Leave No Trace (or more realistically, Leave Minimal Trace)

[tjwetherell]

This topic is linked to both education/skills, and ethics/access.

I propose that whatever new association comes to be includes a set of guidelines of techniques for minimizing the impact (or perceived impact) of our sport on the lands we frequent.

I don't think this has to devolve into a bolt/no-bolt debate. It could be a "least common denominator" or it could include caveats such as consideration for local ethics or the preservation of character through continuing the "style" of the first descent party.

This concept in that it not only provides a set of guidelines for self-policing, but it also is demonstrable to land managers that we recognize that resource is ours to use, and ours to preserve.

-tom(w)

[Iceaxe]

:2thumbs:

[oldno7]

Great idea Tom. I for one, would be willing to volunteer some time to teach an anchors course....(I know, down the road)

Maybe one every other month...

[ghawk]

This topic is linked to both education/skills, and ethics/access.

I propose that whatever new association comes to be includes a set of guidelines of techniques for minimizing the impact (or perceived impact) of our sport on the lands we frequent.

I don't think this has to devolve into a bolt/no-bolt debate. It could be a "least common denominator" or it could include caveats such as consideration for local ethics or the preservation of character through continuing the "style" of the first descent party.

This concept in that it not only provides a set of guidelines for self-policing, but it also is demonstrable to land managers that we recognize that resource is ours to use, and ours to preserve.

-tom(w)

:2thumbs: yes, and that personal responsibility will directly impact the primary function of access. We have a lot more to stand on if we can promise parks, landowners, other government agencies, etc... that we operate with low impact goals.

[SRG]

Tom,
I agree wholeheartedly. I saw that "environmental education" didn't do well in the poll about the goals of the new association. My best guess for why that is, is because people's minds immediately jump to the bolt v. no bolt debate and that can be a divisive one.

I like your idea about finding the least common denominator and starting there, seems practical.

I also like the idea about self policing, I personally would like the new association to be heavily involved in environmental/preservation education, but not involved in lobbying/trying to influence legislation(at any level) around the issue of environmental preservation.
I think there are certain environmental problems(access paths, rope marks from poorly places anchors, etc..) created by canyoneers that we are clearly responsible for(responsible for creating as well as responsible for minimizing),education about these should be the business of the new organization.
I think issues of protecting the land that the canyons are on is more appropriately handled by other organizations such as SUWA or The Wilderness Society. Issues of protecting vs not protecting seem political in nature and better suited elsewhere than an organization for a recreational sport.

-Sam

[jman]

I think there are certain environmental problems(access paths, rope marks from poorly places anchors, etc..) created by canyoneers that we are clearly responsible for(responsible for creating as well as responsible for minimizing),education about these should be the business of the new organization.

-Sam

x1,000,000!

[trackrunner]

I think there are certain environmental problems(access paths, rope marks from poorly places anchors, etc..) created by canyoneers that we are clearly responsible for(responsible for creating as well as responsible for minimizing),education about these should be the business of the new organization.


this I support

[Iceaxe]

this I support

x3