Disallowing Roped and Aerial Activities in Mineral and Hell Roaring Canyons - Comment Period

Please take the time to comment on this BLM initiative to restrict climbing in these area. This includes, but is not limited to the Hell Roaring Canyon towers, Labyrinth Canyon take out crag, Fruit Bowl Slack Lining area and many others spots.  

https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/eplanning/projectSummary.do?methodName=renderDefaultProjectSummary&projectId=1504945

https://etvnews.com/blm-seeking-comments-on-a-proposal-limiting-roped-and-aerial-recreation-activities-in-mineral-and-hell-roaring-canyons/

"The proposed restricted area does not include the Mineral Bottom Base-jumping Focus Area, the Mineral Bottom Airstrip or the original Fruit Bowl, three areas popular with roped and aerial activity enthusiasts." Dead Man tower also appears outside of the area.

It would affect the Kachina Spires and the Witch, Warlock and Cauldron towers.

https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/1504945/20015941/250021372/Mineral_and_Hell_Roaring_Map.pdf

https://cdn2.apstatic.com/photos/climb/106319084_large_1494097256.jpg

Why does BLM want to ban them in those areas?

Why do enthusiasts want those areas to remain open?

Glowering wrote: Why does BLM want to ban them in those areas?

Why do enthusiasts want those areas to remain open?

From the BLM press release asking for public comments:

"The BLM is requesting input from the public on a proposal to protect wildlife and raptors though restricting roped and aerial activities within Mineral and Hell Roaring Canyons. The approximately 10,000-acre area identified for potential restrictions provides habitat for golden eagles, Mexican Spotted Owl, desert bighorn sheep, and other wildlife. In recent years, recreational activity in the Mineral and Hell Roaring Canyons has increased, leading to impacts to wildlife habitat. The BLM developed the proposal to help mitigate this conflict."

I think the reason why people want to keep the areas open is pretty obvious... To use said areas. For "roped and aerial activities."

Are there opportunities / locations in the proposed closed area that aren’t in the areas to remain open? Eg there’s better high line locations

I’d like to intelligently comment on the plan but don’t know enough

are there areas in the proposed closed areas that are special for the use, and not habitats? Do they need to be more specific about what is closed vs open? Is there a way to recreate in the canyons while causing less disturbances to wildlife? 

If climbing near these raptor nesting sites is disruptive to the species listed by the blm, perhaps we can simply accept that we have an impact and respect wildlife by adhering to the closure. Now, I have only read the project description so I do not know if the assessment that led to these restrictive proposals was well considered by biologists and therefore justified. However, if this proposal was formed based on warranted concern for nesting birds and other wildlife, I hope climbers will respond with self-awareness and a willingness to make the proper sacrifice. The climbing world continues to grow, and so does our collective footprint. 

Austin Beck Doss wrote: If climbing near these raptor nesting sites is disruptive to the species listed by the blm, perhaps we can simply accept that we have an impact and respect wildlife by adhering to the closure. Now, I have only read the project description so I do not know if the assessment that led to these restrictive proposals was well considered by biologists and therefore justified. However, if this proposal was formed based on warranted concern for nesting birds and other wildlife, I hope climbers will respond with self-awareness and a willingness to make the proper sacrifice. The climbing world continues to grow, and so does our collective footprint. 

In my experience, climbers are very respectful to closures for wildlife habitat. For example, raptor nesting closures in national parks and Indian Creek. We adhere to them very well because we understand exactly where they are at, and what time of year we cannot climb there. They are very specific closures to specific cliffs and specific times of the year. It makes sense to us. What makes zero sense to me, is closing an entire section of the desert to only climbers and highliners, while still allowing dirt bikes to rip up and down the canyons, guided river tours, mountain bikes, jeeps, and side-by-side’s. That paints a very clear picture that this is not at all about preserving wildlife, but something else. I spend a lot of time in this area of the desert, and know most of the people that are there as well. This is about the BLM feeling threatened about large groups gathering to recreate where they have zero control over what happens. 

This is sad to see.  Climbers have been active in the area for over half a century.  There are a few towers and lines that are published that see the occasional ascent.  Then a handful of really obscure towers and lines that have very, very few ascents.  I think climbing is getting unfairly thrown in with the roped activities that are happening on the rims.  This site has a video showing what's happening on the rims:   ggbygathering.org

They are very specific closures to specific cliffs and specific times of the year.

That's what I'm trying to understand with this area. Often I see public lands managers try to take the easy way out and put blanket bans in place, and/or close down areas that aren't impacted. Because they don't have the knowledge/desire/capability to really analyze the situation and manage the areas to maximize recreation and wildlife. This doesn't seem to have the rigor applied to other decisions of this sort. Usually there is a proposal with multiple options like A. ban in this large area B. leave things as is C. ban in these limited areas D. Ban at certain times of years. It looks like no one has done enough analysis to even come up with alternatives which is concerning. I'm all for avoiding impacts to wildlife. I'm against closing down recreational opportunities that don't have any significant impact because no one did the work to see if they really caused an impact.

A good guess is that this is really driven by supposed mitigation for massive mineral/oil/gas development, which the crooks propose to expand at firesale prices.

https://suwa.org/wp-content/uploads/Sept2020Nominations_PressRelease.pdf
https://www.accessfund.org/news-and-events/news/moab-climbing-threatened-by-massive-oil-and-gas-lease-sale
https://moabtimes.com/2020/01/24/sand-flats-oil-and-gas-leases-threaten-water-supply/
https://moabtimes.com/2020/03/27/230-parcels-many-near-arches-canyonlands-up-for-oil-gas-lease-sale/
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/21/trump-administration-cuts-royalty-payments-for-oil-companies-273548

https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/fossil-fuel-free-for-all-begins-utah-s-public-lands
https://www.moabsunnews.com/news/article_ddb1c846-1a7f-11e9-a193-ab8c1b44ddcd.html
https://lasvegassun.com/news/2020/jun/01/trump-sells-our-land-for-a-song-this-land-was-made/
https://moabtimes.com/2019/12/20/battle-over-proposed-book-cliffs-highway-resumes/
https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/trump-administration-plan-expands-fossil-fuel-extraction-across-southwestern-colorado-2020-04-09/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/12/trumps-legacy-drilled-public-lands-and-the-resulting-carbon-emissions
https://nmpoliticalreport.com/2019/09/26/touring-the-fracking-wells-at-chaco-canyon/
https://environmentnewmexico.org/programs/nme/dont-frack-chaco-canyon-0

This document is a scoping document so they are looking for impacts that should be considered for study.  Rather than what will be done.

For instance, what are the documented impacts to wildlife habitat? Is there data supporting these impacts? For instance, going back X years there were Y animals and A humans documented, now there are less animals and more humans. But is that the only reason? Could there be other reasons such as long term climate change and loss of native habitat?

A common issue is nesting season, which is seasonal as such should seasonal limits be considered? Another issue is they mention Big Horn Sheep. However, Big Horn Sheep are not just up on the cliffs but everywhere in the canyons as such why are just roped and aerial activities being looked at? Should other activities be restricted especially during the lambing season?

What are the recreational resources in the canyons, biking, hiking, climbing, canyoneering, birding?

What is the carrying capacity of the area? It is issue the people, or too many people? Could activities continue but with restrictions on the number of people, permit system?

I can say with some certainly this gathering is on the for front: sltrib.com/news/environment…

Edit there are two threads on this issue: mountainproject.com/forum/t…

Taylor Palmer wrote:

In my experience, climbers are very respectful to closures for wildlife habitat. For example, raptor nesting closures in national parks and Indian Creek. We adhere to them very well because we understand exactly where they are at, and what time of year we cannot climb there. They are very specific closures to specific cliffs and specific times of the year. It makes sense to us. What makes zero sense to me, is closing an entire section of the desert to only climbers and highliners, while still allowing dirt bikes to rip up and down the canyons, guided river tours, mountain bikes, jeeps, and side-by-side’s. That paints a very clear picture that this is not at all about preserving wildlife, but something else. I spend a lot of time in this area of the desert, and know most of the people that are there as well. This is about the BLM feeling threatened about large groups gathering to recreate where they have zero control over what happens. 

Or climbers, high liners and base jumpers are having a more pronounced impact on wildlife that utilizes cliff lines and steeper terrain that other usergroups don't spend as much time in?  Just food for thought.  This is phase 1 in a big NEPA process, lots more to come.

I would say climbers fall in the middle of the respectful category, above dirt bikers, but well below many groups, especially newer climbers which there are so many of.  Part of this is just from the nature that climbing is so specific, the "that's my project man!" scenario.  We want very specific things, so there is less adaptability plan wise. This is from time spent as a field going land management employee...

And there is also I can't pay for a campsite, but can drink a 8 dollar microbrew guy climber....

The reality is federal agencies (like the BLM) really only give serious consideration to comments that are detailed and well-supported with data. This usually involves a lawyer/biologist/other specialist writing a report with data to back their argument. That said, I commented, and I encourage others to also (assuming you write a reasonably well-thought-out and respectful comment). It is important to let the BLM know that climbers are a user group who care about and (hopefully) respect this area. All the better if you have some actual evidence to support your position.

Of course I don't want to see bans but let's be real - this is the new world order. Funding has and will be slashed for certain government agencies so a blanket ban is the easiest way to "regulate".

Honestly, Moab and surrounding areas are fucked anyhow. Too many people, too many Razr's tearing up the desert, too much disrespect (ignoring raptor closures, ignoring camping bans during COVID, "busting the crust", not handling your poop properly) and on and on.

I fear I will have to be content with remembering the old Moab - when there was always camping available at places like Sand Flats, Wall Street was actually enjoyable and not full of climbers acting like assholes, permits on the White Rim trail were easy to get, there wasnt an hour long queue to get into Arches (only to find out most TH's were already overflowing), and on and on.

Shit sucks...but honestly it's time to find a new "Moab"

This doesn't seem to have the rigor applied to other decisions of this sort. Usually there is a proposal with multiple options like A. ban in this large area B. leave things as is C. ban in these limited areas D. Ban at certain times of years. It looks like no one has done enough analysis to even come up with alternatives which is concerning. I'm all for avoiding impacts to wildlife.

They are at the scoping stage of their analysis, i.e., soliciting input as to what they should analyze, what alternatives they should look at, etc., hence the absence of any rigorous analysis. The map identifies some areas where highlining and BASE jumping would be allowed, so they appear amenable to accommodating existing recreation. This would be a good time to alert them to the location of existing climbs and suggest that they allow access to those specific areas. 

These climbing restrictions need to stop.  There are millions of square miles where birds and other wildlife roam free, but the same is not true of the availability of developed climbing areas.  Human activities need to take priority.  Please reach out to me if there is something I can do to stem this trend of closures.

Joshua Tree Runner wrote: These climbing restrictions need to stop.  There are millions of square miles where birds and other wildlife roam free, but the same is not true of the availability of developed climbing areas.  Human activities need to take priority.  Please reach out to me if there is something I can do to stem this trend of closures.

Include, ohv trails, mountain biking, hiking trails, roads, places for oil and gas, houses... all the other user groups, and there are not millions of square miles where wildlife roam free.  The free roaming parts are getting smaller and smaller, and yes we contribute to that.  "Human activities need to take priority"  I think they already are.  Not everyone can live in the ecological Eden of Pasadena.