Comments on: How Much Landscaping Of Boulders Is Ok?

By: Zach

Zach — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 15:25:00 +0000

No one has weighed in on the issue for a long time but I thought it may be important to note that if anyone had been to the area they would understand the need and lack of harm done in digging the landing out. It is located in the middle of nowhere near the virgin river. Every winter when the river it reaches its high point it redistributes the sand. Every year the landings change a little but the river puts all the sand back under this roof. SO all the “damage” is repaired naturally every year. The problem has been dug out again this year but I anticipate this spring’s runoff to be high so it will no doubt be filled back in within the next few months.
Also you can compare this activity to a lot of others but it is a different situation. All the climbers involved in developing this crag also helped organize a movement to stop developers from taking over Moe’s Valley. Moe’s is now a protected climbing area thanks to them. If you mimicked this activity in your area and caused access issue you are an ass and should understand your own area better.

By: Tony

Tony — Wed, 28 May 2008 03:46:04 +0000

I found a funny the video that quasi-relates to landscaping of boulder problems. it starts at 5:50 and goes till the end, but the whole video is worth watching I think.

http://www.43171.org.nz/blog/view/352

By: MomentumVM: Warpath, Fred Nicole & Ty Landman | Climbing Narcissist

MomentumVM: Warpath, Fred Nicole & Ty Landman | Climbing Narcissist — Fri, 09 May 2008 14:35:31 +0000

[...] is footage of Isaac Caldiero repeating Dave Graham’s Cloverland (V13) in Moe’s Valley (no excavation required). Good [...]

By: The Narc

The Narc — Fri, 02 May 2008 15:24:10 +0000

That's a good point Zach. I think as climbers we think we operate in a vacuum where nobody is paying attention to what we are doing. Partly because climbing has sort of been a fringe activity and partly because we are used to doing as we please at a crag without repercussion.

Often times land managers know much more about what is going on than climbers give them credit for. Think of the pad stashing debate of last summer in RMNP.

By: Zachary L-H.

Zachary L-H. — Fri, 02 May 2008 15:18:33 +0000

BJ Sbarra, thank you for bringing the discussion back to what I think is the most important point here. The big issue here is the public record and representation of climbers modifying a boulder landing.
If people aren’t aware, I would encourage them to learn some more about this issue. For climbers, it is an issue with real consequences. Public land managers and nonprofit land managers (the Nature Conservancy for example) are quite attentive to exactly the sort of land use (climbers, landing modification) we’re talking about. They pay attention to it for obvious reasons– they don’t like people damaging natural resources. On balance, climbers shouldn’t either. The more we climbers show genuine care for our impacts, the more we integrate natural resource management into our activity, the better.
I don’t mean to sound so terribly urgent or alarmist. But I climb in truly incredible areas with ongoing resource management issues, areas that are under the close watch of land managers. I also work for a local nonprofit conservation organization. Both of these things shape my perspective.

By: BJ Sbarra

BJ Sbarra — Thu, 01 May 2008 18:31:59 +0000

i think the big issue here is making it public. many bouldering areas have had this kind of work done to them, but most folks weren’t there when it was developed and don’t realize what went into creating their favorite spot. It’s certainly way less egregious than building an interstate or housing development, but it’s these small actions the public and land managers see and like to latch on to. I don’t know why its so hard to keep this stuff under wraps, just use your heads people!!!

By: Nate-Dawg

Nate-Dawg — Thu, 01 May 2008 12:58:45 +0000

I personally feel that its ridiculous to do all that work for just one problem. I agree with the above post that a lot of problems could be extended by a few moves if we dug them out, but it is the ethics behind it.

By: gabor

gabor — Thu, 01 May 2008 07:57:03 +0000

i dont think removing the dirt made it any easier. just possible, instead of too low to the ground.
my vote was that it was OK for him to dig it out. honestly i dont find it to be such a big deal.

By: project abandoner

project abandoner — Thu, 01 May 2008 04:33:15 +0000

i “made” a problem with shoe digging. the question of “escalation” notwithstanding, I did “make” a problem. in an era in which we will all likely see the total fukisization of humanity, i hardly think that clearing out the ground near a boulder problem is a real ethical dilemma. + food costs + + energy costs + enormous demand on resources = no monumental ethical problems in creating another boulder problem. chipping is different in that it changes the point of access to a problem. digging just makes more. the mo’ the betta’ imho.

By: seth

seth — Thu, 01 May 2008 03:07:38 +0000

I think all digging out should be limited to what you can remove with your hands… without gloves. I don’t believe in shovels. I also don’t approve of kneepads. Or offwidths for that matter. Honestly though, digging out a waist deep hole? Hmm, this probably made the problem easier actually. So go figure.