Cochise Stronghold & Wilderness Designation
|
Chuck, I'm so glad you put so much faith in the feds to do what is right. You sure like to tar & feather those of us who may well disagree on this issue. By the way, I started climbing in 1973, probably before you even knew what a perlon rope was. |
|
Chuck Calef wrote:Arizona has no shortage of industrial climbing wastelands. Go to them and leave the Stronghold unimpaired. More than a lifetime of convenient clipping awaits you at Virgin River Gorge, Queen Creek Canyon, Superstition Mountains, Jack's Creek Canyon, Mount Lemmon.While I agree with the central premise that we don't need to bolt the f(ck out of every piece of rock everywhere, throwing the Superstitions in a list of a) sport climbing areas, and b)"industrial climbing wastelands" makes your expertise in this matter somewhat questionable. Only someone who has no idea what they're talking about would refer to the Supes in that vein. |
|
"The fool has one great advantage over a man of sense he is always satisfied with himself." |
|
Having never been to the superstition mountains I don't know about the bolts, and don't care. I agree with most things Chuck Calef has to say. I have been following this because I support most wilderness. Our wilderness is a special national resource that I love and spend 6 months a year. Using my hand drill just makes me enjoy my power drill more when I get to use it. But I am happy to give it up to save a small portion of the country from our modern society and our toys. |
|
Perhaps Chuck Calef mistook the Superstitions for somewhere else in AZ or just is ignorant about them. And perhaps he named people as "wanting to keep drilling up" without fully understanding their particular positions (as I suspect that some people's posts on this thread are not complete representations of how they view this issue). And perhaps Chuck has climbed some sport routes. Heck, maybe he's a Bosch wielding fiend in the Homestead!!! |
|
Eric Sophiea wrote:However, none of that invalidates his basic premise. Which I think deserves thoughtful consideration, at least: "Wilderness is a valuable resource in it's own right" I think is what he was trying to say. I was at the Forest Service meeting to learn more about this Wilderness designation. There were a few ranchers, miners and ATV users who were basically there to say "wilderness takes away my freedom to use land however I want." They sounded like completely self centered a-holes, frankly. Not the kind of folks I want to hang out with. They were all about "watching out for Number One." No consideration of future generations. No thought about other users. Just themselves. The climbers present at the meeting came DANGEROUSLY close to sounding EXACTLY like those "what about me" folks. Maybe we are just like them? Just something to consider.Well said Eric! I am interested to hear how you think we could better present ourselves. I, too, do not want climbers to be viewed as using a "watching out for Number One" approach to this. Aside from some of the factual errors in Chuck's post I too found myself resonating with the idea that Wilderness is valuable in its own right. Although I think it is still vague how Wilderness designation might impact climbing in the Stronghold, I think climbers should be able to adapt to it if that is what is necessary. For example, assuming for a moment the only significant change for climbers is that power drilling would not be permitted, would that really be catastrophic for us? I don't think so. New route establishment would take more work, but it could still be done. Replacement of hardware on favorite routes would still be able to happen, although it would be harder. We would need a large number of committed folks to make the latter happen, but it's happening today in Wilderness areas all over the US. Whether or not we can use power drills will not ultimately decide if climbers can enjoy the Dragoons. Of course, power drilling is not the only thing that would change if the Dragoons became a Wilderness. So in the unlikely event this proceeds, we need to be looking at every element of this closely. Talking about this on the forums is helpful to get ideas out there, but anyone wanting to make a difference will need to (at the minimum) direct their comments to the FS contacts listed earlier in this thread. |
|
I agree with the comments of Eric and Geir. That said, I have a separate concern related to the proposed plan for wilderness in the Stronghold. The map of the region to be considered for wilderness designation, if I understood it correctly covered pretty much the entire region of rocks, but didn't extend out beyond that. In other words it would affect the activities taking place on the rocks but not those immediately surrounding them. So activities such as ATVs and others would be no more restricted than they currently are. Additionally, unlike drilling which only makes noise when the original line is established (and maybe again many years later), ATVs and shooting, etc. are continuously noisy activities. So while we should respect and consider wilderness to be established where appropriate, the current plan doesn't seem to do that in a sensible way. |
|
Eric Sophiea wrote:The climbers present at the meeting came DANGEROUSLY close to sounding EXACTLY like those "what about me" folks.Well said. It is not okay for climbers to take the position that Wilderness is a good thing, unless it impacts us and what we want to do. That is clearly hypocritical. |
|
I am pretty late to this discussion so excuse me if this point has been made. I don't mind keeping the stronghold open to my interest which includes using a power drill to protect a new route or upgrade and old ones. |
|
Here is part of the answer but I am not clear on how historical mining allowances are treated under The Wilderness Act. |
|
Hi all! Please visit Southern Arizona Climber's Coalition's Facebook Page to learn about SACC's direction to maintain climber access to the Stronghold. |
|
I think it should have National Monument status conferred upon it... |
|
The Access Fund has generously created an "action alert" so if you would like to comment on the proposed Cochise Stronghold Wilderness desigination you may do so here: |
|
I used to live in El Paso Texas. Back then I frequented Cochise on a monthly basis in the fall, winter, and spring. Absolutely one of my favorite climbing areas in the southwest. Although I no longer live nearby, Cochise is a special place to me, and a place that I try to visit as often as possible if I am able(being so far away now does not help much). I am just one of many from El Paso who frequented the Stronghold. I think as a climber, pretty much anywhere within a 4 hour drive is considered a some what of a local crag. I know that to myself and my group of climbing buddies that Cochise is one of all our favorites. It truly is a magical place. JoeS wrote: The map of the region to be considered for wilderness designation, if I understood it correctly covered pretty much the entire region of rocks, but didn't extend out beyond that. In other words it would affect the activities taking place on the rocks but not those immediately surrounding them.I agree on this. I think the surrounding area is absolutely beautiful, especially on the west side. If it were to go the way of wilderness designation. I would hope they would expand the boundary to encompass as much of the surrounding lands as possible. 1Eric Rhicard wrote: Mining and development are other issues that I would not like to see occur there. These are so much more significant than what we climbers do. If this is a threat to the area then I might inclined to go with the designation.Agreed, this would be one of the pros of a wilderness designation. There is already civilization slowly creeping up on the stronghold from both the west and the east. Just imagine the surrounding area in 50 years or even 100 years. I guess the only thing that bothers me about the wilderness designation is the uncertainty, and current lack of a defintive management policies/plan. |
|
JB7 wrote: I guess the only thing that bothers me about the wilderness designation is the uncertainty, and current lack of a definitive management policies/plan.My thoughts exactly..... once the place becomes "wilderness" we, climbers, will most likely loose out on what we have. Its not about bolts, its about access. Once wilderness-all sorts of "stupid" new rules will be enacted. Things like "no more than 30 people per day will allowed in- we will hold a lottery to select the lucky 30.... one year in advance".... that is typical FEDERAL rule making. I do always shake my head at the idea of making a place "WILDERNESS" when in fact it is not, like Josh Tree.... 100 feet from a road is the wilderness. Its just a power grab by the FEDS, nothing more. I hope the good citizens of Arizona say NO. |
|
I agree with you Guy, but you should take action and email the Coronado Forest supervisor to let him know that you are one of the many climbers that wants to keep it open as it is. |
|
"There are only four land use zones on the Coronado National Forest: wild backcountry, roaded backcountry, developed recreation, and motorized recreation." Wilderness designation is a federal designation that needs to be passed by congress. It is law, no changes. The designation determines how the land will be managed.
This may seem extreme and alarmist, but please see the examples below that prove it is happening across the country. Most of us will not be climbing in 20 years but please allow future generations to experience the same adventures we do today. Regardless of the "style" you climb, we have all clipped fixed hardware. Please remember, parts of Mt Lemmon, or maybe even your local crag, are in wilderness already, things could change there, this is not just about the Stronghold. What we do as a climbing community at this time will also influence how our voice will be heard in the future, lets be smart, please take action. "An article by Alpinist on 6/10/2010 stated that [The National Park Service plan for Christmas Tree Pass] would be the first to not only ban, but also require the removal of fixed anchors. alpinist.com/doc/web10s/new… A notice by the National Park Service on 01/21/2014 Regarding rock climbing management for alternatives B and C in the Draft Wilderness Management Plan/EIS [in Lake Mead National Recreation Area]... In Bridge Canyon Wilderness no new fixed anchors or fixed equipment would be permitted, with the exception of permitted replacement anchors. federalregister.gov/article… The Mt. Charleston Wilderness Management Plan stated in January of 2013 that In the Proposed Action, new fixed anchor routes would be prohibited by both the FS and the BLM and the replacement of permanent fixed anchors on existing routes would be evaluated for their appropriateness in Wilderness through a special use permit process. Current recreational activities that involve rock climbing would continue in Mt. Charleston Wilderness; however, there is not expected to be an increase in future sport climbing activities, which would be curbed due to the prohibition on new fixed anchor routes. docs.google.com/file/d/0B7-… There is a precedent of a misinterpretation of federal regulation in wilderness areas. Here is part of an Access Fund response to the North Cascades National Park fixed anchor (bolt) moratorium The Access Fund is concerned that the North Cascades National Park fixed anchor (bolt) moratorium is incongruous with national policy, based on misinterpretation of federal regulation, unnecessarily compromises wilderness climber safety, and negatively affects wilderness use-patterns. We believe that some level of fixed anchor (bolt) use must be allowed wherever climbing is allowed, and that the appropriate level of use should be established on an area-by-area basis. docs.google.com/file/d/0B7-… |
|
any update on any of this? |
|
SACC has signed onto a letter with Access Fund, Outdoor Alliance, IMBA, Sonoran Desert Mountain Bicyclists, NOLS, Wilderness Society, Sky Island Alliance, and Arizona Wilderness Coalition to support a modified map that supports wilderness with large exclusionary zones that encompass the majority of bolt intensive climbs. This letter was sent to Supervisor Upchurch and we received a favorable response: ..." what you and the others have done represents the highest level of public stewardship and collaboration. You have successfully brought this community of interest, that has differing opinions on what should eventually be designated wilderness together, and submitted an alternative that we can now work with."... |
|
Shannon KM wrote:SACC has signed onto a letter with Access Fund, Outdoor Alliance, IMBA, Sonoran Desert Mountain Bicyclists, NOLS, Wilderness Society, Sky Island Alliance, and Arizona Wilderness Coalition to support a modified map that supports wilderness with large exclusionary zones that encompass the majority of bolt intensive climbs. This letter was sent to Supervisor Upchurch and we received a favorable response: ..." what you and the others have done represents the highest level of public stewardship and collaboration. You have successfully brought this community of interest, that has differing opinions on what should eventually be designated wilderness together, and submitted an alternative that we can now work with."... Here are links to the maps of the Dragoons and Whetstones and the Letter We are currently waiting on the Forest Service recommendation. We should know by early 2015.EDIT: I stand corrected re: the email with the maps & letter- it was in my spam folder. I would also like to see the locations of major climbing areas marked on the PWA maps, as I am not familiar enough with the geography of the Stronghold to understand what crags will and will not be affected by the proposed changes. |