Sullys projects

[skidrc]

I agree wholly about this proposed guide.

It is going to get these climbing areas shut down. Better get your climbs in now.

[skidrc]

I'm also going to add that I had nothing to do with the building of any of these crags, so I'm in no position to debate, or form much of an opinion, other than I managed to find them all without a guide book. But if the publisher has the builder(s) blessing, I guess its only right to let them continue, even if we lose the few crags we have.

[mr_staggerlee]

I agree wholly about this proposed guide.

It is going to get these climbing areas shut down. Better get your climbs in now.

Using that logic, you should shut down this entire site!

[skidrc]

like I said, I can't be involved in the debate, I do nothing but climb other peoples routes, and give them their necessary moss scrub whilst danglin', which is normally already complete by the time I am there. And sure, maybe I was a bit brash with the crude statement "its gonna get these areas shut down," but I will stand by my reasons.

I do know access is extremely sensitive at best, and very much a work in progress requiring the proper lines of communication between the access society and the gov't. My emotions on the subject do not really matter, there are infinite amount of crags to be found just barely north of the city. Producing a colour photo guide explaining to everyone how to get to these sensitive areas may, or may not, cause the crags to receive negative, or positive criticism or commentary from people who support or do not support climbing in said sensitive areas.

kudos to the crews who develop these areas, and no ragging on rich wheater, his trails book is rad. If the book happens, it will be 5 star layout no doubt. I'm just saying, I agree that publishing a guidebook of sensitive areas may draw negative outcomes. but who knows until the cats out of the bag!

[mr_staggerlee]

Now now Skidrc -- you're getting all emotional when you said you shouldn't and getting involved in the debate when you said you wouldn't ..... sounds like the start of a good limerick ... a 6-pack of Peroni's (celebrating Italy's win in the Euro today) to the best finishing rhyme!

but seriously, there are more climbers out there than ever -- negative outcomes are inevitable -- part of the human experience, blah blah ... I just think that this part of the equation is being overblown here

I do think that the "let's keep it all a secret" mentality is myopic --- much more decent climbing will be lost to moss (been to the Senior Center lately?) than to the rabid objection of locals in their patrolling SUV's.

I look forward to local climbing areas being highlighted in a local guide -- I doubt that the crimping hordes will abandon the Sea to Sky corridor in search of these climbs, but a bit of increased traffic will certainly keep them in better climbing condition.

And you weren't being brash ... maybe dramatic, but not brash ....

Pace e Amore

[jipstyle]

I do think that the "let's keep it all a secret" mentality is myopic --- much more decent climbing will be lost to moss (been to the Senior Center lately?) than to the rabid objection of locals in their patrolling SUV's.

The issue at hand isn't the locals. Sully's is located in the Lower Seymour Conservation Region and there is abundant parking for climbers. The issue is the official stance of the LSCR. You can read about it on the CASBC site here

Of interest to me is the last sentence: "There will be no organized trail building relating to rock climbing, or posting of any information regarding or promoting the climbing area within the LSCR."

First, the hike up to Sully's is uphill and on soft ground. Without a properly built trail, that entire area could become very ugly and possibly dangerous if the number of climbers hiking up and down increases dramatically.

Second, the wording is vague and I can't tell to what 'within the LSCR' refers. Are they saying 'no promoting climbing in the park' or 'no posting signs within the park.'

I hope that the author of the guidebook clarified this before including Sully's.

[psi4ce]

The issue is the official stance of the LSCR.

I partially witnessed the "introduction" of Sully's to LSCR officials.

The "official stance" of the LSCR has likely "softened" in the last several years as they have gotten used to climbers being up there. Obviously, they haven't yet shut down the area, and the fact that they have tolerated the building of a new trail up there (they must have known about it, in fact, did they contribute?) proves that they are not completely opposed to the idea of climbing in the Reserve.

But yes, if increasing numbers of climbers are going to keep going up there and they are doing things like letting their dogs run off leash and pooping, and littering, chopping down trees, or who knows what, then I expect that you could easily see access problems.

[jipstyle]

Oh, I agree that it is unlikely that anything will happen unless traffic increases dramatically and climbers misuse the property.

However, I've seen access issues blow up out of nowhere (bouldering access around Halifax in particular) and in two cases, we could have prevented it with a bit of foresight. Instead, we relied on property owners being 'cool' with climbers.

In this case, we have a rotating body of officials who are completely reactionary. They don't hike up and down that trail .. but they will react to complaints from tourists and other trail users. If we don't have a formal agreement, we remain open to the possibility that they'll just summarily close the area.

I'd rather plan for the worst than hope for the best .. and lose.

Someone else compared the new guidebook to this website and pointed out that the information is already available. Fair enough ... but I think that there is a huge difference between having to go online and find a topo, interact with the community, etc., and being able to just pick up the book at MEC and hike out to the crag. The audience for the information will be greatly increased and, as a result, so will traffic at the crag.

Only time will tell .. I just hope that the author of the guidebook did his due diligence before publishing. If the LSCR signed off on this .. great! If not, well .. we'll see.

[psi4ce]

One of the benefits that Sully's has is that the LSCR is already very familiar with mountain bike riders developing and using resources within their area. In a lot of ways, climbers developing a resource in the LSCR is not so different.

How it works with the mountain bikers is that there is a lot of interplay between LSCR officials and the North Shore Mountain Biking Association, which does everything in accord with LSCR protocols and mandates.

We have the Climber's Access Society, and that's the avenue through which all information should flow to the LSCR, and be received from it. They have already showed a willingness to initiate a dialog and tolerate us, so let's not drop the ball.

I also hope the new guidebook reflects the access issues on the North Shore. There are many.

[jipstyle]

One of the benefits that Sully's has is that the LSCR is already very familiar with mountain bike riders developing and using resources within their area. In a lot of ways, climbers developing a resource in the LSCR is not so different.

That's an excellent point ... I hadn't considered their history with mountain bikers. Definitely cause for optimism.

[Uncle Rico]

One of the benefits that Sully's has is that the LSCR is already very familiar with mountain bike riders developing and using resources within their area. In a lot of ways, climbers developing a resource in the LSCR is not so different.

How it works with the mountain bikers is that there is a lot of interplay between LSCR officials and the North Shore Mountain Biking Association, which does everything in accord with LSCR protocols and mandates.

We have the Climber's Access Society, and that's the avenue through which all information should flow to the LSCR, and be received from it. They have already showed a willingness to initiate a dialog and tolerate us, so let's not drop the ball.

I also hope the new guidebook reflects the access issues on the North Shore. There are many.

It will.. that's one major reason I'm interested in writing this book; to bring these issues to light for the many climber's that are in the dark about these areas. Sully's is an interesting spot because many climbers have been actively using it under full-acknowledgement by the park employees. In many respects this is a good sign. I will be making every effort to determine the viability of including Sully's (and no guarantees it will be) without risk of it's closure. Likely this current statement from the LSCR is a temporary stamp in lieu of an actual 'plan' they should have in place to manage climbing in the region - something they do have with mountain biking, largely because of overwhelming participation and support for that activity.

I'm wide open to all comments, suggestions, concerns, and also hearing about personal experiences with 'officials' when approaching or climbing in these areas.

Rich Wheater
richwheater@shaw.ca

[jipstyle]

Fantastic .. thanks for addressing my concerns, Rich. I appreciate it.

[psi4ce]

I am about as close as you can get to a comprehensive expert in North Shore climbing access issues. Feel free to consult me.

[ras]

I am about as close as you can get to a comprehensive expert in North Shore climbing access issues. Feel free to consult me.

OK, what's the deal with the Senior's Centre? The routes there are suprisingly good (at least, I was surprised, I expected another Lighthouse Park), and its on public land. If you walk "beside" the road, but not on, does that make it OK to go to?

I've only climbed there once, but I've walked out on the "private" road a couple of times, after following mountain bike trails downhill and after descending one of the canyons there. Never had a problem.

[psi4ce]

You can read quite a bit about it on this thread: http://www.squamishclimbing.com/squamis ... lit=senior

And it probably would be better to carry on the conversation in that thread.

But in short, the problem is that the paved roads that are used to access the Senior Centre (the so-called "fire lanes") are considered private property. The local residents take an issue to any non-authorized individuals being on the fire lanes because they need to insure themselves in order to maintain the lease they have on the fire lanes with the municipality. If they can't insure themselves, then they lose the lease to the fire lanes and therefore they lose land access to their properties. Complicating the matter regarding insurance was an incident some number of years ago where an accident on the road involving a non-resident who was injured apparently launched a lawsuit or something which made getting insurance much more difficult and expensive for the residents. One more incident like that, and they suddenly won't be able to drive their cars home.

That's the reason why if you hike the road to the Senior Centre you might get a dude stopping you with veins popping out on his neck and spittle flying out of his mouth as he reams you out for trespassing on private property...