderness is more important than my personal recreation. That said: there is a lot of wilderness that is not very "wild" due to the presence of cattle and constant air-traffic over it. My understanding is that "prior use" is often honored in wilderness designations (and that's why I have to camp in the middle of a herd of cows when I'm miles into the Pecos Wilderness).

So, it seems that the thing to focus on is getting climbing recognized as a valid use that is compatible with a wilderness environment. What can we do to affect that?

The really sad thing here is that the Forest Service is ignoring this group of users who are probably great stewards of the land and proponents of wilderness (and potentially causing them to become opposed to wilderness designation). Can we help them see the light and recognize climbers as allies in the preservation of wilderness?

"It takes an act of congress to designate an area as wilderness". We have to really think about what this means. Just here me out. I'm really skeptical when it comes to the government. Trusting congress to designate and for agencies to mange wilderness is really not much different than selling it to a private interest. I know what you're thinking. "we're not giving it to the government. We're protecting it for public use." The problem is we really loose all say in how the land is used. It's not really about bolts or route maintenance. It's more about being at the mercy of some government agency who controls and "owns" the land (they used to call it royal lands). Think about a private land owner who allows an activity on his land. It's his land and he can change is mind whenever he wants. Maybe he'll start charging you for the use of his land. Or maybe he just decides he doesn't want you there anymore. Yes today it may sound like a good idea but who's to say 10 or 15 years from now the FS decides that people shouldn't be allowed in wilderness areas. Or what if one day a new official who doesn't agree climbing is a valid activity moves into a position of power. I know I'm being a bit of a devils advocate and maybe sound a bit nuts but I've seen so much of our freedoms trampled to death in the last 30 years that I have no reason to believe that wilderness designation would be beneficial to us, or anyone for that matter, in the long run. So I would say Absolutely not!

The problem here is that we "as people that climb" have been out of the conversation with the Forest Service for too long. There have been individuals who have and I thank you. I was too stupid to realize I should have been too.

We should have been at the table 2 years ago when this conversation started. 5 years ago to meet the players and show them we are stewards of the land. 10 years ago…….

What would you say if the Forest Service asked where you have been? Why do you want to be part of the conversation now?
-Spending our selfish time climbing.
-Being too young to care and or too old to care
-I just learned about it

Mountain bikers became involved in the Forest Plan revision early on.

So we are where we are and what an we do from here?

There are hundreds of questions we have that need answers.

There is a wealth of skill and knowledge in our community that we need to help change this from today forward.

We need to wake up and realize that there will inevitably be more legislation, if not today but tomorrow, and what we do now is very important. Get your calendar out and note when the next SACC meeting is. BE THERE ON SATURDAY! Write a letter to have someone take for you on Saturday.

Because right now, we are trying to slam the brakes on a moving train by merely standing on the tracks.