Although I think it is useful to consider the
environmental impacts of rock climbing (HCN, 7/7/03: Invasion of
the rock jocks), I have to wonder about the story’s lack of
context. Of course, there are fewer plants and animals on a cliff
face that climbers frequent. That seems quite obvious. However, out
of all the rock formations in the world, only a small percentage
are worth climbing. In Colorado, where I have done most of my
climbing, there is no shortage of rock (hence the name: Rocky
Mountains), yet most climbing is concentrated in only a few areas.
This is because the features that make a good rock climb are
actually not very common at all.
The real impacts of
climbing, as illustrated by the situation in Bishop, Calif., are
the trails that climbers use to access the rock, and the presence
of people in areas that they previously didn’t find much
interest in going to. All of these access issues, including the
previously debated issue of mountain biking, come down to too many
people and not enough land. Rather than taking an adversarial
approach between hikers, mountain bikers and climbers, why not try
working together to gain more protected land for all of these
groups? The more land, the more spread-out the impact. Otherwise,
you are playing right into the hands of the enemy by dividing and
conquering from within.
James Swanson
San
Francisco, California
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Too little land, too many people.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
