Is Adirondack Bouldering Unethical? Illegal?
by Phil Brown
Glacial erratics are part of the Adirondack landscape. On just about any trail, you can find one of these boulders left behind by retreating glaciers eons ago.
In places, you can find collections of giant erratics. One such place is near Nine Corner Lake in the southern Adirondacks—a major attraction for those who practice the art of bouldering. The guidebook Adirondack Rock describes Nine Corners as the largest boulder field in the Adirondack Park, with more than a hundred “problems” (mini-routes) on about fifty boulders.
Regular Adirondack Almanack contributor Alan Wechsler writes about Nine Corners bouldering in the current issue of the Adirondack Explorer newsmagazine. You can read the story online by clicking here.
Last week, I posted the link to the story on Adirondack Forum’s rock-climbing section and was surprised that it touched off a debate over the ethics of bouldering.
As hikers know, boulders are usually covered—at least partially—with lichen, moss, ferns, and other vegetation. As Alan’s story notes, climbers often scrape off vegetation when creating routes.
A few people on Adirondack Forum suggested that removing vegetation from boulders is wrong.
One poster wrote: “There are few things more beautiful in the forest than a moss cloaked, polypody fern capped erratic—I know I'd be exceptionally ticked if some climber came along and ‘cleaned’ the moss and other vegetation off of a boulder, which undoubtedly took centuries to accumulate. ‘Cleaning moss’ strikes me as a selfish act of vandalism.”
Another contended that cleaning boulders violates regulations against removing or destroying plants growing on state land.
The critics raise valid points. To play devil’s advocate, however, one could argue that removing vegetation from portions of a relatively small number of boulders in the Adirondack Park does little or no harm to the ecological system. I can’t imagine too many people are bothered by it, as most visitors to boulder fields are boulderers. At the same time, bouldering gives great pleasure to those who do it. Applying the principles of Utilitarianism , you can make a case that removing vegetation to facilitate bouldering is, on balance, a good thing. It adds to the sum of human happiness.
Anything we do in the Forest Preserve creates some impact on the environment. Hikers create erosion, trample plants, disturb wildlife, and so on. But these impacts are small, and no one suggests we should ban hiking. The question is how much disturbance of the natural world is acceptable.
What do you think? Do boulderers go too far?
Photo by Alan Wechsler: A climber at Nine Corners.
Phil Brown is the editor of the Adirondack Explorer newsmagazine.
25 Comments:
Do boulderers (Phil, is that really a word?) go to far? I don't think so, the impact is pretty minimal. I have several huge bolder on my property that are covered with moss and ferns, they are well protected, there are thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands)of these in the mountains. The few rocks used by climbers on public land is no big deal. You will always find someone opposed to something in the Adirondacks! We are some of the best complainers in the world!
One poster wrote: "There are few things more beautiful in the forest than a moss cloaked, polypody fern capped erratic—I know I'd be exceptionally ticked if some climber came along and ‘cleaned’ the moss and other vegetation off of a boulder, which undoubtedly took centuries to accumulate. ‘Cleaning moss’ strikes me as a selfish act of vandalism.”
I cleaned some moss and lichen to create a few new boulder problems on a large boulder near Rt. 3 early last summer. I only cleaned what was absolutely necessary to expose hand and foot holds, and I left the small forest on the top virtually untouched. I went back a year later and the moss had largely grown back. Centuries it did not take.
To the larger debate on the ethics of cleaning vegetation from climbing routes and boulders - can the critics answer these questions?
- How is cleaning a limited amount of vegetation from a boulder different from building and maintaining thousands of miles of trails, campsites, bridges privies, on the Forest Preserve?
- Is it different than removing and destroying vegetation on the Forest Preserve for a parking lot in which you park your car to go hiking?
- Can you provide evidence of the ecological impacts on the forest or wildlife of cleaning boulders, other than aesthetic changes?
Bouldering is not a crime!
I'm not a geologist...perhaps somebody with more knowledge can clarify. My understanding of these boulders is that they are not erratics. An erratic is a boulder carried by an ice sheet a great distance. Erratics have rounded features, and are usually of a different rock type than the surrounding cliffs. Most of the boulders in question are the result of rockfall. This is clarified on page 505 of Adirondack Rock.
Jim, I may be using the word "erratic" loosely. My understanding is that a glacial erratic is any boulder plucked off a mountain by a glacier and deposited elsewhere. If the boulder is rounded, that means it traveled a long distance and got smoothed while churned by the glacier. If it's angular, it came from a nearby mountain. If it's not at the base of the mountain, I don't see how it can be rockfall.
There's nothing wrong or illegal with bouldering, but there is something wrong (and illegal) with individuals purposefully destroying vegetation on state land.
What's the big deal if I choose to litter? Except in certain rare circumstances it isn't going to have an ecological impact. What's wrong with cutting down a sapling or two at a campsite to make it a little more comfortable, or improve the view? What's wrong with keeping a few more fish than I need or is permitted by law? What's wrong with not using the privy at a campsite because you think it's gross, and crapping elsewhere? What's the ecological impact of adding a little street art to a rock face? How about carving my name into a beech tree?
Good stewards don't do these sorts of things because they recognize that although if any one person does it, it isn't a problem, but if everyone did, it would be devastating.
If the ethical, good stewardship argument isn't enough, as was pointed out in the debate, the practice of destroying vegetation is simply illegal on state land - http://www.dec.ny.gov/regs/4081.html:
g. No person shall deface, remove, destroy or otherwise injure in any manner whatsoever any tree, flower, shrub, fern, fungi or other plant organisms, moss or other plant, rock, soil, fossil or mineral or object of archaeological or paleontological interest found or growing on State land, except for personal consumption or under permit from the Commissioner of Environmental Conservation and the Commissioner of Education, pursuant to section 233 of the Education Law.
I too was puzzled by the term "erratic". It's got to be a different type of rock from the surrounding area. And, yes, rockfall, strange as that may be, is the answer. They can fall and travel very far over millions of years. Seems strange to me too.
I agree that the law prohibiting destruction of plants, moss, etc (which is probably newer than most of the established boulder problems in question) makes the practice of cleaning boulders illegal.
If you agree with the legal argument, then you must also admit that the same law effectively prohibits the majority of trail maintenance activities undertaken every year in the Forest Preserve in the name of good stewardship. Branches and shrubs are routinely cut back to open overgrown trails.
Much trail work is done by volunteers operating under Adopt-a-natural-resource (AANR) agreements with DEC - volunteers who are passionate about the resource they are entrusted with managing. Many AANR agreements are issued to trail groups, who strive to make the hiking experience better for everyone.
If climbers were issued AANR agreements for maintaining bouldering areas, most of which are established and require no more "cleaning" - such as Mackenzie Pond, could they then be considered good stewards instead of vandals?? After all, they'd just be working to make the climbing experience better for everyone...
This discussion is why private land is the best way to protect the sensitive ecology of the Adirondacks. When some of these places are open to public use there is going to be abuse. No way around it.
In my opinion parts of the High Peaks Wilderness are the most "un-wild" and abused places in the Adirondacks.
Anonymous 8:50, the difference is that the DEC has the responsibility to maintain and preserve the resource for all of us, and that is why they have the legal authority to do things that no individual has the right to do (without their authorization in the case of AANR programs). Having the DEC take over the creation and maintenance of bouldering areas (either directly or via AANR programs) is what should be done to ensure that individuals don't do things in their own self-interest to the undue detriment of others and the Forest Preserve.
What bothers me the most about this discussion is that people who I would think would be setting the standards for good stewardship of the land are openly rationalizing and justifying an indefensible practice. In doing so, they weaken the ethical and legal constraints that keep us from collectively destroying this place with our individual 'enhancements.' It is one thing to furtively do something wrong in pursuit of your own self-interest - it is quite another to do it openly and then defend it when you get called out on it. The fact that there seems to be a vocal segment of the public willing to do so is troubling. These are probably the same people who loudly lament the proliferation of POSTED signs.
It seems like some of the people commenting here and on Adk Forum are misinformed about the practice of bouldering and cleaning boulders.
There are not hoards of climbers roaming the Forest Preserve, brushes in hand, cleaning moss and lichen off every boulder they find.
The majority of boulders that the average person stumbles upon along the trail or in the woods are not suitable for climbing - either because they are too short, too dirty, too far from the road or because the rock quality is poor. Even when a "good" boulder is found, it is typically not worth the effort required to make in conducive for climbing, because it is a singular boulder - perhaps housing only a few climbing routes (problems) at best.
Boulderers are seeking groups of boulders, called sets, that offer a variety of climbs in a concentrated area. Very few areas like this exist, and even fewer have become popular with climbers. Mackenzie Pond, Nine Corners, and Snowy Mountain are probably the most popular.
I've climbed for nearly 10 years at Mackenzie Pond, and I've NEVER removed moss, lichen or other vegetation from the boulders. The area was established years ago, and thus the climbs are very well traveled. Before it became popular with climbers, the boulder fields served as a dump for a local pig farmer (as Jim Lawyer points out on Adk Forum).
What I have removed, on a regular basis, is garbage from along the road near the parking area (likely from passing cars - I don't know too many climbers who indulge in McDonalds and then toss their refuse out the window).
The area has become more popular in recent years with the proliferation of better guidebooks. But I can still count the number of non-climbers I've met at Mackenzie on one hand. So I must ask the naysayers - who exactly is it offending if a limited amount of moss and lichen has been removed from these boulders? Most climbers who visit here and other locales are very good stewards of the resource, and take care to leave no trace of their activities.
If opponents want to decry impacts to the Forest Preserve, perhaps they should direct their dissatisfaction at the masses of hikers who flood popular trail heads on a regular basis. Last time I drove by Cascade, I counted over 100 cars. How many of those people damaged moss, lichen, and soil on there slog up the eroded trail to the summit (which is almost entirely devoid of vegetation)?
Why the double standard? If I clean a 4 foot by 20 foot swath of lichen from a boulder so I can climb to the top - I'm a vandal (and a criminal, apparently). But if I use a 6 mile long, 2-6 wide, trail to access the top of a mountain - I'm an ethical person, enjoying the wilderness.
Solidago, calling rock climbers vandals is a pretty far stretch. Think about it. In pursuit of their sport some moss gets tossed aside. Is it destroyed? No, it will grow back. Even clearcut forests grow back in a few years. Mother nature heals itself. Their are trails to some of our peaks that are worn right through to bed rock. They look no better or worse than some of the four wheeler paths in the ADKs. Clearly some vegetation gets destroyed by some of our activities. This is normal and acceptable. We are part of lifes cycle. This land is tough and can take the abuse. Look out at the mountains and you will see plenty of untouched wilderness that will remain that way for as long as laws say so. What is lands value if all you can do is stare at it while you pass by in a car? If the forest preserve is to survive, it is going to be a game of give and take. If the laws please only a select few and their views on what constitutes what a forest preserve should be, then it will be very hard to gain support for a forest preserve at all. Do we want to add more of our recreational activities to an ever growing list of things DEC and the APA can regulate? They can't regulate effectively what they controll now. Keeping boulderers from pursuing their sport would be the real crime.
No one but Phil suggested that there was anything wrong with bouldering or that rock climbers were vandals.
There is something wrong with individuals altering the landscape that they share with others for their own purposes.
Where do the rationalizations stop? Again, what's wrong with individuals leaving garbage in the woods, cutting campsites wherever they see fit, shooting an animal out of season, or stripping bark off of a birch tree? Nothing really, other than if we all feel we are entitled to exemptions to the rules and ethics, we'll destroy the place.
Less fighting, more climbing. I'll eat the moss and lichen I remove from the boulders, that way I'll be within the law.
Sorry I misquoted you Solidago, but it seems a common theme on these posts is that the Adirondacks are under nuclear assault by man. Is bouldering unethical? That's up to who?, defines ethics. Is it illegal? The section of law you quote shows removing the moss was illegal. However, every person that bushwacks would be in violation of the law. It would be simply inconceivable that you could go for a walk or hike on forest preserve land without killing some spore or fungus or blade of grass. The law should be refined for practicalities sake. Besides, the moss will return. No net harm done.
TiSentinel65, Phil's title was intentionally provocative - no one in their right mind would argue that bouldering is unethical or illegal. A more accurate title would have been "Is Removing Vegetation from Boulders Unethical? Illegal?" That is what the discussion was about.
It is clear that the law is referring to intentional acts. If you kill a deer with a car out of hunting season, you aren't going to get a ticket from the DEC for illegally taking a deer.
But the law isn't the point, and there's a real problem if people need to look to the law for guidance as to what the right thing to do is. Nor is the point about the ecological impact of any one act. The land quickly recovers from all sorts of insults - most of the Adirondacks has been denuded by fire and/or logging at some point in time, and it would require a trained eye to notice.
The point is to have respect for the land we all share, and for the others we share it with. It is both unethical and illegal to intentionally alter the Forest Preserve for our own purposes. The fact that this is at all controversial, and people who likely consider themselves good stewards are going to great lengths to excuse and defend it, is rather troubling.
As another poster mentioned, I think that this discussion makes clear that private land, off-limits to the public, is essential to preserving the sensitive ecology of the Adirondacks. I know that this position is an anathema to the many who believe in a recreational "manifest destiny," where every inch of the Adirondacks is conquered by public recreationalists. However, if these people stop paying mere lip service to the environment and start seriously considering the impact of public access, they'll concede that closed, private land can have great ecological value that can't be replicated on open, public land, where you not only have to contend with incidental wear-and-tear, but people intentionally altering the landscape for their own purposes.
Solidago,
I should note here that I typically write the post titles. This was not Phil's title.
And yes they are intentionally provocative in hopes that a serious discussion would occur - as it mostly has.
Despite TiSentinel65 apparent failure to understand the rhetorical use in the title, I think careful readers understand that when someone asks the question "Is Bouldering Unethical? Illegal? - it's a question designed to spur discussion, not a statement of fact or opinion.
John, I answered the question the way I saw it. Sorry I can,t determine your mind set. If I asked the question is ATVing in the Adirondacks unethical? or Illegal?, would this be considered rhetorical? It depends who is asking.If I asked it, it would be in my mind, maybe not yours. Solidago pointed out some of the gray areas of what happens when bouldering. I countered with some insight, however some of what he say's is true. I would say the question may be rhetorical in your mind but not in others. The posts show some strong feelings and raise some issues in legality.
John, thanks for the clarification. I understand the desire to have a snappy and provocative title, but the problem with this one is that it has little to do with the article or what was being discussed.
It is akin to titling a debate about whether it would be ethical for hunters to create food plots in the Forest Preserve with "Is Hunting Unethical? Illegal?" Surely a lot of us would hop in on that one ready for a fight and overlook the real issue. It would lead to a discussion, but not a particularly productive one.
Come on Soldiago - "little to do with the article or what was being discussed"?
The piece is about the ethics of bouldering.
John, the piece is about the ethics of bouldering, not whether bouldering is ethical.
The "Adirondacks," "Bouldering," "Ethics," and "Legality" are all discussed and would serve as relevant tags, but that doesn't mean you can string together variations of those words for an accurate title.
I give up. You win.
This is a good discussion. This is a case where clearly "use" of the resource is "abuse" in some cases (or by some individuals). Are we okay with that level of impact or not? Phil often writes of paddler use of the rivers across private land. There again is an increase in "use" and many would argue that it can easily lead to (or come to the level) of "abuse". Others would argue otherwise. As we open more land to widespread public use (almost 1 million acres in the past decade) how will that change the Adirondacks? A question we don't yet know the answer to.
Solidago, what's the expression? "...this conversation is going nowhere." You had the last word, GREAT, now maybe you should ease up a little, get off the computer, and get to work stewarding all those devastated boulder fields and other "intentional abuses" of the Forest Preserve.
Anonymous 8:47, thanks for raising the level of discourse with your productive and insightful input.
Phil - occasionally people DO suggest that hiking be controlled due to impact form hiking, either due to physical/biological impacts or occasionally sociological.
You may not have been around, but between the early 1970's through late 1990's there was a ongoing and very political debate about limiting hiker access to the High Peaks Wilderness Area. Not a full ban of all use, but a rationing permit system, which is in essence a banning of a portion of the current users of an area. Eventually politics (due in no small part to Neil Woodworth and the Adirondack Mountain Club) won out over natural resource protection and no change of any significance occurred.
Post a Comment