Stop leaving tat on trees!!!!!!

Gunkiemike wrote: I'm far from an expert in these things, but I believe the bark damage you're showing is not significant. That brown scaly layer is all effectively dead tissue anyway, analogous to the top layer of our skin. It's the vascular cambium layer underneath that's critical to tree health. And if the damage you show is merely from webbing abrasion (as opposed to "choking" pressure e.g. from girth hitching) I suspect the tree is unaffected by it.

Mike, I think you are right, the tree is indeed unaffected by the abrasion I showed. But you can see the decrease in diameter, and eventually---I have no idea how long---all the bark is going to be scraped off and that will kill the tree. Whether this takes 2 years or 20 years I have no idea. How significant it is that the tree has been killed as a byproduct of climbing is also something that can be debated. A single fall or spring snowstorm kills more trees in a day than all the gunks climbers will ever kill ever. I'm not saying this makes it ok for climbers to ignore their impacts, I'm just sayin'...

Gunkiemike wrote: I agree there's something amiss in CT, where hundreds of sq. ft. of clifftop ecology are being sacrificed to avoid altering a square inch or two of rock surface (bolts). But then we know there's little rationality when it comes to anchors on CT crags.

Yup. But I would add that there is a hiking trail across the top of Ragged, and folks deviating from that to look over the edge, etc, might be part of that erosion process, and to the extent that they are, anchor bolts at the cliff top wouldn't help. Still, it does seem at this point that anchor bolts at the top where you can't arrange a gear anchor (because in some places that is quite possible) would be a common-sense response to the erosion.

MJMobes wrote:...it seems many of the trees that die from overuse on the edge of a cliff had no soil around them to begin with, they are growing out of cracks in the rock.

Of course, trees die for lots of reasons, but in my experience the ones growing out of cracks don't die at anything close to the rate of those growing out of soil that is trampled. Here is an example:

Protected roots

You can't see the roots running into a crack to the right of the photo. This tree, and many similar ones, are doing fine, although the slings are abrading the bark. The reason is that climbers basically congregate on the ledge below and there is no soil compaction or erosion affecting the roots. For the gunks anyway, this makes trees growing out of cracks preferable, because they appear to be much more likely to endure heavy use. But warning: all this is inexpert opinion...

rgold wrote: I'm not saying this makes it ok for climbers to ignore their impacts, I'm just sayin'... Yup. But I would add that there is a hiking trail across the top of Ragged, and folks deviating from that to look over the edge, etc, might be part of that erosion process, and to the extent that they are, anchor bolts at the cliff top wouldn't help. Still, it does seem at this point that anchor bolts at the top where you can't arrange a gear anchor (because in some places that is quite possible) would be a common-sense response to the erosion.

This is a great point and one often used by the climbers who run Main Cliff, The Ragged Mountain Foundation, as an excuse to do absolutely nothing to address the problem. The reason they don't take care of their property in a responsible manner is that hikers who access their property do damage too... these are mostly weak people with weak minds.

The reality is, from what I've studied and experienced in New England, is you need to close down high use areas from time to time to allow them to be restored. This is typical at big climbing areas like Rumney and is a common practice in the northeast with regards to hiking trails like the AT. Occasionally, folks are routed different ways to allow an area to regrow. The RMF could very easily conduct a baseline study, identify the most damaged areas, close them off with signage and some ropes, and install anchors so that climbers wouldn't have to top out. There are areas that show well over a foot of lost soil.

There are no legitimate excuses left for these bone headed trad'ers in CT. Many other trap rock cliffs have popular hiking trails along their tops and none of them look like Main Cliff, well, except for the ones climbers visit.

Gunkiemike... the thickness of the bark is very significant. More bark = more protection from all elements. Less bark = much more vulnerable. Plus the continued use of tat will clealy one day wear through all the bark.

Am I the only one that doesn't know what TAT stands for?

Tat is slang (short for tatter, as in, "tattered and torn clothes), usually in reference to webbing tied around a tree or other some other means of making an anchor.

I wondered if it was an acronym, or just some random sound that is made by an uncoordinated effort of the lips and tongue that some OG (original gangster) climber made up. Didn't think my voice on here was worth the trouble of asking what it meant. I understood it constitutes any kind of soft material used as an anchor.

On tat.

Paul Hutton wrote: I understood it constitutes any kind of soft material used as an anchor.

More explicitly it is any kind of soft material left behind as an anchor. And, especially, such material after weather and wear to the point where it is no longer clearly safe/solid.

Morgan Patterson wrote: There are areas that show well over a foot of lost soil.

You may want to talk to God so he can stop the wind and the rain from eroding the earth while you are at it. Ever see what he did in Arizona where that giant gap in the earth goes on for miles and miles? It's so bad they made a National Park out of it to protect it.

rging wrote: You may want to talk to God so he can stop the wind and the rain from eroding the earth while you are at it. Ever see what he did in Arizona where that giant gap in the earth goes on for miles and miles? It's so bad they made a National Park out of it to protect it.

We're not talking about natural processes; this is about human impact accelerating the process with much greater near-term negative effects.

rging wrote: You may want to talk to God so he can stop the wind and the rain from eroding the earth while you are at it. Ever see what he did in Arizona where that giant gap in the earth goes on for miles and miles? It's so bad they made a National Park out of it to protect it.

And henceforth, all arguments considering human-caused impacts to nature were rendered invalid regardless of content because the Grand Canyon was created by natural forces.

rging wrote: You may want to talk to God so he can stop the wind and the rain from eroding the earth while you are at it.

The Jewish god, who is also the Christian god, has already answered this query. One of the commanded mitzvot, is tikkun olam, "caring for the earth.'' Whatever god does or does not do, it is the religious responsibility of the human race to care for the earth god has provided, a responsibility it has been possible for people of all attitudes and persuasions to embrace regardless of the presence or absence of religious affiliation.

Erosion may be caused by wind and water, but when climbers open the gates, it is climbers who are responsible for what happens, and it is climbers who ought to take the lead in at least mitigating if not preventing effects such as

Climber erosion---at least a foot of topsoil gone

and

Severe topout erosion

It seems to me that the fa parties paid no attention to the erosion problem in the future. Fucking bolt it morons, swallow some trad pride its OK

I don't think the kind or erosion that has occurred in some places was even remotely on any FA party's mind 70 years ago when some of the eroded routes went in. And there are tops of ancient routes that are not eroded at all, so mindless bolting is no more intelligent than mindless abstention from bolting, and expecting FA parties to have been able to predict, not only the climbing population explosion, but also the combination of ecological factors that, in concert with climbers' passage, makes for severe erosion is absurd.

But the reality is even more complicated. The first of the two erosion pictures I posted is taken at the base of the cliff, where the presence of rap anchors has significantly increased climber impacts on the bottom, because now climbers bring all their gear and throw it down on the ground and, since rappelling keeps them in the area, do multiple routes in the same general place and perhaps stay a good part of the day. Moreover, the anchors facilitate top-roping, and that brings in large parties, most of whom are milling around while one of them climbs. Bolts in situations like this shift some erosion from the top to more erosion at the bottom and so worsen one situation while only sometimes alleviating another.

This raises a dilemma for land managers that has not, in my opinion, been genuinely confronted yet. Assuming you are willing to accommodate the ecological impacts of climbing, do you concentrate impacts at the base in order to spare the top, or do you look for ways to distribute impacts throughout the system? Only when you've really figured that out would you start to think about where bolts might be appropriate.

I've used the term "land managers" advisedly here. I'm thinking o people whose responsibility it is to keep the land as intact and pristine as possible while still allowing public recreation. Climber convenience, which is the primary driving force in climber's use of fixed anchors, is not on the land manager's horizon.

rgold wrote: Assuming you are willing to accommodate the ecological impacts of climbing, do you concentrate impacts at the base in order to spare the top, or do you look for ways to distribute impacts throughout the system?

Would it make sense to think of climbing (as well as any other human outdoor activity) as a negative externality for the ecosystem and "tax" it accordingly? I.e. climbing having high(er) impact on the cliff ecosystem should make the land manager to levy higher fees on the climbers vs other land users, something that Mohonk Preserve, for example, is already doing. Just thinking that that might be part of the solution.

Morgan, that's a great example, thank you. I agree with you, bolts seem appropriate. I am not really familiar with the sport vs. trad wars, but to me it seems simple- if it is climbed rarely, gear anchors are lowest impact. If it is climbed very often, bolting anchors are lowest impact!

The photos rgold shared remind me of similar observations I have been making at certain popular areas near me. I feel like it would behoove climbers to adopt some of the practices of trail crews. Because let's face it, some of these areas would be in dramatically better shape today if simple stairs had been added twenty or thirty years ago to control erosion. (Not that people knew then how much traffic the area would see)

I mean, yes, it isn't a hiking trail. Yes, nobody wants the crag to turn into the outdoor gym. But these areas have sustained huge damage, and if you understand erosion you should understand it will only accelerate.

We all love "leave no trace" and climbing was revolutionized by the "clean climbing" movement. But at the same time, we always have some impact and if we accept that we can do a better job of managing & mitigating our impact...

Patrick Shyvers wrote: I feel like it would behoove climbers to adopt some of the practices of trail crews. Because let's face it, some of these areas would be in dramatically better shape today if simple stairs had been added twenty or thirty years ago to control erosion. (Not that people knew then how much traffic the area would see) I mean, yes, it isn't a hiking trail. Yes, nobody wants the crag to turn into the outdoor gym. But these areas have sustained huge damage, and if you understand erosion you should understand it will only accelerate. We all love "leave no trace" and climbing was revolutionized by the "clean climbing" movement. But at the same time, we always have some impact and if we accept that we can do a better job of managing & mitigating our impact...

In the Gunks, a trail crew of volunteer climbers, inspired and led by guidebook author Dick Williams, has been doing extensive, complex, and very difficult erosion mitigation work at the base of the Trapps and the boulder field below for several years now.

No matter how bad the erosion has become in an area, one can still alleviate its effects and forestall future destruction by employing effective trail-building techniques. It is true that better trails may contribute to even more use, but the alternative of standing by while erosion decimates the landscape seems far worse.

Getting back to tat on trees, the profusion of rap anchors in places like the Gunks is analogous to the braiding and erosion caused by unchannelled hiking, and the concept of building good single trails and eliminating all the alternative "braids" ought to apply to anchor management as well.

There was a bunch of tat on the descent slabs coming off the Diving Board in Eldo. Take the time to get familiar with the descent before you go up there.

I took it down and proceeded to walk off

At Joshua Tree, you can't use vegetation as anchors. PERIOD.

The new 2013 Joshua Tree National Park Compendium has stated that:
1. Vegetation is no longer allowed as an anchor!
2. Only neutral or rock colored bolts are allowed

you don't....do you????

rgold wrote:This raises a dilemma for land managers that has not, in my opinion, been genuinely confronted yet. Assuming you are willing to accommodate the ecological impacts of climbing, do you concentrate impacts at the base in order to spare the top, or do you look for ways to distribute impacts throughout the system? Only when you've really figured that out would you start to think about where bolts might be appropriate.

I can only think of one crag around here where the land managers decided they wanted to keep erosion/compaction at the base of the cliff, in order to save rare plant life at the top. It would be interesting to to go back and talk to them now that 20 years has passed, and see how happy they are.

rgold wrote:Climber convenience, which is the primary driving force in climber's use of fixed anchors, is not on the land manager's horizon.

When I hear climbers talk about fixed anchors, it is often apparent that they are after safety and convenience. Yet they often trot out the "save a tree" argument, in areas where there are no dead/dying trees to lend credence to their pleas. Land managers are seldom responsible for making climbing safe and convenient. I think of the boy who cried "wolf!"

If there are any written reports or presentations on efforts to control erosion/compaction in the Gunks, they would be really useful to me as I talk to land managers around here.

Doug Hemken wrote: If there are any written reports or presentations on efforts to control erosion/compaction in the Gunks, they would be really useful to me as I talk to land managers around here.

The preserve has an entire section of their website detailing extensive scientific studies they supposedly do. I would think they might have some relevant data. And I totally agree it would be really cool to see the Preserve take a leadership role in educating other LCO's/LM's in what they have found through their studies. When I was one the RMF Board I suggested they try to partner with the Preserve to do a baseline study at Ragged but the suggestion fell on deaf ears who didn't and still don't want to recognize their problems.