Has Vegetation Removal gone too far in Smoke Bluffs Park?

[squamish climber]

The controversy around vegetation removal for new routes and at the base of crags  has come up before.  In the past the biggest opponents of Squamish -style route cleaning seemed to come from outside Squamish or from people fairly new to the wet coast. 

But lately criticism is coming from climbers who have lived in Squamish  for at least several  years. I noticed an letter to the Squamish Chief recently from a Climber and resident worried that the cleaning had gone too far. And then last month Squamish climber and resident Theresa Negreiff, wrote a letter to the Smoke Blufffs Park Advisory Committee about her concerns. I pasted the letter below. 

To Smoke Bluffs Advisory Committee Chair, Mr. Matt Parker
c/o Todd, Pope, Trails Coordinator, 

District of Squamish

Re: Smoke Bluffs Advisory Committee role in crag development and vegetation clearing

Dear Mr. Parker,

I am writing in regard to crag clearing and development at Smoke Bluff Park. 

While walking today, March 29, 2012, I was alarmed to note extensive clearing of trees (an area at least 10 x 20 meters), some trees cut appearing to be as large as 12 inches in diameter. This clearing took place at the forking of the trail headed west from Octopuses Garden, just above the trail forking right to Lumberland climbing area or left to stairs and Pixies corner. 

As a hiker, climber and dog walker residing in the Smoke Bluffs area for the past 5 1/2 years, this is not the first time I have noticed aggressive clearing of trees, seemingly for the purposes of cleaning walls for climbing. I am concerned because this tree clearing affects the aesthetics of the park and potentially the stability of some of the sloped approaches to crags and may be in fact reducing habitat for wildlife. It seems excessive and unnecessary and I feel, detracts from the user enjoyment of the park, especially when, as in the case, the crag which is being prepped for clearing seems marginal in quality – short in duration and at a low grade.

I am writing to ask:

· Is there are plan in place for crag development? I could only find a 2006 development plan online, prepared by the Advisory Committee, that did not provide detailed plans for crag development, except to say it would be user group directed. Is there something more recent?

· Is vegetation removal and tree cutting being conducted by District of Squamish employees? My understanding, anecdotally, is that climbers are conducting vegetation removal and cleaning themselves.

· If this is the case, is permission required for them to do so and is permission granted on a case by case basis? If so, by who?

In the above noted report, I saw reference to a Smoke Bluff Park Commission. Is this a different body from the Advisory Committee? If so, I could not find reference to the membership and roles of this Commission. In the report it states :

Smoke Bluffs Park Commission to be referred all development/enhancement initiatives proposed for the park including District initiatives, and recommend priorities for enhancement.

It also notes an additional recommended strategy to

“ Rely on recreation user group “self-management” to the extent possible and appropriate, in particular for enhancements of the recreation asset base that are activity-specific” with the recommended action that:

“District of Squamish to encourage the different recreation user groups to engage in maintenance and enhancement initiatives through consultation with the Smoke Bluffs Park Commission.”

· If recreational user “ self management” is indeed the primary means for vegetation and tree removal, are there guidelines in place (ie Is there a limit on tree size that can be removed or a set distance from the rock that vegetation removal should take place?) and how and by who are they being monitored?

I look forward to many more years of enjoyment in this park but I am very concerned about what I perceive as over development and excessive removal of trees and vegetation.

I would greatly appreciate you providing or directing me to any information which might indicate a comprehensive public plan for managing the environmental amenities in the park (trees and vegetation) and for crag development and how it is being monitored.

I look forward to your response.

Best Regards,
Theresa Negreiff

I would be curious to hear what other people think.  My own opinion is that there is a line that can be crossed where too much vegetation and too many trees can be removed. But in Squamish that line is further away than other areas. The fact is that the trees and brush are winning, there's more vegetation and bush on Smoke Bluffs than ever before. Things grow back very quickly, often denser than before. I would draw the line at no cutting conifers down unless they are a hazard, and leaving large maples. But Alder trees are like weeds and will grow quite quickly crowding out other trees.

I have seen the work that was done this Spring, and I don't think it's too much. Although it looks a little rough now,  it will soon fill in a bit.  I think the climbs at Lumberland are destined to be popular, they are easy moderates which we don't have enough of as Skywalker proves and the crag is aesthetically cool. 

[AaronRN]

Having had a hand in the cleaning of Respiration Rock I can give a little insight. For starters, in March of 2012 that area looked like hell. Muddy punched out base upturned stumps, shoulder high piles of cut brush and bramble. Ropes, tarps and random hand tools littering the base. All we needed was a couple cars up on blocks to complete the look, so you get the idea, the area looked ruff. In the near future though that same area is going to look fine, and by fine I mean to the lay person out walking their dog, they likely wont have any appreciation of what occurred there last winter. The reason they wont is that Luke et. al. did a really good job of cleaning the area with aesthetics in mind. Luke didn't have the remove the stump at the top of the crag, but stumps look bad, so the stump had to go.

IMO tree removal in the Smoke Bluffs isn't nearly aggressive enough. All across the province communities are wising up the the dangers of "naturally green spaces" If you don't allow areas to burn off the bramble naturally, you are creating a unnatural green space, and when thick overgrown bush is saddled next to homes and businesses disaster is a given. I'm new to Squamish but I spent my last 35 years living and working in the Okanagan, Thompson Shuswap, and Kootenays. Every one of these places has experienced an interface fire most famously Kelowna in 2003. Since then you'd be hard press to find a town that isn't actively, aggressively and annually thinning their forested park/green spaces. Is Squamish that different?

[BK]

Hell of a good question. There's a few crag cleaning jobs around that look like a bomb went off. This is not without precedent however. I wonder what TN would have said if she had been around for The Industrial scale activity that produced Octopuses Garden or the scorched earth job on the wall on prominent display between Penny Lane and Werewolves. Like all fresh construction sites, these things can be a real eye sore but the most important fact is that within a year or two the visual aesthetics are rapidly softened up into something approaching natural.

Nevertheless, it is good that a critical eye raises some questions against the status quo. Issues of erosion are particularly important as runoff and slope de-stabilization are often generated. Also, the elephant in the room is that it is a finite resource and sooner or later even the most obsessed cleaners are going to have to admit defeat and go elsewhere to practice thier art, as Robin Barley and friends have demonstrated.

[BK]

perhaps more important, the Smoke Bluffs, and arguably many other crags, is no longer the possession solely of the climbing community. What happens there in the future may well be dictated to us more than we might like, and that may well be a good thing. To a great extent, many existing routes are being reclaimed by the moss, which begs the question why would we need more?

Anyway, just get a season pass to the new gondola and you can scrub a few lifetimes of smoke bluffs to your hearts content.

[J Mace]

If TN is worried a bout a couple 12" trees I cant imagine she is too happy about the swath they will be removing for the gondola and its restaurants.

[Optimally-Primed]

I ran into a climber at the base of Skywalker a few weeks back. Conversation turned to the topic of the gondola. I said "looks like a done deal". She said "yeah, too bad about that." I said "too bad? I'm all for it."

Then I suggested that if Skywalker's development had been visible to the public like the gondola proposal is, Skywalker's development would have been shut down for sure. Same for Rambles. Now, both routes have line-ups and everyone loves a 5.7 handjam and a 5.8 finger lock.

I agree with Bruce's statement about construction sites looking rough. Give them a year or two and it'll look good again. I have an article coming out in Gripped (August) called "The First Rule of Dig Club" on this very topic. We love the *before* and the *after* but we get grossed out by the *in between*.

To TN, I say "you can't have your cake and eat it too"

Squamish still has an enormous amount of quality rock. Yesterday, I climbed 14 high quality pitches (Skywalker, Hanging Gardens, Bullethead East, and Photophobia), none of which were rock climbs 12ish months ago. This is possible because us Diggers have the freedom to do what's necessary to unlock the natural potential of the rock.

May the West remain wild.

[staven]

Respiration Rock had a creek running along the bottom, plus tonnes of shade made this crag moss over really quickly. The climbs are great so I felt something had to be done. However, this park is not owned by climbers, and as this crag is on the loop trail, I felt a more sensitive approach was required for tree removal. Depending on who you ask, it probably now looks somewhere between too much and not enough. There are people out there who are climbers but don't know what it takes to clean routes and keep them clean, and the park is used by hundreds of non-climbers who have a very different sense of what they enjoy in the park. Other users' enjoyment should be taken into account when removing trees, and I think a balance needs to be struck between our needs and those of others. Debris should also be cleaned up and well-hidden. I agree up thread re: messy construction site look mid-job, but fewer gorbs hike the trail in the winter so if we keep the mess down during the spring we should get less hassle. It's a district park, and it's a reality that we'll have to consider other users' views. If we do, the west will still be wild for a lot longer. If we don't, we get regulations or bans.

Wes.

[joeljacques1]

IMO we need to keep up the cleaning and scrubbing if we want to maintain the status of being a world class climbing destination. With the climate here being that of a temperate rainforest ongoig maintenance to keep the vegetation at bay needs to occur to prevent the crags from growing over. Just look at a photo of the bluffs from the 1970's and one will quickly see how things have changed, or flip through any guide book and notice how many routes are described as being once stellar but since overgrown or "that with a descent scrubb the route would be excellent". Further to this each summer Squamish sees more.and more visitors. If we want to have moderate climbs without huge lineups we need to continue new route development. Let's make Squamish even more world class by developing more new routes so everyone has more options. Let's keep it up. . . Even get more aggresive!

[Jordan Sandy]

I agree with Joe, we need to keep up the cleaning and scrubbing if we want to maintain the status of being a world class climbing destination. Also, tree rimming and pruning have to be done in a timely manner to keep climbers safe.