The Great Arch by Gord McArthur
After a beautiful day on the rocks, we gathered around the fire with other impromptu members of the Hidden Valley Campground community. With a supper of bean-vegetable medley on tortillas in our bellies and plastic mugs of wine in our hands, the conversation ranged from the highlights of the day, to the weather, to cultural norms and dream tr ips. We talked about the climbing destinations Catalonia, Spain; Arapiles, Australia; El Potrero Chico, Mexico and Frey, Patagonia.
Our Mexican friends, Christopher and Rodrigo, asked about our favour ite Canadian destinations. “I really enjoy some of the crags around Canmore, and of course Squamish,” I said. Have you been to Horne Lake?” he questioned. I’d heard of it but never had the opportunity to go. I was surpr ised that Christopher knew of Horne having never been to Canada. I thought Squamish would fully saturate the reputation of climbing in Canada’s West.
Three months later my road tr ip was over and I was back in Victor ia. I was eager to check out the climbing at Horne Lake B.C. I wanted to write a profile about Horne, as I figured other people would want to know about the area. An initial investigation revealed why there isn’t much published infor mation available. It’s closed.
Since its discovery to climbing in 1994, Horne has always been closed. None of the three groups that have owned the land in this time have sanctioned climbing. The Climbers’ Access Society of BC maintains that the area is closed and that climbing there may jeopardize future attempts to secure access.
Ignorance is not an excuse. I feel deceitful knowing that I’ve violated the requests of the land owners and the Climbers’ Access Society to stay off the cliffs. Only, I can’t promise I’ll never go back. I may overr ide my guilt and conjure up some justification as to why it’s OK for me to return. Is climbing at Horne morally wrong?
Climbing at Rockwood, Ont. was banned in part due to the actions of climbers during access negotiations. In 2007, the Ontario Access Coalition ( oac) approached the Grand River Conservation Authority ( grca) – who manage the land – with a proposal to allow climbing. The grca requested that climbing not take place while the proposal was being reviewed. In 2008, and after unauthorized climbing in the area, Rockwood was closed and remains so for the foreseeable future. Adam Reeve, co-chair of the oac, commented: “Although it was not the primary cause of the closure, it certainly didn’t help matters.” This is a situation where the actions of a few, who continued to climb at Rockwood, were detrimental to all climbers.
Situations like Rockwood, where access to climbing on public land is controversial, can have positive outcomes. Bouldering at Halfway Log Dump, Ont., is open for the third season due to successful collaboration between Parks Canada and the Ontario Access Coalition. About access in general, Reeve said, “If we think about how others see us and manage our actions collectively and responsibly then we’ll be able to enjoy greater access to climbing resources.”
Does my desire to climb at a particular area supersede the gain of climbers as a whole? The answer will depend on individual moralities. There is something about the nature of rock climbing, freedom unfettered by adherence to social norms and rules. Some climbers are indifferent to future access considerations so long as they get to have their session. But then, being responsible for a closure probably isn’t going to build many new friendships. The question that we need to be asking ourselves is, “If I cause the indefinite closure to a crag, was it worth it?”
At crags across Canada individual climbers, land owners (public and private) and access groups wrestle with conflicting values and land management objectives. Each situation is distinct. Some restr ictions are more significant than others in ter ms of protecting future access.
Some of the Lower Malamute in Squamish is closed because the climbs are next to train tracks. It’s doubtful that CN Rail, the land owner, will ever open the area to climbing as they have nothing to gain by doing so. Climbing at Lower Malamute presents little har m to access – as it is not sanctioned. It is possible, should more people start visiting, that CN will decide to blast the rock and put a per manent end to the problem. Presently though, the only r isk that climbing at the Lower Malamute poses is to the individual in the for m of a fine.
The Ghost River, Alta., presents an entirely different situation. The Climbers’ Access Society of Alberta ( casa) ensured climbers could gain limited access to the Ghost River Wilder ness Area in 2008. Many people (some of them climbers) choose to ignore the existing vehicle restr ictions and dr ive beyond the limits, thus complicating ongoing access interests. Sustainable Resource Development is the body that manages the land and makes access decisions. Transgressions by individual climbers, although not fined, are recorded. This damages the credibility of the casa and makes negotiations difficult as they are representing all climbers in the area.
In ongoing access predicaments, there is little r isk that one climber will initiate closure enforcement, but one climber 100- times-over may. Certainly if Christopher and the rest of the Joshua Tree crowd decide to make the tr ip, land-owners won’t watch idly as their land is overrun.
Sometimes our actions substantially impact the future access for an area (as in Rockwood), and sometimes the impact is less so (as in the Lower Malamute). Our obligation is to understand who owns the land and what outcomes may result from our presence. If we choose to climb somewhere taboo and the crag is closed, the consequences will rest with us.