TO PUBLISH OR NOT TO PUBLISH

A guidebook authors perspective.....

By Mick Ryan

Guidebooks are about sharing information. Someone collects local climbing knowledge and, for a small price, shares it with the rest of the climbing community who don¹t have that local knowledge. There are very few climbers, if any, who have not used a guidebook.

It sounds simple but in reality the publication of climbing information is like traversing a minefield blindfolded (and I don¹t mean the hard work involved in researching and compiling that information which is more akin to hard labor in a Siberian concentration camp). The big question and quandary is whether to publish or not, especially on the Eastern Sierra.

Why the dilemma? Why not publish and be dammed?  There are several reasons.
An area might be environmentally sensitive, land managers might want to avoid a honey pot situation and its associated impacts, and quite often some local climbers might want to keep the area to themselves.

Where an area has been bouldered on for many years and has already been documented in guidebooks and has been exposed in the climbing media (magazines, the internet and videos) the decision is easy and there is no reason not to publish. A good example is the Peabody Boulders in the Buttermilk.

Other, newer areas pose more difficult questions. If it¹s a new area and it's good, word-of-mouth inevitably gets out and word-of-mouth amongst climbers is one of the most effective means of publicizing an area. Personal recommendations about an area between climbers are usually devoid of media hype and are taken seriously. But the media, photographers and climbing journalists, are often hot on the heels of word-of-mouth.

So do we publish as soon as we find out about an area? I first try to talk to those climbing at an area and find out if they have any concerns. An area might too small for a mass onslaught of climbers; it might have difficult access through a sensitive area, all legitimate concerns. If local activists just say, ²we want to keep this area to ourselves² alone that is not a good enough reason not to publish. However a period of grace is respected so that those that discovered the area can grab all their first ascents.

I then usually talk to one of my very environmentally aware climbing mentors in Bishop to get their take on things. The next stop is the land managers' office, usually the Forest Service or the Bureau of Land management to get their advice.

It may be of interest to some that the number of published bouldering areas on the Eastern Sierra are far fewer than have not been published. A good example of this is the Volcanic Tableland where less than 10% of the bouldering has been published. Through an agreement between the BLM and this author, the majority of bouldering on the Tableland will not appear in a ROCKFAX guidebook. That is not to say that you can¹t boulder at these areas, you can, but to avoid a "honey pot" situation that guidebooks or any media exposure can create, these areas, some with sensitive ecological and cultural resources, are left for your self-exploration.

If an area already has public access, if it is by a road and already has a network of established trails, if there are no sensitive or endangered species in an area, maybe if it has already been exposed to grazing, stock trails, hikers, bird-watchers or mining, then there really is no reason not to publish.

I obviously have a vested interest in bouldering areas as not only do I play there but I also collect, present and sell information about them to other climbers. But I can only do that if climber impacts are low and these areas remain open. Consequently like many climbers on the Eastern Sierra I work very hard to help educate climbers about minimum impact climbing behavior and work closely with land managers, especially the BLM. It¹s called enlightened self-interest. Good climber behavior and low impacts mean we have access and that means I can boulder at an area and publish information about an area. If climbers behave irresponsibly and impacts are high, access may be restricted or denied out right and that means I can't write about that area or even have fun there. It should be obvious that it is in my interest, all our interests, to keep climber impacts low and not publish information without thought and consultation with others.

For example whilst ROCKFAX was preparing our guidebook to Las Vegas Limestone we were instrumental in the closing down of several areas that were extremely ecologically sensitive in the Desert National Wildlife Refuge, although most local climbers were ignorant of these concerns. On the other hand we also helped keep open some areas where, without lobbying land managers could have imposed restrictions on our activities.

In this MiniGUIDE I have devised a method that may help limit user-visits by having different levels of exposure about areas. The more established areas are given the full treatment: an introduction, maps, directions, action photographs, and topos and problem descriptions.

Newer areas, where there are few conflicts, are described just with a photograph, a brief description, directions and maybe a map to help you find the boulders. At these areas I don't provide topos. You are on your own and this kind exposure does limit the number of climbers visiting the area.

For some areas I haven't even provided directions but have just mentioned their existence. It is up to you to find out about these areas by asking around. This limits the number of climbers visiting an area to the most adventurous and inquisitive individuals.

Some areas I've made no mention of at all.

And lastly some areas I don¹t know about.

So this is the model I am using for the documentation of Eastern and Sierra bouldering information. Through a combination of climber education about low-impact behavior and having different levels of guidebook exposure to bouldering areas it is the intention to spread the impact load, reduce impacts overall and help keep climbing areas open. At the same time information is presented to suite the varied tastes of the climbing community.

The criteria are described below.

1. Full Coverage
A high-use area well know in the climbing community. Managed intensively by local land managers in conjunction with the Access Fund and local climbers.
These areas get the full coverage in the guidebook including full topos and problem/route descriptions. A social climbing experience.

2. Medium Coverage
A lesser know area where documentation of the climbing is limited to reduce visitor numbers. A description of the area, directions and photographs may be provided. These areas are managed lightly by land managers and local climbers.

3. Minimal Coverage
An area where high visitor numbers could have detrimental effects although access is open and low frequency visits are acceptable. Mentioned in the guidebook but no directions. Individuals must search out those ³in the know². No management apart from use-trails and good behavior by those who visit. A more wild climbing experience for those who like adventure.

4. No Coverage
A very sensitive area but access is open. Highly secret areas. Word of mouth only. No mention in any climbing media. No management apart from use-trails and good behavior by those who visit. Getting close to true self-reliant adventure and exploration.

5. No Coverage - No Climbing
Areas where there is climbing potential but the area is too sensitive to allow access. Do not go here.

I think this tiered approach to publicity about bouldering areas, a mix of coverage that promotes directed-exploration and self-exploration is healthy for the climbing community and for the future of bouldering. Importantly it helps protect the land where we recreate. It satisfies the diverse needs of the climbing community from those who want to go to the popular areas and do the classic problems to those who want solitude at some remote boulder garden following their nose without referring to a guidebook. I, like many, put myself in both camps depending on my mood.

Importantly I believe it may find favor with land managers who all across America have concerns about the explosion in the popularity of bouldering.
Time, dialogue amongst the climbing community and the climbing media, and importantly with land managers will tell.

This philosophy is partly based on the semi-primitive management of BLM lands instilled in me by Joe Pollini and Jim Jennings at the BLM Bishop Resource Area. I thank and acknowledge them for their help.

Michael Ryan
ROCKFAX GUIDEBOOKS
http://www.rockfax.com