Tallulah Gorge Peregrines

Paul, please be aware that there isn't just one person that's heavily involved in the SCC that feels there are real issues presented here that need to be dealt with. The entire board is not sitting around dismissing these issues.

Not anymore they're not...lol.

Seriously though....i know you and Brode have fought hard for a long time.

Also, if anyone in the org were sitting around dismissing the issues, it's worth noting that the SCC has been flamed many times over the years, sometimes by folks that have valid concerns, and sometimes by people that are just plain insane. Over time, it might be difficult for some to immediately see the reality when it's presented in this fashion. Especially for people who feel they are being attacked after working very hard for a very long time for a cause that they very much believe in. The ego is the most problematic part of humans, I'd contend. (except maybe adolescent males : )

In any case, wheels are turning...

I'm one of the lurkers Paul is referring to. I'm certainly not as strong or prolific as most of the guys on this thread, but I've been climbing in the south most of my adult life, so I care about these issues.

Depending on when these meetings are scheduled, I plan to attend if for no other reason than to lend moral support to the guys working on these issues. Thanks to everyone who stirred the pot and get the discussion going again.

Bob M wrote: I'm certainly not as strong or prolific as most of the guys on this thread

...

...says the guy who got his start climbing with Hugh Herr and routinely smokes me on every outing (not hard to do nowadays). Your modesty kinda pisses me off sometimes Bob.

Thanks for chiming in!

saxfiend wrote:Sounds promising, Ben. Thanks for staying on top of things. JL

John....we all need a hobby., right?

Will....Thanks for chiming in.
And, I understand the work you and Kirk and others have put in.
That's really what this is all about.
"This" ain't a "flame"....
It is not mine and Paul's intent, nor has it been, to poopoo any GOOD/QUALITY progress the SCC has actually made....
And, certainly, it is not our intention to crap on anyone's hard work, in support of their "best efforts", even if they are wrong....
We all know what hard work is like, I hope.
I know you do....I know you know I do....

The deal is that this "attack" seemed necessary (and we are seeing a tangible response and traction now) after some folks effectively "went dark" on some REAL ISSUES.
Well.....as it turns out....it's harder to ignore the "Olde Guarde" than the SCC thought.

I am pleased to hear that there are fruitful discussions and anticipated compromise occurring/forthcoming.
My expectation, assuming things don't unravel, is that there will be a suitable response and a return to your regularly scheduled program....to the degree that it doesn't include bolted cracks, sanctioned trespass, etc.

On a more personal note....
Trust me, I don't like being the "bad guy", but I feel we are right.
And, as a longtime climber and longer-time Southeasterner, as a supporter of climbing in the South, as a grownup-ass man, you better believe that if I have a problem with something happening in AL, I will be heard.
So, that's what you have seen....
Paul, myself, other concerned parties, getting heard.

Like I said, I don't 'like' being the bad guy...
But, I don't mind one bit.

Chiming in with my thoughts:

It sounds to me like we're discussing two relatively small groups of people: the old guard and those among the new breed who know how and have the desire to bolt new lines.

There is a vast majority of upcoming gym rats and new climbers who I'll wager have never heard the term retro bolting, grid bolting, or crack bolting. I, for one, have been climbing for 10 years and, without forays into the MP forums, retrobolting is a term I have seen only infrequently in guidebooks and heard even less in a gym.

I don't think it's realistic to expect a small cadre of people to watchdog the numerous crags in the southeast from new bolting. I also don't know if it's realistic to expect an organization like the SCC to watchdog that many locations.

There should be a unified message from the SCC at all of their events discussing what retro bolting is and how access works presented at as many venues as possible. Many events are touting the success of opening access to areas because access "sells" if I had to guess. More effort should be directed to selling the concept of the SE as a unique area with a fantastic climbing history where you can, and do, run into the original first ascentionists on a regular basis. That is a cool thing. If we, the SCC, etc, can instill a respect or enjoyment of the history of the SE and the idea that retrobolting damages that history and disrespects the FA, I think people would respond.

If the old guard can reach the younger generation and communicate these ideas, I think that is the best chance. If climbers look at this issue as "More bolting = more climbing" then bolting will win every time. We have to add another variable. Together. More responsible eyes at every crag would equal greater peer pressure for those would-be bolters and make it harder for new routes to go in against the prevailing currents. Change the current.

The issue and debate here is ultimately about negative environmental impact. Bolting permanently alters the cliff face and, done in quantity, changes the nature of a climbing area; like Foster falls, the area becomes a sport park for the masses. Trad climbing, conversely, typically leaves little or no permanent trace.
Would anyone argue that lines of stainless steel expansion bolts installed on rock faces do not constitute a major environmental impact?
Some, typically younger, newer climbers, see no problem with this impact. They tend to see the cliff as a apparatus anyway, not as a natural, organic feature that should be preserved. They'd likely regard the term "environmental impact" as a tiresome, stodgy one. But, despite what millenials or marketers may think, southern sandstone is not a limitless resource. Despite the market-driven chamber-of-commerce hype you hear coming out of places like Chattanooga ("limitless climbing potential," "miles of undiscovered cliff lines," limitless new route potential"), we are shitting in the temple unless we get this impact under control.
The SCC was founded, in part, to actively address this negative impact; now, increasingly, it contributes to it. That's part of what needs airing next week.

Paul Barnes wrote:To the lurkers who have emailed support...thank you. But...get your ass in here and let 'em hear from you too!!! They have actually said "Aw c'mon man...it's just a couple guys on Mountain Project...".

OK FWIW, I'll offer my opinion on the matter.

1. I believe that the OP was right to report the falcons to the rangers. Based on how excited the park service is about the nesting birds, I think the climbing community gained a lot of positive points with the rangers. Just think what would have happened had it gone the other way if climbers had accidentally effected the chicks and then the rangers found out about it afterwards. Just my opinion.

2. Totally in favor of a separate climbing permit and official opening of more climbing areas in the gorge. I think climbers have shown over the years that we are very capable of taking care of ourselves and don't need to be lumped in with your average Joe who goes to the gorge floor.

3. My personal perception of the SCC is:

a. That they couldn't care less about the climbing areas in NE GA. I'm with SF, maybe succession as the NEGACC is in order.

b. That unless money is collected for a specific purpose (land purchase, Float the Boat, etc.) that they are spending our cash on bolting lines in Chattanooga that I either don't know about or are too hard for me to climb any way.

Todd Wells wrote:The issue and debate here is ultimately about negative environmental impact. Bolting permanently alters the cliff face and, done in quantity, changes the nature of a climbing area; like Foster falls, the area becomes a sport park for the masses. Trad climbing, conversely, typically leaves little or no permanent trace. Would anyone argue that lines of stainless steel expansion bolts installed on rock faces do not constitute a major environmental impact? \

The real driver of impact is over use. T-Wall is just as much of an environmental eyesore as foster falls and would be even if there were no sport climb. Thanks to the proliferation of big budget mega gyms, climbing is going to get more and more popular no matter where the ethical pendulum sways. Really, the only position that I see that could possibly gain any traction at this point is that there should be a zero tolerance policy towards retro bolting. Forget trying to get any support against perma draws or bolting in general. It isn't going to happen and only dilutes the message. It is critical that climbing's history is preserved and routes and areas still exist for climbers to have those authentic experiences, but it is going to be a real struggle to convince the masses of anything if your argument is fundamentally against sport climbings right to exist.

I would agree, John, that overuse is the problem, and I'm not arguing against sport climbing's right to exist. The problem is that sport climbing, at its worst, brings a "bolt everything" mentality that leads to aberrations like crack bolting and comprehensive retro bolting. We would probably agree that there should be zero tolerance for either. I would point out, also, that more than a few sport climbers revel in erasing trad climbs with their bolts. So, what I'm arguing for--and actively defending--is trad climbing's right to exist.

Of course behind the bolting craze is a "more climbs mean more climbers mean more revenue" mentality that is fueled by retailers, gear companies, climbing gyms, and others. These are the major sponsors of access organizations like the SCC. We even have non-profit organizations in Chattanooga that give grants to local climbers to "create" more (sport) climbs in order to attract more climbers to the area. The "Boulder of the East" marketing campaign in Chattanooga, which is the epicenter of the problem, is fueled largely by non-climbers who have dollars in their eyes. The effect of all this is what we're seeing at the crags. So "Bolter of the East" would be a more accurate description of Chattanooga's direction. More than a few of us are not on board that train.

Todd Wells wrote: We even have non-profit organizations in Chattanooga that give grants to local climbers to "create" more (sport) climbs in order to attract more climbers to the area.

Is this true?? And, what are the names of these orgs? Which climbers are receiving this money? And, to what degree is the SCC in bed with these other non-profits? Call it my "need to know".

Paid route developers just sounds like a horrible idea to me.

Good grief...and this is just the first thing I found...from the Un Foundation website:

Recipient: Michael Wurzel

"We funded the Southeastern Climber’s Association to go climb, develop, and bolt routes all over Lookout Mountain, Signal Mountain, Mowbray Mountain, and Monteagle Mountain. And they’re still going. They’re establishing between 25-35 new routes across this area, improving and promoting Chattanooga as an innovative outdoor city."

...I'm still digging.

theunfoundation.org/grants-…

theunfoundation.org/project…

"bolt routes all over Lookout Mountain, Signal Mountain,..."

Somebody please tell me where these went in...Bee Rock maybe...Edwards Point?

That right there is why this has to be addressed.

J.W....these are NOT sport/"trad" issues.
And, the TWall is almost as big a zoo as Foster's....iPod speakers, hammocks, the godforsaken dogs....

These are conservation, ethics, stewardship issues.

That shit is disgusting is what it is. But it certainly does explain indiscriminate bolting, retros, and squeeze jobs...there's money in it.

If you follow the money....you always wind up someplace dirty. One thing is for sure...with this corrupt ass shit goin on, the SCC certainly doesn't need any climber money. Let em get their money from their corporate Sugar Daddy's.

Mark O'Neal wrote:1. I believe that the OP was right to report the falcons to the rangers. Based on how excited the park service is about the nesting birds, I think the climbing community gained a lot of positive points with the rangers. Just think what would have happened had it gone the other way if climbers had accidentally effected the chicks and then the rangers found out about it afterwards. Just my opinion.

Reporting it to park staff is one thing, but then feeling the need to post here for peoples safety regarding this "dangerous" bird is just silly. It is the equivalent of flagging the woods where ever you see a snake. I know where there is a raven's nest down there. Raven's aren't endangered just like the peregrines and they are just as "dangerous" as a peregrine "attack". How come nobody has reported that? It is unnecessary preferential treatment. The OP already made it completely clear that there is no way to even approach the nest let alone disturb the fledgelings without getting harassed by the parents. History regarding these types of posts have shown that making more people aware of some species presence has caused more harm, even death to the animal.

My biggest problem is that once reported to the park, we have no control over the closure, and now the entire wall is shut down. That wall covers several hundred yards of rock downstream and up. The routes at either end would still be climbable and the peregrines wouldn't have been disturbed. Like John said, it doesn't matter now because it is too hot to climb down there, but what happens when Jan. 1 rolls around and they start blanket closing one of the best winter walls in the south. It was already bad enough dealing with the finicky nature of their evaluation of the conditions. Responsible climbers would have been able to coexist without the need of the park. The OP's experience level with Tallulah is clear considering the time of year they chose to climb at this place.

I am happy for the park being able to say they exist again on park property. It is still a business, and their excitement is part of drawing more visitors. Knowing the local color, I imagine there are some idiot kids up at one of the lookouts throwing rocks at the birds right now. Not much different than the on-going juvenile behavior observed at Yonah and Currahee.

As far as the SCC goes, I am unfamiliar with the specifics mentioned, but this isn't Europe. Bolting next to natural gear placements at areas established as traditional is bad! Individuals should be educated, and shunned when it becomes a repeat. I am in agreement with John again regarding disclosure of history. When those holding the historical information of routes don't give it up when the area is made public, then it is easy for a retro-bolter to claim ignorance. FWIW, I now carry a small wrench in my backpack to take care of these situations.

Paul Barnes wrote:Good grief...and this is just the first thing I found...from the Un Foundation website: Recipient: Michael Wurzel "We funded the Southeastern Climber’s Association to go climb, develop, and bolt routes all over Lookout Mountain, Signal Mountain, Mowbray Mountain, and Monteagle Mountain. And they’re still going. They’re establishing between 25-35 new routes across this area, improving and promoting Chattanooga as an innovative outdoor city."

That is about the most appalling thing involving climbing that I've ever seen. I'm sure the UN foundation didn't come up with that idea on its own and probably didn't know enough about climbing to understand how appalling it is--the SCC, which should know, pitched it to them. I can hear the rationale, 'It was a chance to get outside money to 'improve' the resource.' Well you know what, it is not and should not be the business of the SCC or any climbing advocacy group (CCC, Access Fund, etc.) to put up routes. I don't give a crap whether it is a perfectly justifiable sport route, i.e. a no retros, no gear, no squeeze, aesthetic line on open access land--that's just wrong.

To paraphrase Simon and Garfunkel, 'Where have you gone Brad MacLeod, a lonely region turns its eyes to you..'

Hell, I gave money to help open Castle Rock, even though it's primarily a sport area and I find sport climbing to be dull as dirt (and I didn't know about the bolted crack). Be damned if I make that mistake again.

Jim, with regard to that last comment, I have to note that Brad McLeod himself fully supported SCC-funded bolting, and not just at SCC crags. I'm not, however, in total disagreement with you. SCC-funded bolting opens a can of worms. What about at areas the SCC owns though? If there were a process to determine what should and should not be bolted, would you still oppose SCC-funded bolting at crags that the SCC owns?

Will Eccleston wrote:Jim, with regard to that last comment, I have to note that Brad McLeod himself fully supported SCC-funded bolting, and not just at SCC crags. I'm not, however, in total disagreement with you. SCC-funded bolting opens a can of worms. What about at areas the SCC owns though? If there were a process to determine what should and should not be bolted, would you still oppose SCC-funded bolting at crags that the SCC owns?

Been staying out of this one, but I'll chime in here as we have direct experience. I do think there is a role for local climbing organizations like the SCC and CCC to maintain and replace hardware as it ages. That to me is completely different from supplying bolts for new routes, which in the CCC we don't do. That being said, I know one case where the land manager specifically asked for more routes to be bolted and more anchors installed in order to spread out the climbers at the crag and reduce the use of trees as top-rope anchors. That led to more climbing opportunities at that park and expanding climbing opportunities is one of our goals. So, like many things it's not as black and white as some folks would make it out to be at times and each area is unique. However, I (nor anyone on the CCC board) absolutely do not condone retro-bolting or bolting of routes that can be done on gear and we have actively worked to correct instances of that where it has happened.

From reading the discussions here and conversations I have had off-line I think there is a lot of misunderstanding and poor communication going on. Given the way things take off on MP and the Internet in general, that's not real surprising. I hope that the upcoming meeting and the other things in the works will help the community resolve this and move forward. After all, we all love these place and we all are responsible for them, hopefully that passion can be channeled into constructive progress.