Garden of The Gods Scrambling rules are insane?

I have a huge problem with the GOG and Red Rock scrambling rules. Rangers have threatened me with 500 dollar fines for being on class 3 terrain!

The justification is that tourists will see what is going on, and will get hurt trying to do the same thing. Is this a huge problem anywhere else? I don't think tourist deaths in Yosemite are particularly high per the number of people who solo there... It seems just another way that COS authorities want to control the actions of others in order to make money off of places like GOG and Pikes Peak.

Isn't this America? Shouldn't I be able to put myself at risk any way I want to? It's ridiculous that I can't scramble up the descent route on Kindergarten rock, but someone could ride their Harley Davidson through the park with no helmet and a handgun on each hip, facing no fines. What kind of dystopian control state is this?

Curious your thoughts.

The general COS ethic is that your right to use your local area cannot in any way hinder a Texan's vacationing experience. Your scrambling is raising their blood pressure too much and might give the Garden a lower Yelp score. Knock that off!

If you want to solo at the Garden, limit yourself to Grey Rock on the east and south ridges. Few tourists will see you and the rock is in fact better there anyway.

My gym proctors told me that my Gri-gri technique would make ATC users think they could belay that way.   That kind of rationale, just like the rangers mentioned above, is fully modern bullshit.  Using that rationale, they should never televise car races because daily commuters might think they can drive that way.  Oh wait, they still sometimes do, so let's ban car racing.  Duh.

On a higher plain of thought, this is where "all men are created equal" and "personal freedom" directly conflict.  

I’m all for personal freedom.  You are free to do as you please as long as you don’t infringe on anybody else’s life Liberty our property.

In the gog many tourists get lured up the camel gully  and either get hurt or need rescue. It happened over and over and probably still does. Hence, the rule.

On the other hand, technical rock climbing is allowed. Perhaps you could wear a harness when scrambling to show you have some cred. Just obey the no white chalk rule. The white everywhere looks terrible and shows some climbers don’t respect the place. 

Greg D wrote:

I’m all for personal freedom.  You are free to do as you please as long as you don’t infringe on anybody else’s life Liberty our property.

In the gog many tourists get lured up the camel gully  and either get hurt or need rescue. It happened over and over and probably still does. Hence, the rule.

On the other hand, technical rock climbing is allowed. Perhaps you could wear a harness when scrambling to show you have some cred. Just obey the no white chalk rule. The white everywhere looks terrible and shows some climbers don’t respect the place. 

So, maybe put signs on the camel gully saying that it's a place people often get stuck? Why make a unilateral rule that does infringe on others who know what they are doing?

White chalk comes off any time it rains... There's not much overhanging rock in GOG to protect its residue. 

From the GoG website gardenofgods.com/activities…

"Technical climbing is legal – climbing on a rock formation in parties of 2 or more with proper equipment. Rock scrambling is illegal – climbing on a rock formation more than 10 feet up from its base without proper equipment. Sport repelling is not allowed– this is to protect the fragile sandstone cliff environment and visits below.

Important Rules & Guidelines to Remember:

• All climbers must have a valid local climbing permit.
• Proper climbing equipment must be worn while climbing.
• Stay on established and labeled access trails.
• Do not disturb wildlife.
• Be aware of seasonal closures (closed routes are marked with signs).
• Do not climb sandstone when wet.
• Use of all chalk and substitutes are prohibited.
• Everyone at the base of the climbing route must be permitted climbers.
• Please leave pets at home when climbing.
• Remember to leave no trace (pack up all trash)."

So you can solo with a friend if you put a rope on your back, maybe wear a harness. 

What is interesting is a handful of routes have class 3-4 scrambles as downclimbs (exactly what the OP was scrambling up). More importantly the climbing there is absolute garbage and you should just go elsewhere   

FWIW a tourist gets stuck and needs rescue here about once a year. " kktv.com/2021/05/28/2-peopl…; So the rangers who are involved with this are more annoyed at the stupidity of the general public but will take that out on the occasional climber. I have had nothing but positive interactions.

Bryan Longwey wrote:

It's ridiculous that I can't scramble up the descent route on Kindergarten rock, but someone could ride their Harley Davidson through the park with no helmet and a handgun on each hip, facing no fines. What kind of dystopian control state is this?

'Merica.

Since you asked, here's my $0.02:

This all kind of reminds me of the time I encountered a 19 year old in Yosemite Valley complaining that the rangers had just given him a verbal warning for trying to ride his longboard down the Lower Yosemite Falls Trail. 

"THERE'S TOO MANY RULES OUT HERE!" He complained, to my bemused incredulity.

Bryan Longwey wrote:

Isn't this America? Shouldn't I be able to put myself at risk any way I want to? 

1) Insane literally means "Not Healthy". How does being prohibited from putting your personal safety at risk via the consequences of gravity in a popular state park and in view of non-climbing tourists significantly impair your health? Inconvenient? Sure. Undesirable? Maybe. But I believe the word you might have been looking for was "irrational", or perhaps "unreasonable".

2) Regarding your "Shouldn't I be able... any way I want to?" question. 

No. Not any way you want to. Not if it disrupts the quiet enjoyment of shared resources for other citizens. 

America is a democratic republic, not an anarcho-libertarian fantasy. (i.e. You have a vote in who we collectively decide the authority figures are. You alone don't get to decide what the collective rules and limits are.) At least that's how I see it. And how most social/community-minded people see it, as far as I can tell.

You're definitely welcome to go find your own plot of undeveloped, unclaimed wilderness and live in isolation however you want, so long as you aren't destroying the ecosystem others depend on. That tends to not work out so well for the people who go full-send Into The Wild, though. Poison berries and lack of doctors and all that.

3) I think Greg D and James M have the correct, adult perspective, and it's important to recognize that people are, on the whole, still dumb, impulsive primates that need to be protected from themselves (to a certain extent) if we are to live in a kind and just society.

Summarily - I appreciate your frustration and might even agree with your belief that the rules and restrictions are a bit excessive... but it only takes one reckless fatality to upset the hordes and ruin the party for the rest of us. That's the shared risk that those particular rules are there to help mitigate.

"Everybody shows off

and wants to look presentable

but the fact of the matter is 

that accidents are preventable

from the sound of the candy wrappers

right down to the handicappers

everybody's got to exercise

a little caution."

DR. EVIL: We're not so different, you and I.

However, isn't it ironic that the very things that you stand for -- free love, swinging, parties -- are all now in the Nineties considered to be... evil?

POWERS: No man, what we swingers were rebelling against is uptight squares like you, whose bag was money and world domination. We were innocent man! If we'd known the consequences of our sexual liberation, we would have done things differently, but the spirit would have remained the same. It's freedom baby, yeah. 

EVIL: Face it, freedom failed.

POWERS: No man, freedom didn't fail. Right now, we've got freedom AND responsibility; It's a very groovy time!

I think your biggest mistake was going climbing at GOG in the first place

Brent Kelly wrote:

1) Insane literally means "Not Healthy". How does being prohibited from putting your personal safety at risk via the consequences of gravity in a popular state park and in view of non-climbing tourists significantly impair your health? Inconvenient? Sure. Undesirable. Maybe. But I believe the word you might have been looking for was "irrational", or perhaps "unreasonable".

2) Regarding your "Shouldn't I be able... any way I want to?" question. No. Not any way you want to. Not if it disrupts the quiet enjoyment of shared resources for other citizens. 

America is a democratic republic, not an anarcho-libertarian fantasy. (i.e. You have a vote in who we collectively decide the authority figures are. You alone don't get to decide what the collective rules and limits are.) At least that's how I see it. And how most social/community-minded people see it, as far as I can tell.

You're definitely welcome to go find your own plot of undeveloped, unclaimed wilderness and live in isolation however you want, so long as you aren't destroying the ecosystem others depend on. That tends to not work out so well for the people who go full-send Into The Wild, though. Poison berries and lack of doctors and all that.

3) I think Greg D has the correct, adult perspective, and it's important to recognize that people are, on the whole, still dumb, impulsive primates that need to be protected from themselves (to a certain extent) if we are to live in a kind and just society.

OK Mr. Brent, from Boulder. Several things for you:

No need for your discussion of the word insane. There's the root of a term, and then there's the modern usage. Insane has become synonymous with irrational. But if you want to substitute irrational, go ahead.

Secondly, if you're diving into political theory, the United States is a democratic republic founded on liberal ideals, intending to protect the rights of the individual to do what they care to do without infringing upon the liberties of the rest. The Dept. of the Interior in their management of National Parks and the Dept. of Ag in their management of Forests represent and enforce traditional liberties much more effectively - tourists do die from falling off of cliffs in Yosemite, but not that many. And my scrambling up third and fourth-class terrain within their view doesn't infringe upon their ability to do what they choose.

Does me scrambling up a third class route on Kindergarten rock amount to affecting another park-goer's experience negatively? Certainly not. Unless I were to fall. But then why is the motorcyclist allowed to ride without a helmet through the park? There are many more egregious displays of violence in and around Colorado Springs that tourists may see. Such as a very high rate of auto accidents. There is risk all around us. One rescue per year in one of the most highly-visited city parks in the world isn't all that big of a deal. 

I'd argue, in fact, that Colorado Springs Parks rules on climbing are not representative of a healthy democratic republic on a local level, as we don't vote on them. We also don't vote on those who institute them or enforce them - at a municipal level these issues have escaped the broader priorities of our City officials that we do actually elect.

In effect, these rules indicate the prevailing conservative political attitude of the Springs, which is to control things that scare us. Taking risks such as a lack of gun control that leads to the highest county suicide rate in the State are fine. But when it comes to individuals doing things which threaten the conservative order, there are laws and rules in place to limit what those people can do.

James M wrote:

From the GoG website gardenofgods.com/activities…

"Technical climbing is legal – climbing on a rock formation in parties of 2 or more with proper equipment. Rock scrambling is illegal – climbing on a rock formation more than 10 feet up from its base without proper equipment. Sport repelling is not allowed– this is to protect the fragile sandstone cliff environment and visits below.

Important Rules & Guidelines to Remember:

• All climbers must have a valid local climbing permit.
• Proper climbing equipment must be worn while climbing.
• Stay on established and labeled access trails.
• Do not disturb wildlife.
• Be aware of seasonal closures (closed routes are marked with signs).
• Do not climb sandstone when wet.
• Use of all chalk and substitutes are prohibited.
• Everyone at the base of the climbing route must be permitted climbers.
• Please leave pets at home when climbing.
• Remember to leave no trace (pack up all trash)."

So you can solo with a friend if you put a rope on your back, maybe wear a harness. 

What is interesting is a handful of routes have class 3-4 scrambles as downclimbs (exactly what the OP was scrambling up). More importantly the climbing there is absolute garbage and you should just go elsewhere   

FWIW a tourist gets stuck and needs rescue here about once a year. " kktv.com/2021/05/28/2-peopl…; So the rangers who are involved with this are more annoyed at the stupidity of the general public but will take that out on the occasional climber. I have had nothing but positive interactions.

So the rule is actually no free soloing.

With the recent spate of freesolo deaths this rule could save lives in many areas.

Tradiban wrote:

So the rule is actually no free soloing.

With the recent spate of freesolo deaths this rule could save lives in many areas.

Nah, the rule is literally "no rock scrambling" but soloing with proper equipment and a buddy is fine according to the text. (obviously you will still get yelled at). 

It just amuses me because the powers that be took a rap line off a multi-pitch (see New Era) which forces everybody to "rock scramble" their way down. As long as you have a partner and gear they will not yell at you for being on the downclimb, even though you aren't using any of the gear.

From New Era - "DESCEND by scrambling down 4th Class to the south."

Bryan Longwey wrote:

OK Mr. Brent, from Boulder. Several things for you:

I appreciate your thoughts and dialogue, Brian. 

I don't necessarily disagree, in general, with anything you've said in the "OK Mr Brent from Boulder" post.

I very much support your perspective that it is inconsistent and inhumane to prevent people from enjoying manageable risk in rock climbing whilst turning a blind eye to issues such as road safety and the contributing factors around gun violence. I absolutely despise the relaxed and, quite literally, insane gun policies in this country. 

to be clear- i dont necessarily disagree with your frustration or ideological perspective. I do think your tone in the original post is a little egregiously overblown and self-defeating, & risks feeding the trolls.

I agree that it's relatively low personal risk to scramble 3rd class terrain (and maybe 4th, but the defining feature of 4th class terrain is that it is not low risk - or at least, it is not low consequences), but the simple state of things is that the rangers have found it problematic, on the whole. And I agree with what James M points out, that the rationals and enforcement frameworks offered by the rangers are at best, nuanced to the point of being convoluted, and - more arguably - inconsistent and unreasonable.

But I also think it's also worth drawing attention to the fact that you weren't cited $500 for violating the ordinance. You were warned that the ordinance could be enforced at a ranger's discretion. 

Did the ranger "threaten" you with a $500 penalty? Or did they "advise" you that you might face $500 worth of consequences for flouting the manner-of-use restriction? If they threatened, that sounds like a bad ranger. If they advised, that sounds like a chill homie.

---

Have you thought about volunteering at GotG in some "ask a climber" capacity? Maybe strengthening relations between the climbers and rangers? That seems to be what has made the difference in Yosemite.

I hope that you're able to persuade the GotG admin's to relax their policies. I think softening your language and avoiding extreme semantics like "insane" and loaded phrasing like "Isn't this America?" will be more likely to succeed.

---

As for why I, as a non-COS local, am voicing an opinion in all this, my reasoning is:

1) I'm in Colorado. I have lived in the Springs. I may be moving back down there at some point in the not distant future. I care. It feels local enough.

2) GotG is where I first witnessed climbers, when ~10 years old and visiting Colorado Springs and the surrounding area. My father is a USAF Academy grad and F-15 fighter pilot veteran. I was a scared little nerdy kid. Visiting the Academy and the side trip to GotG was a transformative experience in my life. Seeing people climb Montezuma's tower (with ropes) was absolutely mind-blowing to me. 

3) It's also just a special, magical place in general, even if you don't climb. I want there to be responsible access and friendly, productive relations with the local park administrators and authorities. We need to respect and appreciate that it's not just our playground alone, and that we don't have inherent priority just because we're rock climbers.

Anyways.

Appreciate your frustration, but I think there's a better way to express it and seek change.

... and lololol I fucking LOVE the irony that the troll who celebrates and is celebrated for "breaking the rules" and "sticking it to the authorities" -- in the dumbest, most asinine, non-sequitur way possible (When's the last time you were held at gunpoint by a cop, Artem? Last summer, for me.) -- is being censored & silenced by the local authorities.... for breaking the rules...

Just too funny.

Brent Kelly wrote:

.

..it's important to recognize that people are, on the whole, still dumb, impulsive primates that need to be protected from themselves (to a certain extent) if we are to live in a kind and just society.

It is definitely not the government’s job to “protect us from ourselves.” Who gets to decide where that line is? I presume you’re a climber. What if the person or small group of persons that gets to decide where the line is decides that you need to be protected from the risks associated with rock climbing?

Your comparison of dude trying to skateboard down a trail is absurd because he would be a tremendous risk to other trail users. Someone scrambling at GOG isn’t a danger to anyone but himself.

I have second-hand embarrassment from your posts in this thread. 

Fair enough, Artem. I appreciate you offering a structured, thoughtful, and sincere response. 

Sounds like we just fundamentally disagree on the bounds of personal liberty and personal responsibility. And I think you mistake "contextual differentiation" for "cognitive dissonance", which is odd, because it seems like youre simultaneously arguing against black/white/no-shades-of-grey morality... but whatever. Agree to disagree, I suppose. 

Personally, I'm happy to respect the (arguably unreasonably) mild restrictions in place at GotG and find my class 3 scrambling delights elsewhere, even if, given a choice, I would vote to relax those restrictions. I obviously have little sympathy for anyone who believes those restrictions to be unbearably oppressive or "insane".

If civil disobedience in Garden of the Gods is worth $500 to you, go for it. Seems like a silly battle to pick, when there's so much other injustice in the world to fret about and fight against. Azerbaijan just launched a brutal attack on ethnic Armenians living in disputed territory, by the way.

I'll be impressed if you do more to advance your beliefs than "break rules" and make pithy, disingenuous one-liner attacks on the internet. 

Though, I will say: the surreptitious homophobia of your "go fellate a ranger" comment was despicable.

Marc H. Cool. Thanks for your feedback. It's apparent to me that you've grossly misinterpreted my writing. But whatever. I've had second-hand embarrassment plenty as a direct result of many of your forum contributions. And I have second-hand embarrassment plenty with regard to the all too often entitled and ego-centric mentality of the Mountain Project forum community in general. I'm definitely eager to spend/waste less of my time in here.

Marc H wrote:

Someone scrambling at GOG isn’t a danger to anyone but himself.

I have second-hand embarrassment from your posts in this thread. 

Im so embarrassed for you I’m blushing right now.  

Imagine 20 tourists scrambling up the camel gully. Have you been there. I’ve seen it in person.  One scrambler falls, takes out a few other scramblers on his way down. Now you have several people hurt up a loose soft sandstone scramble. Now the rescuers get to risk injury to save their asses. 

Greg D wrote:

Im so embarrassed for you I’m blushing right now.  

Imagine 20 tourists scrambling up the camel gully. Have you been there. I’ve seen it in person.  One scrambler falls, takes out a few other scramblers on his way down. Now you have several people hurt up a loose soft sandstone scramble. Now the rescuers get to risk injury to save their asses. 

Shoot the hostage.