Chains at Forks and Overlook?

Wanted to get some opinions. The tree at the top of the Prow (Forks) and the tree at the top of Isaiah(Overlook)are in somewhat dire straits from all the use. A friend of mine suggested wrapping each with some carpet and running some permanent chain around them.

Obviously, the ethics of these areas is such that permanent anchors are taboo, so we are wondering how the community would feel? I don't like having permanent anchors out there anymore than anyone else, but I am concerned about how much use the trees are seeing and their survivability.

If everyone would pad the trees better or use gear anchors (Isaiah Tree) then it wouldn't be an issue, but we all know that will never be the case.

Opinions, thoughts, concerns, criticisms, better ideas are all welcome.

It is best to not use the Prow tree at all for an anchor.

What is wrong with people who think it is better to beat up some poor tree and think a tree wrapped with carpet and chain looks better than two bolts with rings?

DesertRatExpeditions wrote: I don't like having permanent anchors out there anymore than anyone else,.

Why not?

M Sprague wrote:What is wrong with people who think it is better to beat up some poor tree and think a tree wrapped with carpet and chain looks better than two bolts with rings?

+1000

I hate this. People think that using trees, which WILL eventually kill them is "good ethics", and placing two camoed bolts with rap hangers is "Bad ethics"... Good example of how faulty logic can be perpetuated by "ethics"...

mountainproject.com/v/two-b…

Here's a link to an older thread. Some very good points here for and against. It's an old question at this point. Would anchors really help the tree and erosion issues, or just make the place more crowded?

It's not simply a matter of bolt hating and old crusty trad dudes. Many of us have pondered the situation for years or even decades. At this point I would hate to see the canyon floor get as trampled as the rim. It's a no utopia sort of situation. For every "fix", it's not hard to see the future problems that will arise. As for me, I would also hate to see some wham bam anchor job done without proper planning and consulting. If anchors go in, it needs to be a community deal, with community input, and not the act of one person. Shitty, poorly placed anchors will get chopped. I think that is just an inevitability. However, if you really think Paradise Forks, or even the Overlook could benefit from some fixed anchors, then come up with a written plan of where YOU think there should be anchors, what type of anchor setup, and what the benefits would be to the community. Go out and talk to people about it, and get some feedback while giving yourself some time to ponder the issues. If the community wants it, it shouldn't be that hard to muster up support right? Talk is cheap. Do you actually care enough to do it right the first time?

I'd still rather be apart of a rim restoration project, than an anchor installation project. But I think it is important to remember that we can not out run long term impact. It will show it's face one place or another out there no matter what we do. Paradise Forks deserves the best we can put forth as far as preserving the environmental uniqueness, the traditions, and the history of this amazing crag.

M Sprague wrote:What is wrong with people who think it is better to beat up some poor tree and think a tree wrapped with carpet and chain looks better than two bolts with rings?

As satisfying as it can be to go cragging for an entire day without clipping a single bolt, I fully agree with you. Adding anchors to the tops of the climbs would take nothing away from the area and it would be considerably safer and more sustainable.

Darren Mabe wrote:It is best to not use the Prow tree at all for an anchor.

I agree, but people not using the tree will never happen until it's completely dead.

DesertRatExpeditions wrote:I don't like having permanent anchors out there anymore than anyone else...

Darren Mabe wrote: Why not?

I am on the side of reducing permanent anchors where they are not absolutely needed. This especially goes when talking about the Forks. It wasn't that long ago that Chalk wasn't ethical at the Forks, then colored chalk was the ethic.

Would I object if the community decided a couple bolts would be the solution at those two locations? No, but in order to do anything I think there needs to be community support, hence the thread.

I am not against permanent anchors, but I think each bolt that is placed should outside a sport area should be weighed carefully. I've certainly placed a few myself. I guess the way I look at it is, the area has ethics that were around before me, why would I have the right to come in and go against them?

Just trying to find a way that everyone will be somewhat happy.

DesertRatExpeditions wrote: I agree, but people not using the tree will never happen until it's completely dead.

and unfortunately they will still use it. its a slow process to lead by example and to spread the word.

Every few years this subject comes up. It is something that NAz has been dealing with for a long time.

The real question isn't to bolt or not to bolt anchors at the Forks. The real question is can the climbing community agree on how to best protect the environment at the Forks. The answer to that question is absolutely not.

If the real goal was to protect the cliff top and trees, then bolted anchors would be a great solution. But the "all in" portion of that would be to close access to the top of the cliff and to make the entire place lead only with either a rap station or use the little know walk down to access the canyon floor. Of course this would move the impact from the cliff top to the base of the cliff. Nothing is perfect after all.

Another solution would be to construct several fixed anchors to use for rapping into the canyon. This is a standard "middle ground" answer. But, I do believe that once the bolt gene is let out of the bottle at the forks we won't be able to put it back in.

So, we have to do something, right? Here is my list of easy things that I think 95% of climbers can agree on:

1. Bring something to pad your rope with when anchoring to trees. You can also use sticks and bark that are laying on the ground if you forget to bring a pad.

2. Share rap lines.

3. If you are TRing something, use trad gear whenever possible with a "back up" line to a tree.

4. Don't use the Prow Tree as an anchor.

5. Try to use established paths/trails when moving from area to area.

6. Listen to Darren. He and Angela are very active in NAz at the moment and are working very hard to create a community of cooperation and psyche. All cool stuff.

I hope that we don't do what we normally do when this subject comes up: Fight about it on the internet and then do nothing to fix it.

Have fun out there and climb safe.

Thanks Will and great input.

One thing I would add is that it helps is to explain why to pad the trees. Not always as obvious to everyone. Basically padding helps reduce abrasion of the bark, and the 'sticks' help distribute the load vertically in HIGH tension applications (and for long duration). The latter is usually more applicable to slackline/highline setups.

For padding, i use pant legs from old carharts and it works pretty well. I also don't personally wrap the rope/cord more than once around the tree.

This is a great opportunity to also share that at Forks Fest this year there will be more awareness and guiding on tree anchoring etiquette and practices, specifically to the Forks. oh and BTW, Forks Fest is the weekend of Sept 20 this year, brought to you by Flagstaff Climbing Center and the Gnarbarians.

JJ Schlick wrote:http://www.mountainproject.com/v/two-bolt-anchors-will-save-paradise-forks-cliff-top/106073127 Here's a link to an older thread. Some very good points here for and against. It's an old question at this point. Would anchors really help the tree and erosion issues, or just make the place more crowded? It's not simply a matter of bolt hating and old crusty trad dudes. Many of us have pondered the situation for years or even decades. At this point I would hate to see the canyon floor get as trampled as the rim. It's a no utopia sort of situation. For every "fix", it's not hard to see the future problems that will arise. As for me, I would also hate to see some wham bam anchor job done without proper planning and consulting. If anchors go in, it needs to be a community deal, with community input, and not the act of one person. Shitty, poorly placed anchors will get chopped. I think that is just an inevitability. However, if you really think Paradise Forks, or even the Overlook could benefit from some fixed anchors, then come up with a written plan of where YOU think there should be anchors, what type of anchor setup, and what the benefits would be to the community. Go out and talk to people about it, and get some feedback while giving yourself some time to ponder the issues. If the community wants it, it shouldn't be that hard to muster up support right? Talk is cheap. Do you actually care enough to do it right the first time? I'd still rather be apart of a rim restoration project, than an anchor installation project. But I think it is important to remember that we can not out run long term impact. It will show it's face one place or another out there no matter what we do. Paradise Forks deserves the best we can put forth as far as preserving the environmental uniqueness, the traditions, and the history of this amazing crag.

Listen to JJ

JJ has great points! something will eventually need to be done whether its now, 5 years or even 10 years down the road. i don't think that the top can sustain another decade of erosion. i really like the idea of a rim restoration project first- maybe we can incorporate this into Forks Fest and have a lot of volunteers that really care about the Forks help out. The Forest Service has mentioned that they would love to help out in any way that they can also.
I talked a lot last year to the forest service and the erosion is not a huge issues on their plate as of now but they are aware of it. It would be better if we could come up with a plan before the forest service comes up with their own. Maybe they will approve an "educational" sign at the trail head that explains why you should pad the trees.
i don't think its necessary to put anchors on every single pitch either. why not start with just a couple rap station anchors first.

I think it's an issue of lack of education and accountability as well as an issue of a lot of talk but no action.

When I moved to Flagstaff about five years ago from northern Idaho I had no idea the ethic or proper way to set up at the forks or overlook. I was lucky to meet and climb with a climber who had been in the area for a while(Greg Dematteo)who showed me the ethics and the ways to least impact the areas.

I've climbed all over the country and a lot of areas in the northwest have great interpretation of the ethics and best practices for an area. Maybe the GNAR group could work with the government entities to install some good signs. I'd be stoked to be a part of this effort. With the limited budget of the USFS climbers need to take this on in collaboration with land managers. I'd say that we even need to go as far as setting up a dontation box at the trail head to began to do some restoration work to the tree's and eroding areas mentioned.

I also think that it is the responsibility of the climbing community of northern Arizona to speak up and educate in a non-confrontational, but firm way when we see climbers in the area doing things like top roping off of the prow tree. We must share the knowledge on this site, in the gyms, and at the trail heads.

I think that we need to create a culture of accountability in the region so much that someone would feel silly to be doing the things mentioned in all of these treads.

Will is totally spot on in everything he said. Let's actually do something this time, as while I've only been here for a handful of years the debate has resurfaced each time with no action.

Here's an idea: The summer round of Access Fund grants are due August 1st. That's only 2 days, but I've written a lot of grants and would volunteer to throw something together for either interpretation or a "Northern Arizona Climber Education Booklet" That could be distributed at gyms, stores, trailheads, etc. Or to host a public forum on the issue where all interested stakeholders could get together and come up with a consensus of what the climbing community here wants to do.
What do folks think of any of these ideas?

Here's a link to the access fund grant guidelines accessfund.org/site/c.tmL5K…

i like your ideas Jacob. i still think there needs to be an "action committee" of some sort so that things actually happen. Eldorado Canyon in CO has one and it seems to work well. If there is no "committee" than how would things actually get done?

I agree. The northern arizona climbers coalition used to be somewhat active but in the least four years hasn't done much (sorry I don't intend to offend anyone..especially those who were/are a part of it that contribute greatly to the community) I think that the GNAR group could serve as a great place to draw a committee from.

JacobD wrote:I think that the GNAR group could serve as a great place to draw a committee from.

you mean like a Greater Northern Arizona Republic Special Mission Unit??? like a Gnarbarian Delta Force?? that would be cool.

LOTS of great ideas, but the most relevant one is doing SOMETHING.

I'm willing to set-up a calendar with 20-30 "Volunteer" Ambassadors who would be willing to hang out at the Forks all day for one day, Saturday or Sunday and greet climbers and share our community's ethics for the area.

20 people would be a commitment of one day every 2 1/2 months or so.
I think that is very do-able if we all care as much as we say.

I'll be first this Saturday.

JJ, are you willing to create some sort of "ethics of the area" handout we can print 4-up on a sheet?

It's a start. We need some volunteers.

Lots of good ideas.

Just so as not to recreate the wheel, back when the USFS (Coconino National Forest) was working with stakeholders to improve the Overlook public areas, the USFS engaged the climbing community (mainly NACC but also AMC) to draft a climbing management plan. I have a copy of the "draft" from 2003 if anyone is interested. PM me.

The land is managed by the USFS and would need USFS involvement with any formal climber activities regarding the land. The draft plan was titled:

Proposal to Reopen the Cliffs Beneath the Scenic Vista To Rock Climbing
January 2003

If some folks from the NACC are still around, they might be able to shed additional light about the opportunities and constraints of working with the Coconino USFS folks.