I started going to Hueco regularly in 1986, and it stayed all but empty, even at high season, through the early 1990s. Even with Rock Rodeos, John Sherman’s first guidebook, articles in the mags, etc, things didn’t really pick up until the “bouldering revolution” hit. The main issue that quickly emerged IMO was social trails – the desert environment wasn’t well-suited for the increase in numbers and the way climbers move from rock to rock. Seeing this and the other issues (spraypaint, broken glass, etc.) closer to the road, the park reacted, and things changed in 1998.

I went twice under the “new rules” — in 1999 and 2000 — and had an OK time, but it wasn’t like before, and that was pretty much it for me. But that’s the nature of life, right — change? We’re certainly lucky that Hueco is still open at all. It’s sad that the new generations won’t have the chance to roam the park freely like we used to, without having to jump through bureaucratic hoops, but I don’t think climbers self-policing (or not) have entirely informed the way this played out. There are many, many other factors at work here. The disease is overpopulation, and this is just a symptom.

I’ve been on 3 trips to Hueco – all in the 1980′s, ten years before crash pads. I can’t imagine how beat-to-hell the bases of the popular boulders must be now.

The bottom line is, the amount of quality rock suitable for hard sport climbing and bouldering in the U.S is extremely limited. Sport climbers figured out decades ago how to address this problem – create (as in, literally, with glue and chisel) sport crags from aesthetically unappealling and otherwise unclimbable choss that no one in authority cares about, and treat them like Fight Club (as in, Don’t Talk About Them).

I’ll be spending my Christmas vacation at the best winter sport crag in the U.S. – and yes, it’s manufactured, and no, I’m not at liberty to tell you where it is. Maybe it’s time to start considering “working” the choss for boulder problems, kids, as a way of mitigating impact on the better areas, instead of beating the Huecos and Buttermilks to death. Pick your poison, cuz you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

another issue that seems pretty basic is volunteerism.

climbing coalitions vary greatly in their activities and their head counts. it seems like access sensitive areas have been very successful in recruiting a larger percentage of the local climbing user groups to participate in stewardship events.

it is true that many colorado volunteer initiatives have been shot down by a lack of support from land managers, (mainly due to their internal protocols for trail maintenance, etc, and not due to actual ill-will). however, in the admittedly few non-festival-type stewardship events i have attended, it is painfully obvious that a hundred-fold more folks are intent on bickering on-line about climber impact than actually showing up to engage in productive work.

clearly, we are all busy and when we have a free moment, we typically want to go climb on something rad to harvest those dopamines that have become so depleted in our daily lives… but if every climber on the front range could make and keep a resolution to sling a shovel during at least one hands-on stewardship event per year, there would be MASSIVE gains statewide.

and this is not to pull any punches on any particular pro climbers… especially not those to have commented here, but while participation in charitable slideshows and charitable events thrown by sponsors are extremely important, it is not remotely the same as a pro showing up on clean-and-climb day with a trash bag or shovel and demonstrating that he or she actually cares enough to put in the blue collar elbow grease for a climbing area.

for all climbers, rememeber that your donation to the access fund is a great start… it helps fund the effort to communicate with land managers and hopefully orchestrate some positive policy changes, including allowing climbers to participate in trail building exercises, erosion control, and other proactive measures otherwise blocked by union concerns and governmental protocol…. however, when events are actually organized, do not let them fail for want of labor.

no matter how much you may say and believe you care about access and stewardship, we all need to walk the walk much much better.

i’m not certain how what is put in or left out of a guidebook will impact this issue, but it is germaine to the question of impact and stewardship and perhaps a less frantic mind than my own can shed light on how to bring this plea naturally into the context of a map to our wonderland.

I climbed in Hueco before the closure, and after. Before was by far better, for the reasons people have stated above: freedom, adventure, less people, and less cost. Again, as Noah said, “Those days were undeniably better.” Sure, the place still rocks, but for me, I would rather find a new gem in Eldo, or a remote sandstone roof outside Santa Fe, or another stellar line in the alpine granite then pay money to hangout waiting in line (that is what the gym is for…)

I think this is a great post, and very timely as Peter B. said. All these points need to be taken into consideration for the Park and Evans, especially with a guidebook and all. National Parks, and other areas of similar designation/management must take into account all their users, unlike the BLM or Forest Service which seems to have a much less pro-active approach to users and over-use. Joes will probably keep some of the magic, and so will many other areas on BLM or Forest land. But will the Park? Hard to say. You’ve put in more time then anyone, how much has it changed? I’ve been climbing in one form or another in the Park for 18 years (more if you include hikiing) and I would say it has drastically changed. And not just from climbers, but from everyone: more photographers, more weekend fly fishers, more hikers, way more climbers, etc. If we can be pro-active with the Park and Evans and other such areas, then we have a very good chance of avoiding a Hueco and allowing both people who are hell bent on sending only “sic projs” and those who are more interested in enjoying a day moving over stone to co-exist.

Again, as with the guide and the concerns over the environment, how to do this in any meaningful way that actually works is the hard question. I don’t know, it seems as we age as individual climbers we realize the importance of nature, the setting, the birds, the movement, the stone. But there will always be those younger climbers just getting into the sport who really only care about making the numbers. Can we instill in them what we have learned over our years?

Maybe some father climbers can speak to this better, but I have no clue. Flyers, tests, small lectures, rants on the web, etc. seem to never work. I think we need to really think about leading by example: if we leave no trace, don’t pull up the small tress at the base of a problem, don’t sculpt the landing, don’t leave our toprope attached to the tree and decaying, etc. then we might have a chance. Are we really doing this yet? I can think of several positive examples, but I can also point to several negative ones involving those very people who should be setting the example.

Thank you for posting these questions/posts. If nothing else, readers of your blog know where you stand and where this little community stands. Makes me happy and want to climb!

1) A surge in climber population brought about by prevalence of gyms
2) Leading to a general reduction in the historical mentorship/apprenticeship that passed ethics between generations of climbers
3) Compounded by a general abdication by gym owners, managers, gym culture, to teach people how to act outside

It will get worse before/if it gets better.

I can’t help but think if people were taught to treat gyms in a sustainable way, if your belay test included a test on Leave No Trace ethics, if membership dues were reduced for Access Members, if gyms did more trail clean up, if between techno tunes a voice said, “don’t bring your boom boxes to the boulders,” ….

Happy Holidays

An analogy, I hope not too pretentious, is the Uffizi Museum in Florence Italy. There, to get in during peak times, you must either reserve spaces well in advance or wait in long lines for hours.The tickets are expensive. The experience itself is typically that of shuffling along with a herd of tourists who know next to nothing about the works on display. Any sense of freedom, solitude, or beauty is inevitably undermined by the crowds, the noise, and the sense that this is not what viewing great art is about. It’s a shame and just another sign of the impact of travel and cultural tourism on once-great place.

Given the current popularity of bouldering, Hueco will always be a contested area. There is little doubt that many boulderers do not have the deepest interests of the environment in mind when they are out in the field.. Dr Kaufman’s point about non-climbers just wanting to see the park but being locked out by climbers is just plain sad. I know that I feel uncomfortable about the way that climber demand and conduct have created the current situation, especially during peak season.

In my many years of climbing, I have always been dismayed to see the pack mentality take over a place. Unfortunately (or fortunately?) there will likely be no more Hueco Tanks or RMNPs found for climbers to congregate at and inexorably degrade by their presence. It doesn’t have to be that way but the track record so far has been less than stellar.

I agree again with Dr. Kaufman; it is probably better to climb locally and leave a low impact than to drive or fly long distances to join the herd at star destinations like Hueco. Would I like to climb there? You bet. However there is more to the climbing than the sick proj and the scene and I hope that someday the masses would understand that. But that’s why they call them the masses.