The answer to the inevitable Peaks question.

For those of you who don't know me my name is Will Cobb and I am Access Fund's regional coordinator for Northern Arizona. I have lived in Flagstaff for over 20 years now and I have a vested interest in all of NAz's climbing areas.

I have hesitated to take part in the online discussion surrounding this issue quite honestly because nothing gets solved in an online chat. However this is a great way to spread information, so here goes.

There are a number of issues surrounding The Peaks climbing area.

First, let's get a few facts out on the table:

1. The crag developers have always advocated a "word of mouth" system for the area. They understood that this area would attract many climbers due to the quality and variety of routes. They also understood that this particular area is quite small and would not handle huge crowds. The idea was to slowly dissemenate information out to the community and spread out people coming to climb there. From my personal experience I can say that finding the crag and exploring it without a guide book was really fun. No grades, no names, and no expectations made the climbing unique in a world of internet and foldout guides.

2. There are fixed anchors at the Peaks. For what it's worth the anchors are well thought out and well camoflauged. The original route developers attempted to strike a balance between cliff top destruction (such as at The Forks and The Overlook) and anchor placement. Mitigating destruction was their intent and I believe that they chose the lesser of two evils. I also understand that fixed anchors and wilderness don't usually mesh. The question of if the crag should have ever been developed is mute now. It does exist and now we need to decide what to do with it.

3. The Peaks lies squarely in the Katchina Peaks Wilderness. This is reality and ultimatly will determine the fate of the crag.

4. The Peaks is not a secret. The crag has been around for nearly four years now. The local Forest Service office is quite aware of it's existance and general location.

5. Fixed anchors are not always illeagal in wilderness. There are exceptions to the policy especially when preserving vegitation is the outcome. At the same time a sport crag is going to be a rare exception. (A spade is a spade after all.)

So, what to do?

This is quite simple, it is time to take an honest look at what we have done and then decide on a clear course of action. Here what I am going to do:

1. There needs to be a moratorium on any route development at The Peaks. No matter what happens to the crag we don't need to dig the hole any deeper.

2. I am going to ask that no one travel up to the Peaks with the intention of erasing the crag. If that needs to happen it will be done in a controlled and careful fashion.

3. I have a message into Jason Keith with the Access Fund. Jason has far more experience than I do in dealing with issues such as this one. I need his help in formulating a strategy as to how and when to approach the Forest Service with specifics about the cliff. I am also going to be using the AF's resources to develop a climbing use plan for the area.

4. I want to have a sit down meeting with all of the crag's first assentionists. This is going to be about as easy as herding cats, but it can be done. At this meeting the main topic needs to be the future of the crag and how the FA's wish to be involved with taking care of the land.

5. Finally, we will sit down with the local land managers and develop a climbing management plan for The Peaks. It is difficult to predict what the management plan will consist of, but we all need to be resigned to the possibility that the crag will probably change from it's current form to something that is more in line with the Wilderness idea.

We are going to take our time with this process. Snow will be falling soon and the crag will close for a few months. From reading everyone's thoughts I can clearly see that this area is important. That is exactly why I think it is important to take a bit of time solving this issue. As my friends will attest I am slow, but steady.

As a plan emerges I will continue to use this message board to spread information.

In the mean time if you want to climb at this crag, stop in at the local climbing gym. Get to know a few of the people at the front desk. They can give you information on the crag and get you started. Enjoy AZ's beauty while you stretch your legs and hike up to the cliff. Enjoy every sharp crimp, finger wrapping jug, and hand jam that the cliff provides. Then, think about how you want your public lands to be used. I'll be here listening.

Thanks, Will Cobb! I appreciate and admire your effort.

Scott Mc

Fixed anchors / bolts haven't been as much of an issue in designated wilderness areas as the use of power drills to place them, and that is not really an issue if people can be discreet about when they use the power drills. Route top anchors were never an objection or issue for anyone there. The only issues surrounding the area that I am aware of are sharing information about its location and maybe a minor one of some bolts near natural gear placements. Do we really need the Access Fund to create a public issue about something that isn't at issue? Please correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, there is still a difference between regulations effecting how wilderness areas are managed in National Parks and National Forests.

md3 wrote:Do we really need the Access Fund to create a public issue about something that isn't at issue?

If it isn't an issue, then why is there so much discussion about it?

I applaud Will's post, and I think that this is a perfect way for the Access Fund to step in. It is in everyone's best interests to discuss this in an open and constructive manner. The question of access and whether or not to publish information about this area will not go away simply by declaring it to be a non-issue.

Good luck tackling such a difficult subject Will.

manuel rangel wrote:Good luck tackling such a difficult subject Will.

+1
Thanks Will.

Hey Will,
Just some questions. If someone is caught using a power drill at the peaks would authorities attempt to close the crag or punish the individual. How would they close the crag if this goes down, spend tax dollars chopping the bolts? Just wondering. Are there examples of bolts being chopped by tax money in wilderness areas? They can't prove any bolts were done by power drill except the one hole they theoretically may catch the guy (or girl) in the process of drilling. How does that weigh in? Would they just chop the anchor bolts to enforce the no fixed anchor rule or entire routes? Sorry for so many questions. Thanks for your work in the area.

each and every one of you is making this BECOME a real issue when currently it is a non-issue. seriously, take it to a PM.

jackson wrote:each and every one of you is making this BECOME a real issue when currently it is a non-issue. seriously, take it to a PM.

Jackson: I understand why you'd want to protect your local crag, but as I said above calling it a non-issue and waving your hands does not make the situation magically disappear.

Greg,
My impression is that this didn't start because of the bolting issue, at least not directly. It started when some over-protective locals cried out about their non-secret area being posted on the web and it has snowballed from there.

What Opland said. Its in the National Forest. Its not an illegal crag. Bolts are not per se illegal in wilderness areas. Even if some power drilling went on in the wilderness, that doesn't mean it becomes an "illegal crag". You don't have to get permission to put up a route (yet) on most public lands. There are some tightly regulated places where you have to get permission beforehand for placing a bolt, but they are limited to some parks and monuments. Wilderness areas exist on BLM land, National Forest, National Parks and State Parks. They have different approaches to how they manage them.
There is an issue with someone being an unbelievable ass threatening to rat on people and endanger access over something like this. The initial post by the access fund person does seem to miss the point about what the issue is and what matters in a number of different ways. Going to the NFS with some crap about whether or not there should be bolts at all in this area is unnecessary and would be counter productive whether or not the effort was headed up by an access fund representative or not.
Just as the new water pipe to the ski area above the peaks for snow making has been justified by its bringing in more people for local businesses, new climbing areas do bring in people from all over who support the local economy. The business community in Flagstaff has used climbing to advertise Flagstaff as a great place. Its not a climber unfriendly place. There is no need to create problems where there really are none.
Whoever that jerk is who thinks it might be a good idea to "go to the authorities" because he/she doesn't like something about the way a small crag was developed needs to take some time to think things through. Climbers have always debated those sorts of issues and while there are growing problems with self regulation, its still better to try it than to endanger access for anyone anywhere. Seriously, if you go to the gym and ask to talk to someone involved in putting the routes up or who just climbs here a lot, they are likely to be happy to talk to you about it. They are likely to take criticisms seriously and consider doing things a little differently in the future. Most everyone I have met in the climbing community here is a good person, even it they have some different perspectives on what amount to minor issues about some aspects of climbing.

Well spoken Greg!

The anonymous posters are making a mountain out of a molehill. Let the FAers and the land managers sort it all out. Time will tell.

Keith, is that you hiding behind all those anonymous accounts???

Greg wrote:Some of you anonymous people seem to want to try to forward the idea that bolts themselves are illegal in wilderness areas. This is an idea that some radical enviros, or hardcore wilderness folks like to push, but one that has been fought by climbers for many years. Power drills in wilderness, yes illegal. I would hope that the FS would not attempt to penalize all climbers in a case where someone got caught any more than we should all lose our driver's license if someone drives drunk. This is America and we're all supposedly free to make our own choices. Bolts in wilderness, not illegal per se, but constantly discussed and fought over by factions on both sides of the issue. No formal "law" against them. Think about this... if bolts in wilderness become illegal, and they actually take action to remove them, thousands of historical, classic routes could be erased. Red Rocks, the Sierras, El Capitan, Superstitions, and many more. As climbers, we DO NOT want to see bolts made illegal in wilderness areas. The discussion here boggles the mind in the way that some of you have metaphorically pulled the grenade pin and are threatening to blow everyone up. What exactly is your goal?

+1

@ Peter Franzen: "My impression is that this didn't start because of the bolting issue, at least not directly. It started when some over-protective locals cried out about their non-secret area being posted on the web and it has snowballed from there."

It started when someone wanted to post the area and was denied in keeping with the local custom. He went on to complain and post a map on supertopo he created (MTucker/Keith Lober). THis person went on to hijack an account he originally posted under (Base1361) now changed to base9999 and others I'm sure. This individual is making many unfounded allegations, inflated bolt counts and goofy claims of cracks being bolted, etc. All to what end? You have to ask any one of his anonymous accounts.

You're an administrator, do you follow the area developer's wishes when administering your part of the world or do you take nobody else's view into account but yours? Do you try to do the right thing or do you condone blowing things up out of proportion?

Can you get rid of anonymous accounts? I bet the vitriol would disappear because some day they would have to stand up and be counted. Hiding and pointing the finger, spreading rumor and inuendo is all that have really occured in both posts concerning the peaks.

manuel rangel wrote:Can you get rid of anonymous accounts? I bet the vitriol would disappear because some day they would have to stand up and be counted. Hiding and pointing the finger, spreading rumor and inuendo is all that have really occured in both posts concerning the peaks.

I cannot agree more about anonymous accounts, Manny. I'd love to see every one of them deleted.

Too bad the federal grand jury base/super climber is convening cannot also investigate anonymous posters.... There is the real harm, the anonymous trolls who constantly leave their incendiary E-turds all over the base of this site.

Thanks Manny and Md3 for having a clue and posting it.

Whatever, KEITH. I am a guidebook co-author, and have stated it many times - how is that anonymous cowardace? Keep grasping, it suits you.

Maybe it is time to report to your superiors about your internet activity.

I am sure there would be enough of us that would support our suspicions to at least have some sort of inquiry?

JMo real person
md3 real person
SuperClimber FAKE joined 10/13/11 eight posts about Peaks only
MisterE real person
Red real person
JMo .....again???
Zeke real person
unlemoted FAKE joined 10/14/11 one post on Peaks only
ArizonaHighStep FAKE joined 7/6/11 two posts on Peaks only
dostol UNK joined 5/14/2011 many different posts
jackson ???
Geir real person
muttonface UNK joined 7/30/11 many posts

Anyone of the above names I have listed as a real person is one that is willing or able to divulge their names and or has a profile with some identifying info.

Superclimber, unlemoted, arizhighstep all joined nearly at the same time and all have posts concerning the Peaks only! What's that tell you? Keith Lober is that you?

BTW, Keith Lober, aka Superclimber, BASEJumper1361, BASE9999, MTucker (on Supertopo), you think the federal government you work for can't track your IP address for your posts?

SuperClimber wrote: Real Names = 33% Will Cobb Scott M. McNamara Peter Franzen manuel rangel Abel Jones Greg Opland Anonymous Cowards = 66% JMo md3 SuperClimber MisterE Red JMo Zeke unlemoted ArizonaHighStep dostol jackson Geir muttonface

SuperClimber,

There are maybe 3 Geirs in the country. How anonymous is that???? Look at my profile. It has always had my personal website address, which in turn has my full name and email. Feel free to drop me a line.

Geir S. Hundal
Tucson, AZ