|On 2-Aug-2018 kieranl wrote:
>And here's some research on something like the topic :
>Longitudinal variation in environmental impact at
>rock climbing areas in the Red River Gorge limits of
>acceptable change study area, Daniel Boone
>National Forest, Kentucky
>Eastern Kentucky University
>Tried to paste the link but getting the suspicious input message.
>Here's what may be a salient point :
>Research suggests that initial low to moderate levels of use generally
>of the damage to recreation sites (Marion, 1998; Hammitt & Cole, 1998;
>Furthermore, impacts to recreation sites develop quickly with “near-maximum
>impact within the first couple of years and remain relatively consistent
>recovery rates are always slower than deterioration rates” (Cole, 2013,
You sound surprised bro k-man?
I would think it’s a self evident sequence that goes something like...
A) Pristine natural climbing area found.
B) As more peeps access the joint it gets conveniencified, you know, level up the landings, clear the shrubberies (shades of Monty Python!), including those pesky snaggy bits on the track in, brush the lichen, etc.
C) Tell the mates about the awesome new crag, only after the majority of trashment err development has taken place though!
How long did that take again? Oh yeh, the initial period when majority of damage is needed!
Once the damage is done it doesn’t generally require re-doing! Minimal maintenance required, unless dangerouser cliffs finds the rings!
D) Keep coming back, but take (heartening) ownership and bitch about the holds being worn, caked in chalk, and poo tickets breeding in the shrubberies that are still pesky because they keep trying to come back!!
I reckon the dude that did that study was on mates rates for stating the obvious without saying to the authorities “Well derrr, bros!”