Criminal Charges for Route Cleaning?

[smallman]

ah Squamish - what a nice friendly peaceful town we live in.

[slopr]

It would be pretty ridiculous if climbers were responsible for creating a law which had the potential to self-sabatoge route cleaning. This is really sad. Milk run is a classic croft route which now joins with crescent ramp, one of the older routes on that part of the chief, and now it goes to the top of the wall, sounds cool right? I thought so. Hopefully kevin mclame et al decide to use our taxpayer $$ in some other way than wasting the time of the crown and trying to prosecute others climbers for having a vision. Can't OP just get these guys some beer or something for scratching the rock? jeez...

The judge is going to either:

A) Laugh in their face (this would be best for everyone)

or

B) Prosecute OP and make new routing illegal or @ the very least make it complicated, more expensive, more scrutinized, and less desirable. After a few more years and rainy Junes like the one we just had everything will turn green and we will all be forced to start mountain biking where route development is encouraged by the govt. and community

[Aaron]

It would be pretty ridiculous if climbers were responsible for creating a law which had the potential to self-sabatoge route cleaning.

This wouldn't be a new law, it would be an extension of an existing law that already protects area and objects of cultural significance. Unless I'm mistaken, under the management strategy for the park this protects the memorials on memorial ledge, the climber statue at the base of the Grand and the original bolt ladder on the Grand Wall. Currently, no quarter pad crystal pitches on 5.12 slab traverses are grated such protection. It would appear that a few members of our climbing community are trying to change that.

In keeping with the ridiculousness of this situation, I believe I have a solution. I appears that Jeremy inadvertently stepped on someones sand castle and seeing as we're way past apologize some sort of punishment is warranted. Now if buying the offended party a beer won't suffice I here by volunteer to punch Jeremy in the head.
Now I've got nothing against Jeremy, in fact I've followed and admired his efforts for years now. But if Jeremy is willing to get punched in the head, I believe I'm the perfect candidate for the job of delivering the punch. Now the offended party may wan't to punch Jeremy in the head them selves but I believe that would be unfair to Jeremy. Given that their temper is too high, they may deliver a blow that's too hard. I on the other hand, don't know Jeremy from Adam, we've never even met. So I can punch him in the head with utter indifference and deliver a blow that is not too hard or too soft.
I believe this action will put an end to the ridiculousness of this situation and the climbing community can move on with all parties leaving happy and maybe a little bruised.

What say you?

Aaron Kristiansen

[slopr]

It would be pretty ridiculous if climbers were responsible for creating a law which had the potential to self-sabatoge route cleaning.

This wouldn't be a new law, it would be an extension of an existing law that already protects area and objects of cultural significance. Unless I'm mistaken, under the management strategy for the park this protects the memorials on memorial ledge, the climber statue at the base of the Grand and the original bolt ladder on the Grand Wall. Currently, no quarter pad crystal pitches on 5.12 slab traverses are grated such protection. It would appear that a few members of our climbing community are trying to change that.

In keeping with the ridiculousness of this situation, I believe I have a solution. I appears that Jeremy inadvertently stepped on someones sand castle and seeing as we're way past apologize some sort of punishment is warranted. Now if buying the offended party a beer won't suffice I here by volunteer to punch Jeremy in the head.
Now I've got nothing against Jeremy, in fact I've followed and admired his efforts for years now. But if Jeremy is willing to get punched in the head, I believe I'm the perfect candidate for the job of delivering the punch. Now the offended party may wan't to punch Jeremy in the head them selves but I believe that would be unfair to Jeremy. Given that their temper is too high, they may deliver a blow that's too hard. I on the other hand, don't know Jeremy from Adam, we've never even met. So I can punch him in the head with utter indifference and deliver a blow that is not too hard or too soft.
I believe this action will put an end to the ridiculousness of this situation and the climbing community can move on with all parties leaving happy and maybe a little bruised.

What say you?

Aaron Kristiansen

Well Aaron, now that a little p came out from reading your post it seems that we are moving in a more constructive, productive direction with this issue. I guess we would still need to determine a few things to decide if you would be the right guy to deliver this "justice" to OP for his heinous crime of motivation to open new routes and help alleviate traffic on others all while seeking advice from the community and being open and honest about his actions. Had he taken an elitist point of view and action he would have probably never been condemned by a small, albeit influential percentage of the community and put on this pedestal. It seems that in delivering this justice it would only be fair that you are of similar height/weight as OP and wear no rings. Would you be allowed to step into it? Right or left? chin or cheek? It seems like a fair solution but there are still variables that need to be sorted out before it is decided if you are the right guy to hand out the punishment, it seems there may be a more ridiculous solution to this ridiculous problem out there somewhere besides prosecution, beer, or punching.

[supafly]

handbags at dawn, ladies.

[harihari]

I've talked to both Frimer and Kevin about this. Both have some useful points to make. I don't want to talk about the damage to GWN because I have seen neither the route nor the pics.

HOWEVER...let's do some scenario-imagining. A new-route developer trundles a block-- intentionally or not-- and kills somebody. Sound far-fetched? Well, Mike, Dylan, Ben and I nearly killed Perry and Jia. Paul Cordy nearly killed Boyd. Kris W nearly killed Jim Sinclair. (none of us meant any harm...but things happen when you are in the unknown. If I am mistaken about any of these, please let me know-- I don't want to cast aspersions, and I am not trying to slander anybody; i am just saying, things happen)

What would BC Parks do if there was a fatality due to route development? My guess is, they would impose a moratorium, because, under the Parks Act, they have to have (and enforce) policies which, among other things, manage the park safely. What would happen if the government got wind of a route-developer-caused fatality? They would have to explain to the public why they were allowing such behaviour in the park, would be pilloried in the media, and they would probably want to immediately change the rules so this kind of behaviour would not continue. While climbers are a big part of the Chief's main users, we are dwarfed in #s by hikers etc, and our voices are far from dominant.

Considering that there are probably ten times the # of climbers on the Chief that there were 15 years ago, plus boulderers and hikers, and considering that route development continues apace (just see the Psyche ledge bulletin board!), it is basically inevitable that, sooner or later, somebody is going to either hurt or kill somebody, or damage another route (as has allegedly happened on GWN). So I think it is important that the S.A.S. and the CRAG (sorry if I got the acronym wrong) keeps moving forward with its plan for a best-practices code. If we, as climbers, develop it, we will get some say in what goes into it. If, on the other hand, we neither follow best practices (as outlined by Perry Beckham inter alia on here and on Supertopo, after I and others nearly killed Perry), nor work to make a best practices code, we could get the worst of both worlds: a set of rules made by non-climbers.

So as the process moves forward, it's REALLY important that everybody who new-routes should (a) follow best practices and (b) show up for any future public consultations about the best practices code, which Parks will eventually implement as policy...which will be legally binding on them to enforce and us to follow.

If I had to guess, the future will hold something like a set of rules for new routers, regarding safety, vegetation, etc, as well as some kind of process where you have to run your plan past an SAS committee and/or Parks. If that's coming down the line...clean responsibly, support your SAS, join the Access Society, and show up for any consultations.

[Mik]

correction. you nearly killed perry. twice. and jai once. i was not even there with you and dylan the second time that jai / perry were located beneath you.

sorry Jer i'm not trying to take away from the post but i need to clarify this very important point so I am not implicated in future dealings with whoever regarding this issue.

[harihari]

correction. you nearly killed perry. twice. and jai once. i was not even there with you and dylan the second time that jai / perry were located beneath you.

sorry Jer i'm not trying to take away from the post but i need to clarify this very important point so I am not implicated in future dealings with whoever regarding this issue.

Hi Mike-- correction-- everybody on our route who worked in the v-slot bombed the terrace. You, Ben, me, and Dylan. Some fairly huge stuff also came off top of P9 the day you and Ian rap-cleaned top-down. We are ALL implicated.

chris

[Anders Ourom]

This appears to be a situation where it is advisable to be cautious in what is said and done.

There is an lengthy thread about this on the SuperTopo forum, at http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum ... t-Squamish The last 50 or so posts relate to recent events.

[Aaron]

So as the process moves forward, it's REALLY important that everybody who new-routes should (a) follow best practices and (b) show up for any future public consultations about the best practices code, which Parks will eventually implement as policy...which will be legally binding on them to enforce and us to follow.

Under the Park Act the only policy that route development could be enforced under would be "Fail to obey sign" 10(2) which carries a fine of 86.00 dollars. The sign would have to made, posted and include things that could not be in any way subjective such as "don't place bots where natural gear is adequate".
I believe that if any rules are created they should be done so to preserve peoples safety and not peoples egos. If a rock is dropped and it blows off a key hold on some route below, that sucks, but it's hardly worth rounding up the lynch mob. Have you ever inadvertently cracked a key hand hold or foot hold off a route? Ever have a rock trundle off the wall while you where climbing over it? Ever yell "rock"? God knows I have. And anyone who would believe that these kinds of things are avoidable is living in an alternative universe where the ol' bumper sticker adage of "sh*t happens" doesn't apply.
Now I know some of you reading this would argue that the actions in questions are not the same as the ones I've just listed, but try arguing this in a court of all. This is where the subjective shades of grey of this thing we call climbing act to undermine any would be laws created to negate the law of gravity.
What we need is a set a rules and a set of guide lines. The guide lines can be made for the egos and take care of the subjective unenforceable business of "don't place a bolt next to the bomber hand crack", and the "clean the dirt off the routes you just buried while cleaning yours" and the rules can be the courts and be the clearly defined, black and white, enforceable "Thou shall not clean ANYTHING between this date and that date" and "Thou shall post warning markers on the approach trails under thy route while cleaning is occurring".
Aaron Kristiansen

[dberdinka]

Yo! What up all you crazy Canucks! I know, I know the temperature finally gets over 20 C for a day or two and our brains all melt. It's know different down here just south of the border I tell you.

So here's a gentle remainder for all you guidebook authors, 13c hardmen, route developers for the masses and other assorted scaliwags. Lets keep it in mind!

http://vimeo.com/3945205

[tobyfk]

i for one have greatly enjoyed yr climbs ... and will refuse to buy any future McLane squamish books

Amen to that. Did Milk Road and Wiretap on consecutive days last week: both brilliant routes for which the thought and effort put in by the FA team is really evident. Great work.

[Optimally-Primed]

This is revisiting something I touched on earlier but I would like to be sure that I was perfectly clear.

I am genuinely sorry for the damage I caused to Great White North. I sincerely apologize to the route developers, Andrew Boyd and Jeremy Smith.

I apologize to all who one day would like to climb it, and I apologize to everyone who looks at the wall and finds the rock scars ugly.

I look forward to entering into dialog on how we, as a community, can both encourage future route development and protect existing climbs at the same time.

[Kevin]

Hello everyone,
This is Kevin McLane here, and this post is in response to comments by Jeremy Frimer on July 21st about me on this thread, particularly this one “... The rumour was that Kevin McLane was lobbying Dave Zevick at BC Parks to have me arrested and charged a criminal offence for the development of The Milk Road. I kid you not. I asked Dave Zevick if this was indeed happening and he confirmed it. I stand accused of criminal misconduct! ...”

What Jeremy alleges did not happen, not even close. There was no lobbying to have Jeremy arrested, no asking for criminal charges, and no objection from me to the development of Milk Road. Dave Zevick is well aware of this.

I did talk with Dave about what he was going do about the considerable destruction of rock, of holds, and the hundreds of scars that now exist on lower Great White North, all caused by rock pitched off between the top of Milk Run and upper Crescent Ramp during development of Milk Road. I have since learned I was one of “about 6 people” who approached Dave on this same matter: some from the CRAG group itself and some not involved in CRAG.

The scarring on GWN took place over a period of many months, and was done in full awareness of the probable harm happening below. Although there’s nothing new about rockfall or scars on the Chief, this elevated it for the first time to an industrial scale of permanent damage to an existing route. GWN is the hardest long route on the Chief (13d) and has been 10 years in the making. At this time it is not known if it can still be climbed.

If you’d like to read what the Stawamus Chief Provincial Park Master Plan has to say on resource protection and the mandate of Park officials to take care of the natural environment in the Park, you can find it here http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/planni ... us_mp.html.

Very obviously, the Chief is far from its long-ago natural state, and climbers have led the way on tearing the place up to create rock climbs. There is no contention over that, we need those climbs, and BC Parks has stated publicly that they support new route development. Over the 15 years that the Chief has been a park they have cut us a huge amount of slack when it comes to Park Act enforcement. However, the increasing pace of terrain alteration, the rising impacts of long-route development, frequent trundling despite the proximity of so many people, day and night in all weathers, is bringing high concern that a new and better way of managing our rock climbs is needed.

The dozen climbers in the CRAG group are working with Parks on this, but the issues are complex, progress is slow and we are all volunteers. The final outcome is not known, but I have confidence that the climbing public will have ample opportunity to influence the shape and content of any new Parks policy on route development, route management and re-cleaning. BC Parks have stated very clearly that they want this.

It is often said that you should not trust what is said in the National Enquirer and on Internet forums, especially when wild claims are being made and when conflict is digging in. It is wise to be skeptical. That applies to Jeremy’s posts on this thread, and of course this post also. If you’d like to get the most authentic kind of verification of what happened, and whether Jeremy’s July 21st claims about me are true, you can call or write to Dave Zevick himself, Howe Sound Area Supervisor, and head Ranger of all our Squamish climbing area parks. Dave is a government official and his telephone number is public information: 604-924-2227, as is his email address dave.zevick (at) gov.bc.ca. Ranger Dave is also co-chair of the Climbers Advisory Group (CRAG). If you want to get the straight goods, he is the best person to ask.

Thanks, and my best wishes to all.

Kevin McLane

[paulc]

Well, well. The gang is all out (kinda).

So now, he said, she said (who is who here?) is the name of the game it seems.

So Kevin and crew have legitimate (ish) concerns with damage to GWN due to rockfall from cleaning. Jer wants a clean casual route going the full height of the Chief.

If we had to pick one of the two routes to stay, which would we choose?

Now I realize this is a fully hypothetical argument, but other than Anders trundling into his pack on Slab Alley it seems most people are letting gravity do the hard work of moving rocks well away from climbing routes. That means that you essentially are in a first come first situation for the rockfall damage that can be caused by cleaning above established routes.

If Jer had done this cleaning etc without GWN being known about/climbed would that change the situation? The potential route would have been damaged and perhaps not even done. It seems like there is perhaps a double standard at play here because the route was done first. Where is the line where it would be acceptable to clean above and damage another route as is alleged? It isn't like we are talking about the Grand Wall here after all.

Kevin;

What is your real opinion here? You mention damage and asking Parks what they would "do about it (emphasis mine). What do you suggest should have been done? What do you think about the seemingly full support for Jer and his work both here on the poll and on the Supertaco? (including some luminaries from the Squamish heydays).

Does CRAG have an online presence? How can the average climber get an awareness of what is being discussed and or decided? (perhaps these last two are questions for both Jer and Kev).

I don't know the answer here, but would guess that for the average local and roadtripper climber they are more likely to climb Milk Road than GWN. From that alone, at the height and location of the climb would make my answer to my original question (pick one) Milk Road. I did the corner pitches years ago and loved them, but the approach was not fun at all. Being able to go up from there at a reasonable grade is a great addition to the area.

I don't like the damage to the rock that was caused, but am more concerned about protecting people than rock in discussions of trundling damage potential. People can get hurt or killed. Rock can only be chipped or cracked.

I think more discussions are needed and it is very unfortunate that the situation has come to random discussions on the internet rather than a good old fashioned arm wrestle or something manly like that.

My impression from both Kevin and Jeremy is that CRAG may be a good idea, but isn't generating any solutions in any kind of timely fashion. When even the people on the committee itself can't get along what is the likelyhood that the committee will produce?

Best of luck sorting this out. As has been pointed out, we need to have a united voice if we want to make policy suggestions that affect areas that we are not the only stakeholder in.

Paul