I don't have enough details about the Final Frontier's Climbing Management Plan; from the press release it seems like the Forest Service, Access Fund, and RCA are partners in the plan... and I trust two of these three partners (Ok, I trust the Forest Service too, just not the Trump Administration, but I digress). This seems pretty ideal--climbers are stakeholders in the management of the area. I'm curious what you think a better plan would look like. Privately owned climbing lands seem like the worst option: private land owners can close and/or sell the land on a whim (like closing The Pound, or Roadside at the Red). I don't think there is any "free" (as in non-government/non-private land) in the US, and I'm not quite sure we would want that either--somebody has to pay for maintenance and improvements. Maybe the best option is having RCA/the Access Fund own the land? My hunch is they didn't do so because of maintenance and liability costs. Is pay to climb model with RCA/Access Fund ownership, similar to Muir Valley at the Red a better option?
I think I prefer the RCA/AF/Forest Service management model. COVID (and the government's botched response) is forcing hard decisions based on imperfect information everywhere. I strongly feel like the Trump Administration is corrupting, subverting, and eliminating laws and well-intentioned government institutions. But I still believe our government is generally good. If it can weather this storm, it's flawed with _lots_ of room for improvement, but still fundamentally good.
I don't have enough details about the Final Frontier's Climbing Management Plan; from the press release it seems like the Forest Service, Access Fund, and RCA are partners in the plan... and I trust two of these three partners (Ok, I trust the Forest Service too, just not the Trump Administration, but I digress). This seems pretty ideal--climbers are stakeholders in the management of the area. I'm curious what you think a better plan would look like. Privately owned climbing lands seem like the worst option: private land owners can close and/or sell the land on a whim (like closing The Pound, or Roadside at the Red). I don't think there is any "free" (as in non-government/non-private land) in the US, and I'm not quite sure we would want that either--somebody has to pay for maintenance and improvements. Maybe the best option is having RCA/the Access Fund own the land? My hunch is they didn't do so because of maintenance and liability costs. Is pay to climb model with RCA/Access Fund ownership, similar to Muir Valley at the Red a better option?
I think I prefer the RCA/AF/Forest Service management model. COVID (and the government's botched response) is forcing hard decisions based on imperfect information everywhere. I strongly feel like the Trump Administration is corrupting, subverting, and eliminating laws and well-intentioned government institutions. But I still believe our government is generally good. If it can weather this storm, it's flawed with _lots_ of room for improvement, but still fundamentally good.