0:00

It's time

0:02

to clip

0:06

your last

0:09

good piece

0:13

and dig

0:17

in, because

0:20

the runout starts

0:23

now. We conquered

0:25

Boulder, Utah last

0:27

year, but we

0:29

decided to go

0:31

for the big

0:33

one this time.

0:35

Yeah, that was easier.

0:37

Yeah, we did a live show last

0:39

week and that was the first time

0:41

for us. You know, well, you've

0:43

done live podcast before. I've done

0:46

live podcast before. Yes, I

0:48

have. Mostly I did not enjoy

0:50

them, actually. Oh, really? Yeah, I

0:52

kind of stopped doing them. I

0:55

mean, they're, they're okay. I didn't

0:57

say, let me rephrase. making them

0:59

while we were doing them, but it's

1:01

all the other parts that were always

1:03

a bit of a scramble. You know,

1:05

going to some climbing festival

1:08

with some janky PA that no one

1:10

knows how to use, that can't

1:12

record off of it, or, you know, all the

1:14

things that when you're doing it

1:16

yourself is a drag. And if

1:19

you were some sort of musician

1:21

celebrity that there would be producers,

1:23

you know, doing that while you were

1:25

eating green M&M's in the... in the

1:27

green room or whatever. So when you

1:30

do it all yourself, it's a pain

1:32

in the ass. But that was not

1:34

the case in Boulder. Yeah, we had a

1:36

pro team and shout out to them for

1:38

helping us pull it off. And I thought

1:40

it was a fun event. And I mean,

1:43

you were buzzing at the end of it.

1:45

It was like you kind of likened

1:47

it to playing like live music

1:49

or something. Yeah, it was harder

1:51

though. Like, I kind of actually.

1:53

my brain got sort of

1:56

twisted up because an hour

1:58

and a half or so. like

2:00

an hour or 20 minutes of

2:02

improving based on like six phrases

2:05

I'd written down on a card

2:07

that I then basically like

2:09

couldn't access yeah comfortably

2:12

was kind of wild and I've

2:15

played improvisational

2:17

music before like playing in

2:19

bands where we would you

2:21

know where we would solo

2:23

or that was all improvisation

2:25

and it had its own

2:27

kind of that type of pressure, but

2:29

you only, you know, you did that

2:31

for a minute or two in the

2:33

framework of a song that you had

2:36

totally dialed and, you know, it was a

2:38

start and finish and then you could

2:40

like bade back into the band, you

2:42

know, like while someone else was solo

2:44

when you were playing rhythm and out

2:47

of the spotlight. So to be

2:49

in the spotlight improvving for an

2:51

hour and a half was quite

2:53

exciting and taxing and nerve racking

2:55

and I don't know, it was pretty

2:58

wild. Yeah, it didn't help that

3:00

we were sitting like five inches

3:02

from a fireplace. At first, they

3:04

thankfully shut it off for

3:06

us. So we're at the Chautauqua

3:08

House and it's basically, it's just

3:10

this beautiful old stone house built,

3:13

I mean, a hundred years ago and

3:15

you said, it's like an intimate

3:17

setting. You sit in front of

3:19

this fireplace and they had it

3:21

raging. Literally like sweat was

3:23

like. Poring down my face until I

3:26

asked them to shut it off and

3:28

then I shut it up. The pressure

3:30

of having to do a podcast was

3:32

it was making us hot too. Yeah, it

3:34

was funny because it was like

3:36

six feet behind us was this

3:38

raging fire and six feet in

3:40

front of us was the audience.

3:42

So it's like this total vice grip

3:44

of like pressures. But anyway, I mean,

3:47

I'm editing it now or listening to

3:49

it to put it out as a

3:51

bonus episode and. Yeah, it's pretty funny

3:53

so far. You know, I haven't gotten

3:55

to the embarrassing parts yet, so there

3:58

were some embarrassing parts too, so. I

4:00

think we'll probably do some more live

4:02

shows at some point. Yeah, I'd like

4:04

to, I mean, Salt Lake City's ripe

4:07

because Chris Parker came down from Salt

4:09

Lake to play at this show

4:11

and we'd like to collaborate with him

4:13

in his hometown. But I'm kind of

4:16

like, the other thing that I really

4:18

liked about it, going back to how

4:20

I didn't much like, like all

4:22

my experiences with doing live

4:24

podcasts with the Norma cast,

4:26

is that I like the fact that it

4:28

was not. in any way climbing

4:30

event related. It was our

4:32

own event and it was

4:34

not at a climbing gym

4:36

or at a climbing festival

4:38

or at the trade show

4:41

or all the ways in

4:43

which normally climbing podcasts get

4:45

done live. I think that that

4:47

removal is key to what we're

4:49

doing because I think what I

4:51

enjoyed about it, I guess this

4:54

is wimpy, is that everybody

4:56

had bought tickets. to come see

4:58

us do what we do. They were for sure

5:00

committed. I made some joke and asked people

5:03

to identify themselves if they'd

5:05

been dragged there, but only a couple

5:07

people did. You know, the people who

5:09

get forced to listen to us in the

5:11

car on the way to the Craig and

5:13

stuff like that are out there. But yeah,

5:15

and that like just juiced it, you know,

5:17

instead of being at a climbing event where

5:19

people are like, well, I came to, you

5:21

know, take this clinic and this things going

5:23

on, so I'll go check out, so I'll

5:25

go check out what it, or innocent

5:28

bystanders, or innocent bystanders.

5:30

I think it's kind

5:32

of like not having a sponsor, like

5:34

we can get into this room

5:36

with these people and do what we

5:38

do, and which I think might upset

5:40

other people. You know, and so

5:42

you have a choice to listen to

5:44

the show, obviously you have a choice

5:47

to download it. You listen to one,

5:49

you're like, I don't like these guys,

5:51

fine, you can move on and never

5:53

hear it again. And I feel like

5:55

this. Intimate and sort of

5:57

confined live setting is a

5:59

version. of that. You didn't

6:01

just show up randomly at

6:03

the Chautauqua House. Right. All

6:06

I said, unless you got

6:08

dragged there, but even then you,

6:10

you know, you knew what you

6:12

were getting into. So that's

6:14

key. And I think we have

6:16

to work on finding that if

6:19

we go to other cities. Yeah,

6:21

yeah, which might be kind

6:23

of tricky because we're not

6:25

booking agents and stuff, but

6:27

right. Yeah. I think that we've

6:29

got a few fans across the

6:32

country, so maybe we could build a

6:34

tour around it. Like, did you

6:36

expect to sell it out? No. No, I

6:38

mean, I didn't have any expectations for

6:40

any of it, so it was all

6:42

new, but yeah, it was a, I

6:44

mean, it was a small room. It

6:46

wasn't like, you know, we weren't

6:48

selling out Dix. Madison Square Garden

6:50

or something, but, but yeah, it

6:53

was, it was an honor to

6:55

have a sold out show. Yeah,

6:57

totally. And people actually sort of

6:59

scrambling for tickets was also flattering,

7:01

as it were. So anyway, that'll

7:03

be posted as a bonus episode.

7:05

And just so you can hear

7:07

what it was like and decide

7:10

if you want to come to

7:12

the next one, we have nothing

7:14

booked, but we sort of just have

7:16

ideas about what to do next

7:18

time to expand it, to change

7:20

it. It was a full experiment in

7:22

the moment, like people were watching

7:25

the... The fusion reaction happened,

7:27

you know, in the collider

7:29

or whatever as it was

7:32

happening. So we appreciate the

7:34

audience too. Yeah, audience was

7:36

amazing. They let us get

7:38

away with what we get away with.

7:41

Yeah. I haven't seen anyone who

7:43

was there slagging us on

7:45

the internet yet. So. There's

7:47

always tomorrow. Yeah. Well,

7:49

it'll just be people who

7:51

weren't there. That's typically what

7:53

it is. Don't listen to

7:56

the show. Just heard some

7:58

shit about Andrew Bisharad on

8:00

land. Exactly. That's the comments usually

8:02

go. But yeah, that's not what

8:04

we're talking about today, Chris. We

8:06

are talking about some news that

8:08

is not just climbing news. It's

8:10

in the New York Times. So

8:13

as big as it gets last

8:15

week, some folks out in Yosemite

8:17

hung an upside-down flag on El

8:19

Cap. We had an episode last

8:21

year with Miranda Oakley, who was

8:23

part of a flag hanging. political

8:25

statement on ill cap. She put

8:27

up a banner that said end

8:30

the genocide, of course, referring to

8:32

the situation in Gaza. And so

8:34

we talked a little bit about

8:36

the intersection of politics and climbing

8:38

and just kind of navigating that

8:40

tricky space and trying to do

8:42

it respectfully, which was interesting. And

8:44

you know, as I saw this

8:47

new story about the upside down

8:49

flag this last week, which of

8:51

course is was a statement. to

8:53

address the Doge induced layoffs across

8:55

the federal bureaucracy, including the Park

8:57

Service. That conversation came to mind,

8:59

and you know, they left the

9:01

flag up for just a couple

9:04

hours or something like that, just

9:06

long enough to make a statement,

9:08

but part of me was kind

9:10

of wondering if that was a

9:12

mistake, if that flag should just

9:14

become a permanent installation on an

9:16

old cap for the next four

9:18

years. So we're referencing a New

9:21

York Times article. We're also referencing

9:23

an article in this episode on

9:25

climbing.com by Gavin Feek. And you

9:27

know, it's like one of these

9:29

other things where a lot of

9:31

news organizations and picked it up

9:33

as they do, they churn out

9:35

the same article over and over

9:38

again. So there's a bunch of

9:40

references to this and that was

9:42

kind of an interesting part of

9:44

it is there. There's sort of

9:46

attempts to walk that. line of

9:48

like, let's not piss anybody off

9:50

about, as few of people off

9:52

about their flag, about their experience

9:55

in the park, like try to

9:57

protest within these guidelines. You know,

9:59

and it was obviously effective because

10:01

the idea is that you do,

10:03

you know, get the photograph and

10:05

then alert the news agencies and

10:07

let them sort of do the

10:09

work for you, which actually worked

10:12

with Mirandas as well. Although I

10:14

think this went a little bit

10:16

bigger so far. And yeah, so

10:18

I mean, it is a weird,

10:20

I mean, you know, part of

10:22

me wants to just, you know,

10:24

get the biggest middle finger up

10:27

and let them, you know, let

10:29

the, whoever's left on the Park

10:31

Service go have to take it

10:33

down or whatever happens to be,

10:35

but, you know, they obviously that

10:37

would be sort of throwing their

10:39

friends and their colleagues under the

10:41

bus, so I get it. In

10:44

the future, it should just be

10:46

a giant banner with Elon Musk

10:48

and the name of all of

10:50

his baby mamas and their children.

10:52

I don't know if that would

10:54

be humiliating enough for him. That's

10:56

not shame single parenting. That's true.

10:58

No shame to the mamas and

11:01

the barricades, but you call what

11:03

he's up to. Elon Musk is

11:05

a dickhead, so. No doubt about

11:07

that. So the climbing article was

11:09

interesting and kind of introduced us

11:11

to a character whose role in

11:13

the park I had never considered

11:15

myself, man named Vince who was

11:18

until just this last week, the

11:20

locksmith of Yosemite. This guy has

11:22

become a bit of a poster

11:24

child for within other media as

11:26

well for this like just randomness

11:28

of just axing necessary people. And

11:30

I think one of the reasons

11:32

it's been picked up on is

11:35

because of the sort of blue

11:37

collar nature of it. I think

11:39

that the people who are kind

11:41

of fighting this. I mean, he's

11:43

becoming a little bit symbolic in

11:45

that sense of like, he's not

11:47

just some government drone, he's like,

11:49

you and I, you know, or

11:52

whatever, he's got this job that

11:54

a number of blue-collar guys could

11:56

have and, you know, that's the

11:58

kind of people that are getting

12:00

asked. So yeah, and he's a

12:02

probationary status employee, whatever that exactly

12:04

means. I'm not. quite clear, but

12:06

it's kind of like prior to

12:09

tenure or something like that. Yeah,

12:11

it's your tryout. Yeah, your tryout.

12:13

And I've seen probationary like lawyers

12:15

and other folks across the government

12:17

who've, I think if you had

12:19

that status as a probationary employee,

12:21

that was part of their, you

12:24

know, kind of blanket cuts that

12:26

they've done, like just getting rid

12:28

of those people. The article in

12:30

climbing, you know, there's some interesting

12:32

quotes where... He refers to this

12:34

anecdote of working with his former

12:36

mentor who is like, as long

12:38

as you're a locksmith in Yosemite,

12:41

you'll always have a job because

12:43

there's a locks open around here.

12:45

And he's like, well, I guess

12:47

not. I guess not. I guess

12:49

not. A thousand doors was referenced.

12:51

There's a thousand doors in Yosemite.

12:53

Yeah. So it's interesting. I mean,

12:55

I, you know, and it was

12:58

interesting. So I read this article

13:00

just the other day and. They

13:02

affixed this kind of update to

13:04

it at the end of the

13:06

article. So that was there when

13:08

I when I read the article

13:10

for the first time. But as

13:12

I'm going through the article, you

13:15

know, I'm reading about all of

13:17

these kind of doors that won't

13:19

be open and potential rescues that

13:21

won't get done and all of

13:23

kind of a lot of catastrophizing

13:25

around what this could mean, what

13:27

these layoffs could mean, how the

13:29

park could be changed, all of

13:32

the kind of you know, bad

13:34

scenarios that could come with with

13:36

these cuts and then You get

13:38

to the end of the article

13:40

and then it's like, well we

13:42

talked to someone who works in

13:44

the park service and they said

13:46

that none of that's going to

13:49

happen. Yeah, I had the exact

13:51

same effect. And so, you know,

13:53

and I kind of want to

13:55

talk a little bit about that

13:57

rhetoric because first of all, I'm

13:59

completely sympathetic to this cause. And,

14:01

you know, you can't have looked

14:03

at anything about the Forest Service

14:06

Department of the Interior. national parks

14:08

or anything in the last decade

14:10

that won't reference budget shortfalls, personnel

14:12

shortfalls, like all the things that's

14:14

just been a crash, right, in

14:16

dealing with our parks. So I'm

14:18

completely sympathetic to this cause of

14:20

like why, and we'll get into,

14:23

you know, the theories as to

14:25

why, like why you're trying to

14:27

siphon off this like minuscule amount

14:29

of money in terms of the

14:31

actual budget. of the United States

14:33

of America, like, you know, a

14:35

couple of those shitty fighter jets,

14:38

like, worth of money that you're

14:40

gonna claw back here, you know,

14:42

like the if 35 or whatever,

14:44

that piece of shit that falls

14:46

out of the sky. Literally, I

14:48

just read an article, what, like,

14:50

four days ago where one fell

14:52

out of the sky. So anyway,

14:55

this whole idea that you're gonna,

14:57

this is where you're going to,

14:59

you know, to show how you're

15:01

like cutting the budget is fucking

15:03

ridiculous. However, when I was reading

15:05

the article, I was exactly the

15:07

same way. Like, first of all,

15:09

you know, Nate Vince, you provide

15:12

this service, it's a necessary service,

15:14

Yosemite is a small city, absolutely

15:16

awesome, but there were quotes like,

15:18

I guess, I guess the Yosemite

15:20

doesn't need. need to lock the

15:22

doors in the park anymore like

15:24

this sort of like over-the-top rhetoric

15:26

where I'm like you know what

15:29

I've I've never once or had

15:31

to like call a locksmith to

15:33

lock or unlock my door like

15:35

in my entire life. So it's

15:37

like, I get it, like blocks

15:39

break, you know, there's old locks

15:41

in Yosemite, you can see them

15:43

on all the buildings, like, but

15:46

this, this sort of like, yep,

15:48

I guess no doors are gonna

15:50

be locked. It's like, just, I

15:52

mean, it's childish in a way

15:54

too, and so I found that,

15:56

and then the SAR thing, because

15:58

even in the article, it was

16:00

like these little scenarios would be

16:03

postulated in sort of the subheadline

16:05

headline or whatever you call those

16:07

breaks. even then it would be

16:09

back to it would be like

16:11

he would back off of that

16:13

statement like yeah but there are

16:15

gonna be this person i mean

16:17

this person then yeah the last

16:20

one was like oh yeah and

16:22

this whole like And I've seen

16:24

this all over the internet of

16:26

like, oh, I guess you're going

16:28

to just die in Yosemite now

16:30

this summer, you know? It's like,

16:32

you know, and it turns out

16:35

that no, that's not going to

16:37

be the case. Well, we don't

16:39

know. I mean, that's the thing

16:41

is we don't actually know what's

16:43

going to happen. It's all speculation.

16:45

And it's a shitty journalism because

16:47

it's clearly trying to advance a

16:49

narrative that pissed someone off who

16:52

works in the park enough to

16:54

reach out and... kind of almost

16:56

force a correction to the narrative

16:58

that they were pushing in this

17:00

piece, which is that it's all

17:02

just going to go to hell.

17:04

And, you know, of course, you

17:06

know, I have been sensitive to

17:09

narratives in the way that, you

17:11

know, my pet political issue at

17:13

the moment, which is Palestine has

17:15

been discussed and just the fact

17:17

that, you know, there was no

17:19

New York Times article that I

17:21

can recall about. Miranda's banner, you

17:23

know, ending the genocide, because that's

17:26

not the narrative that the New

17:28

York Times wants to talk about,

17:30

but the New York Times is

17:32

happy to talk about, you know,

17:34

the, the, the, the failures of

17:36

the, or just the excesses of

17:38

the Trump administration to recklessly slash

17:40

budgets and endanger people's lives in

17:43

Yosemite, which may be end up

17:45

being the case and then all

17:47

may be true, but it's just,

17:49

it's just clearly just there's. just

17:51

like bias that is hard to

17:53

it's hard to get around and

17:55

it just it makes it I

17:57

don't know hard to genuinely just

18:00

accept the the narrative that you're

18:02

reading as you read it and

18:04

it's just it was just the

18:06

added I mean it was just

18:08

kind of like that added irony

18:10

and just that little smirk at

18:12

the end when you get to

18:14

the end of the article and

18:17

they kind of have to walk

18:19

back everything that you had just

18:21

read up into that point. Yeah,

18:23

certainly, but I mean he does

18:25

cite this other person Alex Wild

18:27

who was in another park and

18:29

was cut as the only EMT

18:31

in referencing the fact that the,

18:34

you know, the superintendent was like,

18:36

you know, don't do this and,

18:38

but there's no, there seems to

18:40

be no recourse because it's like,

18:42

it sounds like it's like six

18:44

people just randomly slashing everything that

18:46

happens. And again, like I am

18:49

completely sympathetic because. I was thinking

18:51

this, I saw Michelle Wolf did

18:53

a bit on it, like, is

18:55

that we, you know, aside from

18:57

whether you're going to get rescued

18:59

off El Cap or not, or

19:01

if you break your leg, you're

19:03

going to, people will show up

19:06

to help you. The experience of

19:08

going to these parks has gotten,

19:10

I mean, worse and worse. There's

19:12

no doubt about that, especially since

19:14

COVID and everything kind of broke

19:16

with the people that showed up.

19:18

And so, you know, that's really

19:20

to me. like these individual cases

19:23

are very good to to kind

19:25

of sensationalize what's happening but the

19:27

fact is is that we can't

19:29

be trusted like the the general

19:31

visitor these parks need I mean

19:33

we have to have regulation we

19:35

have to have enforcement and as

19:37

much as that like I'll say

19:40

that climbers should go off and

19:42

sleep in the caves and break

19:44

the rules you know I still

19:46

have this feeling that overall you

19:48

know these these parks are going

19:50

to become somewhat unusable and they

19:52

they kind of have already to

19:54

a certain extent you know with

19:57

with lines, with reservations, with all

19:59

the different things we've even talked

20:01

about on the show. And I

20:03

just remember from COVID, you know,

20:05

like when the par, or it

20:07

was a government shutdown actually when

20:09

the parks closed and like, you

20:11

know, idiots were in Joshua Tree

20:14

just four-wheel driving around and cutting

20:16

down Joshua trees. Like, that's not

20:18

something I made up, you know,

20:20

that shit was happening. And so

20:22

it's like, and I guess that's

20:24

the point. From what I'm kind

20:26

of reading and it had occurred

20:28

to me as well in like

20:31

Patagonia if you follow I guess

20:33

them Although they put all the

20:35

pronouns on their on their profile,

20:37

but you know That's the one

20:39

I've been reading a lot about

20:41

too is that this whole idea

20:43

of like Fucking the system up

20:46

so we can give it away

20:48

these politicians who are openly aligned

20:50

with with privatizing federal lands like

20:52

that's not something I'm making up

20:54

either you know that Utah's been

20:56

after that for decades as well.

20:58

So that seems to be the

21:00

case is like make this experience

21:03

so onerous to people when they

21:05

go to a park and it's

21:07

jammed and it's trashed and it's

21:09

nothing is working, then we can

21:11

see be like, yeah, well that's

21:13

the government for you, you know,

21:15

and they can privatize it. Is

21:23

that old leather face or just

21:25

the doge slash idiocracy chainsaw coming

21:27

for your locks? Well, go to

21:29

patreon.com/runout podcast and become a rope

21:31

gun today to find out. Get

21:33

more banter, more bonus material and

21:35

more satisfaction from your runout experience.

21:37

Plus, if an unelected, very wounded,

21:40

and likely psychopathic multi-money millionaire comes

21:42

for your job, You'll have something

21:44

else to listen to while collecting

21:46

unemployment. That's patron.com/runout podcast to support

21:48

the show and stick it. to

21:50

the man. The Protect America's Rock

21:52

Climbing Act was signed into law

21:54

at the end of President Biden's

21:56

term. This historic act was the

21:58

result of a multi-year campaign spearheaded

22:00

by the Access Fund. Our guest

22:02

today, our Access Fund executive director

22:04

Heather Thorne, and deputy director Eric

22:06

Murdoch. This interview was recorded on

22:09

January 28th, before the news of

22:11

Doj's cuts to many positions in

22:13

our government, including at the National

22:15

Parks. To check out the Access

22:17

Fund's position on the doge cuts,

22:19

see the linked article in our

22:21

show notes. All right, we are

22:23

here with the Big Dogs at

22:25

the Access Fund, Eric Murdoch and

22:27

Heather Thorne. Eric, Heather, welcome to

22:29

the show. Thank you. Thanks for

22:31

having us. Appreciate it. Heather, you're

22:33

new at the Access Fund. So

22:36

maybe you could start by telling

22:38

us a little bit about who

22:40

you are and how you came

22:42

to find yourself as the executive

22:44

director of the Access Fund. Yeah.

22:46

Yeah, so it's kind of an

22:48

unlikely path, I guess you could

22:50

say. I've been climbing for almost

22:52

30 years and I've made a

22:54

few attempts to make my way

22:56

into the climbing industry or outdoor

22:58

industry, but it was always just

23:00

this thing that was kind of

23:02

separate. So I always had my

23:05

career and then my climbing. and

23:07

never the 20th shall meet. And

23:09

then I got laid off in

23:11

2023, took a little time off.

23:13

It was like my first break

23:15

in 22 years, and spent a

23:17

bunch of time trying to climb

23:19

more, gardening, doing random things like

23:21

that. But I have a seven-year-old

23:23

and what I realize is you

23:25

can't just like take off and

23:27

go on road trips all the

23:29

time, even if you're not working.

23:31

And so after several months of

23:34

that, I was like, you know,

23:36

I really want to get back

23:38

into doing something I'm passionate about

23:40

doing something I passionate about. and

23:42

was doing a little consulting and

23:44

interviewing and then all of a

23:46

sudden I saw the opportunity the

23:48

access fund and it was just

23:50

kind of a dream. I've been

23:52

supporting access fund for quite some

23:54

time off and on, you know,

23:56

but always had sort of known

23:58

what they and always had respected

24:00

the organization tremendously. And so, you

24:03

know, it was a, it was

24:05

a several month process, starting, I

24:07

guess, last February, almost exactly a

24:09

year ago, started the job, and

24:11

it's been, it's been quite a

24:13

ride. It's been amazing. You said

24:15

that you, you know, had been

24:17

supporting the excess fund and, and,

24:19

quote, knew what they did of

24:21

what? the Access Fund is actually

24:23

up to, was it? Did you

24:25

imagine yourself doing something different? You

24:27

know, what were the surprises? Yeah,

24:30

I guess I would say I

24:32

was really familiar with the acquisition's

24:34

part because that's how I originally

24:36

became familiar. I actually am wearing

24:38

my index t-shirt today. Access Fund

24:40

helped WCC purchase and save the

24:42

Lower Town Wall back in 2009

24:44

or 2010 or something like that.

24:46

And that was the first time

24:48

that I became aware that there

24:50

was an organization that actually could...

24:52

turn around, something like a closure

24:54

of a beloved Craig, and I

24:56

was just blown away by that.

24:59

So I think I was aware

25:01

of that mostly. But then as

25:03

I started to study the organization

25:05

more and more, I'd definitely seen

25:07

some of the climate steward tents

25:09

out at different places, and so

25:11

I kind of knew that they

25:13

were out in the community, but

25:15

I didn't know actually to what

25:17

extent Access Fund was really working

25:19

in every single aspect of climbing

25:21

access and sort of the climbing

25:23

management space. And so, you know,

25:25

not only was it acquisitions, but

25:28

it was all of the extensive

25:30

sort of federal lands work that

25:32

Eric's been driving for years, really

25:34

the public policy work. It's also

25:36

the conservation teams and the climate

25:38

stewards, and then it's helping, you

25:40

know, create, build, and support local

25:42

climate organizations. So kind of all

25:44

the different pieces that you would

25:46

need to be able to preserve

25:48

access and make sure that the

25:50

climate community is really aware of

25:52

and ideally, you know, behaving, you

25:54

know, behaving in ways that allows

25:57

us to retain playing. Nice, so

25:59

we're going to talk about the

26:01

big success that the excess fund

26:03

was instrumental in helping to. drive,

26:05

which is the Park Act, the

26:07

Protect America's Rock Climate Act. Eric,

26:09

maybe you could give us a

26:11

brief overview on that piece of

26:13

legislation and why don't you start

26:15

by just giving us a brief

26:17

overview of what you do with

26:19

the access fund and how long

26:21

you've been there. Yes, so I'm

26:23

currently the deputy director in charge

26:26

of programs acquisitions, stewardship and education.

26:28

which includes the policy and government

26:30

affairs program. I've been with the

26:32

access fund for, man, it's been

26:34

over 11 years. I started as

26:36

the policy director, just focused on

26:38

the policy program, kind of building

26:40

that out, and over the last

26:42

decade, kind of evolved into something

26:44

else. Yeah, I first started kind

26:46

of interacting with the access fund,

26:48

over 20 years ago, when the

26:50

access fund funded. some doctoral research

26:53

I was doing at Joshua Tree

26:55

National Park when I was working

26:57

for the Park Service as a

26:59

social scientist and getting my degree

27:01

and really that's how I started

27:03

in sort of understanding climbing management

27:05

and how climbers move through landscapes

27:07

and public policy and that kind

27:09

of thing. But yeah, the Park

27:11

Act is kind of the fruition

27:13

of many decades of work. and

27:15

essentially the Park Act is the

27:17

Protecting America's Rock Climbing Act. It

27:19

was introduced a couple years ago

27:22

by Congressman Curtis out of Utah

27:24

and Congressman Negus out of Colorado,

27:26

but the birth of it was

27:28

actually way before that. We started

27:30

knocking around ideas for this over

27:32

eight years ago, and it's changed

27:34

a lot. The beginnings of the

27:36

Park Act was just this bill

27:38

that Senator Murkowski out of... Alaska

27:40

and Senator Cantwell out of Washington

27:42

first introduced. And the bill started

27:44

by just sort of this bill

27:46

that would require that the Forest

27:48

Service finally develop guidance. For folks

27:51

who have been following along with

27:53

the Axis Fund for 30 years,

27:55

they might know that we've been

27:57

struggling with sort of how climbing

27:59

is managed on forest service land

28:01

for a long time. And the

28:03

first iteration of this bill was

28:05

just a mandate to say, hey,

28:07

forest services got to come up

28:09

with some sort of standardized regulations.

28:11

So we're not reinventing the wheel

28:13

and fighting this battle about wilderness

28:15

climbing and fixed anchors, and we'll

28:17

talk about that I'm sure in

28:20

this discussion. But it evolved into

28:22

something else after the Park Service

28:24

and the Forest Service introduced some

28:26

proposals that would actually prohibit fixed

28:28

anchors in all wilderness areas. That

28:30

would affect over 50,000 routes in

28:32

28 states and was basically constituted

28:34

the largest threat to climbing in

28:36

the history of the United States.

28:38

So that's when, you know, we

28:40

decided we need to provide the

28:42

common community with some certainty. And

28:44

we got, we kicked in the

28:47

gear. We kicked in the gear.

28:49

and started working on this bill.

28:51

And if you want to talk

28:53

a little bit about how, what

28:55

the bill means and what it

28:57

requires as this discussion moves on.

28:59

You have a question before that

29:01

when you talk about, you know,

29:03

moving into talking to, you know,

29:05

the movers and shakers in the

29:07

government, our representatives, things like that,

29:09

you know, that was obviously a

29:11

shift that... was necessary and but

29:13

also kind of a big move

29:16

it's sort of like you know

29:18

there's good parts about rock climbing

29:20

sort of operating under the radar

29:22

and then there's you know this

29:24

idea that we bring it to

29:26

the mainstream and and or bring

29:28

it to to these people because

29:30

it can obviously backfire in a

29:32

lot of ways to you know

29:34

get these rules in place if

29:36

they don't meet what we like

29:38

but tell me about your pitch

29:40

to you know these senators and

29:42

these representatives to why they should

29:45

care you know it's it's even

29:47

today we talk about how big

29:49

climbing has become, but it's still,

29:51

you know, it's still not that

29:53

many people out there doing it.

29:55

And yeah, so what's your pitch?

29:57

Either one of you could address

29:59

this, but maybe Eric's been in

30:01

that game longer. To these people

30:03

who probably don't really care about

30:05

rock climbing, I haven't seen Lisa

30:07

Murkowski at the Craig in the

30:09

last few times I've been there

30:11

anyway. First of all, I agree

30:14

with you that the growth of

30:16

climbing and having regulations is a

30:18

blessing and occurs, right. It can

30:20

provide us with some certainty. but

30:22

could tighten the screws. So there's

30:24

some risk involved. You know, a

30:26

lot of congressional members, a lot

30:28

more know about climbing than a

30:30

lot of climbers think. Senator Cantwell

30:32

is a real climber. We talked

30:34

to her about different climbing objectives

30:36

and things she's done, and she

30:38

knows about fixed anchors, and she's

30:40

laughing when we're talking about a

30:43

prohibition on fixed anchors, about how

30:45

is she going to get down

30:47

off the grand teeton, which she's

30:49

climbed, and Mount Rainier. and other

30:51

climbing objectives and there's there's several

30:53

climbers in Congress right now and

30:55

certainly even more so a lot

30:57

of congressional staffers so that's kind

30:59

of helped us that climbing has

31:01

become more popular because there's tons

31:03

of people who are working in

31:05

DC on Capitol Hill who know

31:07

a lot about climbing but the

31:10

original pitch you know to the

31:12

congressional members is a little bit

31:14

different than the than the administration

31:16

than the folks in the Park

31:18

Service. When we talk to these

31:20

congressional members you know we're talking

31:22

about things like taxpayer dollars being

31:24

squandered. You know, I know you

31:26

all have done some pretty interesting

31:28

pieces on Armando Menacol. It's pretty

31:30

interesting, you know, that he started,

31:32

you know, he founded the access

31:34

fund and he was working on

31:36

this, he was working on this

31:39

issue for a long time. And

31:41

really, one of the most compelling

31:43

pitches to folks like Senator Rakowski

31:45

and Senator Cantwell, beyond the fact

31:47

that they got serious skin in

31:49

the game. They've got climbing in

31:51

Alaska, they've got climbing in Washington,

31:53

the recreation economy is big money.

31:55

but also they're really compelled by

31:57

the fact that the Forest Service

31:59

has spent 20 years, 25, 30 years

32:01

on a project. They've drafted five

32:04

iterations of national guidance. This isn't

32:06

up to the access fund. That's

32:08

what they're trying to do. And

32:10

every time they failed. And every

32:12

time they've sort of squandered taxpayer

32:14

dollars. And it's a pretty

32:16

compelling argument going into a congressional

32:18

office and saying, hey, the Forest

32:20

Service has been working for 25,

32:23

30 years on a project. They've

32:25

drafted five iterations of these plans.

32:27

It's costed the American public millions

32:29

of dollars, actually millions of dollars,

32:31

and we've got zero to show

32:33

for it. And that is something

32:35

that gets people pretty excited, you

32:37

know, on Capitol Hill. And they

32:39

want to fix that. They want

32:41

to solve these problems. So that's

32:43

kind of one of the most compelling

32:45

things, I think, that caused a

32:47

lot of these congressional members to

32:50

take notice of this issue. And maybe if

32:52

I just were to step in for a second,

32:54

I'd say... you know, the effort by the Park

32:56

Service and the Forest Service to propose

32:58

an approach that would make fixed anchors

33:00

prohibited by default. That was, you know, the

33:02

next sort of iteration from their side of a

33:04

plan, a proposal to how to make this work.

33:06

And I think what we were saying is like,

33:09

great, that was your proposal, but that's actually

33:11

not workable for climbers. And so what

33:13

we're asking is for an approach that

33:15

actually takes into consideration. you know, climbers'

33:18

perspectives and realistic needs for safety in

33:20

the wilderness. And so Eric actually was

33:22

a participant in a process that was

33:25

ongoing several years ago, that was a

33:27

cross-functional group of folks that were, both

33:29

from the agencies, folks in different user

33:32

groups, you participated personally, Eric, and it

33:34

really was actually making progress toward a

33:36

management plan that would have been workable.

33:39

And unfortunately, the most recent director of

33:41

wilderness. had a different philosophy and kind

33:43

of disbanded that whole group. And so

33:45

there actually was a process that was

33:48

underway that I think that we were

33:50

optimistic about as an organization. And so

33:52

I think now that they've rescinded the guidance

33:54

and now that the Explorer Act has gone

33:57

through, I think there's room now for us

33:59

to come. back to the table and

34:01

work with these agencies to put together

34:03

approaches that actually are workable. So it's

34:06

not that everything's a free for all,

34:08

it's that we're back to the table

34:10

to be able to work on something

34:13

that's going to work for climbers. Yeah,

34:15

so the Park Act, as I understand

34:17

it, you know, does a couple important

34:19

things, one of which is it asserts

34:22

the legitimacy of placing fixed anchors on

34:24

these lands, which is huge, but it

34:26

also... there's a bit of vagueness in

34:28

terms of what the next steps are

34:31

that you could maybe explain and fill

34:33

us in about because it's it's really

34:35

a mandate as I understand it or

34:38

a direction to these agencies to come

34:40

up with a plan and so what

34:42

that plan is I don't know maybe

34:44

and I'm not sure anyone knows at

34:47

this point but you why don't you

34:49

guys fill us in on what the

34:51

next steps are for actually implementing plans

34:53

in throughout all these different bureaucracies. Yeah,

34:56

so, you know, for decades, the agencies

34:58

have been required to come up with

35:00

climbing management plans, but as we know,

35:03

there's barely any out there. It's really

35:05

hard to do. So they've always been

35:07

required, especially in the park service, to

35:09

come up with plans for different places

35:12

like Yosemite, which doesn't have a climbing

35:14

management plan. And Josh Retree National Park,

35:16

which is working on one, which really

35:18

doesn't have an active one, Rocky Mountain

35:21

National Park in those sorts of places.

35:23

But the Park Act itself has really

35:25

four mandates. And like you said, Andrew,

35:28

I mean, the first one is just,

35:30

hey, come up with some general guidance

35:32

for climbing management so that every single

35:34

one of these plans are not a

35:37

situation where they're reinventing the wheel. We

35:39

need some sideboards. We need some some

35:41

some general direction. for these agencies. And

35:43

the language is really important here. It

35:46

says that fixed anchors are appropriate in

35:48

wilderness, both the use and the maintenance

35:50

and also the existence of and the

35:53

placement. future of fixed anchors are all

35:55

appropriate in wilderness. And there's a long

35:57

story behind that word, but we negotiated

35:59

really hard on that particular mandate. And

36:02

that's one of the biggest wins of

36:04

the Park Act is to say, listen,

36:06

the sideboards for the new guidance have

36:09

to make sure that fixed anchors are

36:11

appropriate. In other words, they're not prohibited.

36:13

You can't put out another proposal that

36:15

just prohibits a blanket prohibition of all

36:18

fixed anchors and wilderness. And then the

36:20

other thing is we were really concerned

36:22

about existing routes, because the proposals by

36:24

the Forest Service and the Park Service

36:27

prohibited all existing routes, all maintenance of

36:29

routes, all future routes, until some exception

36:31

process was conducted. So we were really

36:34

worried about the legacy of America's climbing,

36:36

and that, going to Chris's question about

36:38

what's really compelling, you know, to these

36:40

senators and congressmen, that's also a super

36:43

compelling argument, is listen. The American public

36:45

really are psyched on America's climbing legacy.

36:47

They really like seeing people climbing El

36:49

Cap and being inspired by these things.

36:52

And some people might not know every

36:54

single route on El Cap is in

36:56

wilderness. So essentially the proposal by the

36:59

Park Service right out of the gate

37:01

would fundamentally prohibit every single route on

37:03

El Cap until it was provided an

37:05

exception. So this is huge that the

37:08

park act actually says... Every single route

37:10

that was established before the president signed

37:12

it, and the president signed it on

37:14

January 6th, should be allowed to be

37:17

maintained and used into the future. And

37:19

that's, of course, assuming that it doesn't

37:21

cause damage to cultural resources or raptors

37:24

or be, you know, really bad for

37:26

traditional values and that kind of thing.

37:28

But essentially, every single route is protected

37:30

in wilderness. And then the last mandate

37:33

is also really important. And it says,

37:35

if you're going to create guidance, which

37:37

they are. at the local or national

37:40

level, it has to involve input. from

37:42

the public. So we really believe in

37:44

the democratic process. That was one of

37:46

the problems with this whole proposal, is

37:49

that the Park Service and the Forest

37:51

Service did a complete 180. They said,

37:53

all right, for the last 50 years

37:55

climbing and fixed anchors was allowed in

37:58

wilderness and suddenly they're saying, no, no,

38:00

fixed anchors are actually prohibited. And we

38:02

were betting on the democratic process turning

38:05

out the way it did. If you

38:07

posed this to the American public, if

38:09

you posed this to every single congressional

38:11

member in Congress, we were betting that.

38:14

the democratic process was going to yield

38:16

a result like it did. And we

38:18

were right. So that's what the Park

38:20

Act does, is essentially protects America's climbing

38:23

history, and it allows for really sustainable

38:25

and appropriate exploration into the future. So

38:27

it's a big deal. It's a huge

38:30

win for the climbing community. Now that

38:32

this bill's been signed and these agencies

38:34

have this mandate to create a plan,

38:36

what do you see being the plan?

38:39

I mean, what you've sketched out is

38:41

interesting because I could totally see these

38:43

agencies being like, oh, the simplest solution

38:45

is just to prohibit everything, ban it.

38:48

You know, that seems like the least

38:50

amount of work for us and what's

38:52

the big deal? And that was their

38:55

original plan. So now that's been kind

38:57

of upended, they have to come up

38:59

with a plan, but like what there

39:01

has to be something between doing nothing,

39:04

prohibiting everything, and then on the other

39:06

end of the extreme would be you

39:08

know, expanding the bureaucracy to micromanage every

39:11

single bolt that gets placed across, you

39:13

know, millions of acres of wilderness land

39:15

across this country. And so what is

39:17

the, where do you foresee us landing

39:20

between those two extremes? Well, this is

39:22

what we're working on right now, and

39:24

I think this is going to take

39:26

up the next, you know, five, ten

39:29

years of effort. And essentially, as Heather

39:31

said, the park service actually, you know,

39:33

months. or two ago just rescinded its

39:36

proposal and said we're not going to

39:38

work on this. We agree that this

39:40

was the wrong move to prohibit fixed

39:42

anchors and we're dropping our proposal. The

39:45

Forest Service did not do that. But

39:47

remember that in 2013 the climbing community

39:49

after some hard negotiations and compromises we

39:51

agreed to a policy, a park service

39:54

policy, that required prior authorization for all

39:56

fixed anchors and wilderness. So it said

39:58

fixed anchors are allowed. And they don't

40:01

necessarily violate the Wilderness Act. That's actually

40:03

in the policy. But we agreed to

40:05

prior authorization. Now, that can mean a

40:07

lot of different things. So we're hoping

40:10

that the national level guidance at the

40:12

Bureau of Land Management, at the U.S.

40:14

Fish and Wildlife, at the U.S. Forest

40:16

Service, and the Park Service, is going

40:19

to be high level enough to allow

40:21

for individual climbing areas. like Yosemite, Linville

40:23

Gord, Win River Range, and all these

40:26

different wilderness areas to sort of take

40:28

a very unique approach and sort of

40:30

address, you know, the concerns and the

40:32

needs of each individual climbing area based

40:35

on how are people using the climate

40:37

area, what's the geology, how many opportunities

40:39

for new routes are there, and all

40:41

these other things. So we'll see how

40:44

that plays out at the local level.

40:46

But essentially when we agreed to prior

40:48

authorization for park service wilderness, we knew

40:51

that that could range from programmatic. which

40:53

means that the park is evaluated the

40:55

situation like at Yosemite and said we

40:57

trust climbers to go up El Cap

41:00

and if you absolutely need a bolt

41:02

or a sling or a pin, you're

41:04

going to use it and you're going

41:07

to do it judiciously and you're not

41:09

going to use power drills and we

41:11

trust you. That's the same thing at

41:13

Rocky Mountain National Park. But then at

41:16

other places like Sequoia King's Canyon, you

41:18

actually have to apply for an individual

41:20

permit to put up a route in

41:22

wilderness if you think they're going to

41:25

be fixed anchors. at each case. So

41:27

that's called case by case. So when

41:29

you're talking about how is this thing

41:32

going to play out, I don't know,

41:34

but at each area it's going to

41:36

range between full-on programmatic and case by

41:38

case. we're going to be part of

41:41

that process every step of the way.

41:43

So we're hoping that the Forest Service

41:45

will come up with something similar. Yeah,

41:47

it's like a little bit of a

41:50

poker game of trying to keep your

41:52

cards close your chest and play what

41:54

you can when you can. And I

41:57

see that the case-by-case thing just has

41:59

such a potential to be wrangled into

42:01

useless as climbers. You know, technically we

42:03

got to review this, but we'll just...

42:06

You know, we can just bureaucracy this

42:08

thing if that's a verb into non-existence.

42:10

Okay? Oh, you want to put that

42:12

root up? Well, we'll get back to

42:15

you in a couple years. And we

42:17

need to know exactly where every single

42:19

thing is going to happen even though

42:22

you don't know that because you've never

42:24

been up there. You know, and I

42:26

see how they're sort of shaking your

42:28

head as well. Maybe you have a

42:31

perspective on this coming in late, but

42:33

that seems like kind of a tricky

42:35

game to play. pocket to try to

42:38

make sure that that kind of thing

42:40

doesn't happen in some of these places.

42:42

I won't speak to that quite yet

42:44

as far as what our plans are,

42:47

but maybe just one reference point. You

42:49

know, I've seen a lot of these

42:51

programs that you have, whether it's, you

42:53

know, Ace and Eldo or, you know,

42:56

there's, I think, Red River Gorge, there's

42:58

an approach. I mean, yeah, flat irons,

43:00

you've got these sort of climbing communities,

43:03

climbing councils that have oftentimes been formed,

43:05

in some cases, together, together with an

43:07

LCO, with an LCO, and then the

43:09

land manager. where they actually come together

43:12

and they review applications for new fixed

43:14

anchors, individual bolts, new roots, whatever the

43:16

case may be, and they've kind of

43:18

worked together to establish criteria for when

43:21

it's appropriate, whether it's, you know, I

43:23

don't know, density of routes, whether there's

43:25

some sort of work that would have

43:28

to be done at the base to

43:30

prevent erosion, things around, you know, what's

43:32

the original intent of the first sectionist,

43:34

character the root, you know, safety, all

43:37

those sort of factors are often taken

43:39

into consideration. those traditionally have been applied

43:41

not in federal land like like Eric's

43:43

talking about but more in sort of

43:46

like state or you know private but

43:48

those actually are working quite well. And

43:50

so I think there's some good examples

43:53

of how that's actually been able to

43:55

be put into place. And so the

43:57

question is, in places where programmatic may

43:59

not be appropriate, you know, you didn't

44:02

mention Joshua Tree, but I know we've

44:04

talked about this, Eric, where Joshua Tree

44:06

just has such a density of roots

44:08

and such traffic, such high traffic, and

44:11

a lot of roots that are bolted.

44:13

You know, there may be an approach

44:15

like that could work. But I think

44:18

that's the question is every, you know,

44:20

you know, And that's great. We want

44:22

them to, you know, they understand sort

44:24

of the needs of the topography and

44:27

the geology and the user patterns better

44:29

than anyone, but we want to be

44:31

able to sort of come to them

44:34

and we'll have this toolkit of examples

44:36

of, you know, what actually has worked

44:38

in different places. I'd love to hear

44:40

Eric's thought on that as well. I'm

44:43

still just excited that the Park Act

44:45

passed and one of the big wins

44:47

is that the land managers are going

44:49

to ask these questions that you all

44:52

are asking on this and this and

44:54

this and this and this discussion. And

44:56

that is sort of like, and that

44:59

is sort of like, with the proposed

45:01

prohibition. The exception tool was this thing

45:03

called the minimum requirement analysis. It's pretty

45:05

wonky. But essentially the leading question in

45:08

the minimum requirement analysis was, is this

45:10

climbing route required for the administration of

45:12

the wilderness? Now we don't want bureaucrats

45:14

asking, is this climbing route required for

45:17

the administration of the wilderness? We're going

45:19

to get a lot of really crazy

45:21

answers and a lot of people are

45:24

going to say no. We want... land

45:26

managers to ask the question, how is

45:28

climbing affecting the environment? How are climbers

45:30

interacting with other users? We've got a

45:33

lot of users on our public lands.

45:35

We want thoughtful science-based questions. Are there

45:37

raptors? Are there cultural resources? How are

45:39

people moving through landscapes? We think that

45:42

when land managers are asking these questions,

45:44

and when climbers are asking themselves these

45:46

questions, we're going to come out with

45:49

a better answer than just saying... Should

45:51

we have climber or not in wilderness?

45:53

So that's the important thing is that

45:55

land managers are working with climber. thinking

45:58

about these questions critically using social science

46:00

using physical science to answer these things

46:02

and I think that we're gonna have

46:05

a lot better outcome than just saying

46:07

is climbing required for the administration of

46:09

the wilderness it's kind of a crazy

46:11

question to ask doesn't really connect with

46:14

the climbing community yeah I mean my

46:16

connect with me like no no it

46:18

doesn't actually I'm trying to I'm like

46:20

sitting here parsing that question over and

46:23

over in my head and I don't

46:25

even know what I mean yeah You

46:27

know looking at some of these battles

46:30

over the years one and lost You

46:32

know, I still have this this you

46:34

know, it's stuck in my craw the

46:36

that canyon lands just prohibited fixed anchors

46:39

and just basically dropped the mic and

46:41

left the room You know, and that's

46:43

a national park and it seems like

46:45

oftentimes this stuff is personality driven. There's

46:48

there's definitely a a personality conflict in

46:50

the Black Canyon at the moment, between

46:52

climbing management and the superintendent, that does

46:55

seem to come down to kind of

46:57

who likes who. And it's a real

46:59

drag, like, you know, aside from this

47:01

policy thing, like, yeah, what is it

47:04

like dealing with personalities, business, whether it's

47:06

representatives, whether it's, you know, the people

47:08

running things, because clearly like the Forest

47:10

Service has something up there. Hoo-ha about

47:13

this in a way that the Park

47:15

Service doesn't. And yeah, so maybe address

47:17

just personalities. And maybe you've got really,

47:20

you know, the person that goes in

47:22

and is like, you know, the mean

47:24

cop and the good cop. I don't

47:26

know how you guys operate with dealing

47:29

with personalities. Well, first of all, you

47:31

got to respect these public servants who

47:33

are too, who are stepping up to

47:36

do these jobs. I mean, these jobs

47:38

are crazy. Being a superintendent park is

47:40

not an easy business, but we have

47:42

lots of different tactics for dealing with,

47:45

you know, you know, with land managers

47:47

and leadership. It's a little bit different

47:49

than congressional members, elected leaders. You know,

47:51

sometimes we just have to wait people

47:54

out. Like we've had situations, this is

47:56

this little park unit in Maryland called

47:58

Katawkton. It's a historical park. It's near

48:01

Camp David, actually. And it actually has

48:03

some awesome bouldering. And for decades, they

48:05

just said no bouldering, no bouldering. And

48:07

that's kind of one of the values

48:10

of the access fund, is we just

48:12

hang in there. And when a new

48:14

superintendent came in there. and we opened

48:16

up bouldering. And after, you know, after

48:19

decades, now there's bouldering in this place.

48:21

So sometimes we have to wait it

48:23

out. Sometimes, you know, we do different

48:26

negotiating tactics and sometimes we talk with

48:28

regional offices and national offices, but there's

48:30

just a lot of different ways. When

48:32

you mention Black Canyon, it was really

48:35

interesting because through this whole park act

48:37

issue, you know, we talked with some

48:39

of the people that you're talking about

48:41

climbing ranges at Black Canyon. That really

48:44

inspired us a lot a lot. We

48:46

thought, you know, we're doing the right

48:48

thing here. You know, we got to

48:51

keep pushing on this. And there they

48:53

also have a plan that actually has

48:55

not been formally finalized, but there isn't

48:57

there in Joshua Tree of the two

49:00

places where they were moving forward toward

49:02

a prohibition. It was really good to

49:04

hear from some of those line officers,

49:06

some of the people who are actually

49:09

doing the work, to be like, you

49:11

all are doing the right thing. We

49:13

also heard from people in Yosemite the

49:16

same way. So, you know, we talk,

49:18

we have a lot of contacts in

49:20

federal land management agencies, and we just

49:22

keep good relationships. You know, we try

49:25

to be kind, and we try to

49:27

work with integrity, and we try to

49:29

not, you know, fall into sort of

49:32

like these arguments over ideology and stick

49:34

to facts, and I think that's kind

49:36

of led to a lot of our

49:38

success. Like I dream about Sharon. We

49:41

don't actually So there's something else we

49:43

haven't really talked about yet, which is

49:45

there's sort of all the different angles

49:47

where you can kind of build these

49:50

relationships and maintain these relationships and they

49:52

kind of play off each other. And

49:54

so Eric talked about how the precursor

49:57

to the park act, you know, that

49:59

work was already underway for a long

50:01

time. But then when the Park Service

50:03

and Forest Service came out with their

50:06

proposed guidance, you know, having already started

50:08

building relationships with lawmakers around Explorer, the

50:10

Park Act, you know, Eric was able

50:12

to then go back to these same

50:15

legislators and then bring others on board

50:17

to say, hey, like this is a

50:19

problem. We don't know if this law

50:22

is actually going to get through. There's

50:24

a whole lot of hoops to jump

50:26

through to sort of get this thing

50:28

passed. But the agencies over here are

50:31

doing this thing. that are not good

50:33

for your constituents. They're not good for

50:35

economic development. They're not good for recreation.

50:37

They're not good for these things. And

50:40

then, you know, you, Eric, were able

50:42

to build these relationships with, I think

50:44

it was ultimately seven Republicans and seven

50:47

Democratic senators that signed a letter to

50:49

the agencies, basically saying, you know, we

50:51

don't support this this proposal. And so,

50:53

you know, had we not even gotten

50:56

Park Act through, we were still able

50:58

to leverage the relationships. that we had

51:00

actually built and maintained with these legislators

51:03

in order to put pressure on the

51:05

agencies. And so that actually was going

51:07

on right up until the very, very

51:09

end of the whole process. So that's

51:12

sort of, Eric, do you want to

51:14

comment on that? I mean, that was

51:16

super exciting. You know, when we built

51:18

this coalition, a bipartisan coalition of senators

51:21

who actually wrote a letter to the

51:23

Department of Interior and the Department of

51:25

Agriculture, so that would be U.S. Forest

51:28

Service and Park Service and said, number

51:30

one, we do not want. any guidance

51:32

to say that fixed anchors are prohibited.

51:34

I mean, that's a referendum on the

51:37

agencies where the senators are saying, we

51:39

have steak, these are mostly Western senators,

51:41

we got a big, we got skin

51:43

in the game, there's a lot at

51:46

risk, and we don't want to see

51:48

that. And then they also said, and

51:50

if you were working toward, you know,

51:53

you need to give us briefings and

51:55

you need to keep us in the

51:57

loop. And that right there gave us

51:59

this huge advantage because then we understood

52:02

timing. Because we had no idea, when's

52:04

this thing going to drop? When's this

52:06

going to drop? When's this going to

52:08

drop? But by having the senators say,

52:11

we want to be informed, we then

52:13

sort of built in this schedule where

52:15

we knew if the briefing was conducted,

52:18

then something was going to happen. But

52:20

a lot of these relationships were built

52:22

years ago. So we're just talking about

52:24

the park act. But Access Fund supports

52:27

all sorts of conservation bills. So for

52:29

example, in Colorado there's this bill that's

52:31

been moving forward for many years called

52:34

the Corps Act. And the Corps Act

52:36

was introduced like 13 years ago. It

52:38

had a different name, but essentially there

52:40

was a congressman, Congressman Polis, who was

52:43

really driving hard on this, pushing for

52:45

this thing. He eventually became the governor

52:47

of Colorado. But we were supporting the

52:49

Corps Act 13 years ago, 14 years

52:52

ago. Two years ago when I went

52:54

to the governor's office, governor, now governor

52:56

polls Colorado and said, listen, the Park

52:59

Service is recommending to prohibit fixed anchors.

53:01

It's going to really just could potentially

53:03

destroy climbing legacy up on the diamond.

53:05

He said, well, I don't want that.

53:08

And he was the first person to

53:10

write a letter of the first person

53:12

to write a lever to the Department

53:14

of Interior and Department of Agriculture. So

53:17

really, you know, the Park Act and

53:19

the success of all this stuff built

53:21

on. decades of building these relationships. Essentially,

53:24

these elected officials had an idea about

53:26

the climbing community. And they knew that

53:28

we were trustworthy. And they knew we

53:30

weren't going to be irresponsible. And they

53:33

knew we were going to support environmental

53:35

efforts. And that's why so many people

53:37

jumped on board. It wasn't that we

53:39

just came to them two years ago

53:42

out of the blue and said, hey,

53:44

would you do this thing? They'd been

53:46

working with us for decades on a

53:49

variety of different things. And by the

53:51

way, it's really important to note that

53:53

the climbing committee endorsed all sorts of

53:55

wilderness bills. And we were going back

53:58

to these people who were in the

54:00

real progressive folks in Congress. And we're

54:02

saying, look. We've endorsed your wilderness bill.

54:04

And now, you know, climbers aren't going

54:07

to benefit from the wilderness. And these

54:09

are people who backed you for many,

54:11

many years. And that got them really

54:14

riled up and said, no, no. We

54:16

want to make sure that you're part

54:18

of this. Even folks like Congresswoman to

54:20

get in Denver, she has the Colorado

54:23

Wilderness Act that she's been introducing to

54:25

Congress for like 20 years. In the

54:27

Colorado book on that sack bill, that's

54:30

act bill. It actually says nothing. placement,

54:32

maintenance, and use of fixed anchors and

54:34

wilderness. So these are things, these are

54:36

seeds that have been planted for decades.

54:39

And I think we built on a

54:41

lot of those relationships and the trust

54:43

that elected officials had in the climate

54:45

community really paid out when we asked

54:48

them to step up. And then going

54:50

back to the Park Act, remember, not

54:52

a single congressional member voted against it.

54:55

This was unanimous. How many things in

54:57

Congress can we think of that were

54:59

unanimously unanimously voted on? It's just amazing

55:01

that every single elected official said, we

55:04

want this. So it's a huge deal.

55:06

Real referendum on how the administration, how

55:08

the Park Service and Forest Service were

55:10

thinking about climbing, because the folks that

55:13

we put into office, that we elected,

55:15

spoke out on behalf of the American

55:17

public and said, no, no, no, we

55:20

wanted to look another way. But maybe

55:22

to build on what you just said,

55:24

Eric, about trust, that's also one of

55:26

the reasons why when we talked to

55:29

the climbing community. you know, our mission

55:31

is really around preserving sustainable access and

55:33

conservation of the climate environment. And one

55:35

of the ways that we maintain the

55:38

trust of these people who are in

55:40

these positions to dictate, you know, our

55:42

future access to all of these places,

55:45

we maintain that through our behavior as

55:47

a community, right? And Andrew, you just

55:49

wrote this excellent article about the petrogliffs

55:51

that were defaced in Northeast Utah. And

55:54

of course, because they were drilled with

55:56

some sort of bolts, even though they

55:58

looked like a total hack job. And

56:01

I think the assumption is that it

56:03

was probably not climbers that installed them.

56:05

The world now knows what fixed anchors

56:07

are, and the assumption is that it

56:10

was climbers who installed these climbing bolts.

56:12

And I think... That's the challenge now

56:14

is it's really really important for us

56:16

as a community to realize that there

56:19

is more scrutiny on us. There is

56:21

more of a spotlight on us, partly

56:23

because we're larger than we were before,

56:26

partly because we've had to go through

56:28

this fight around fixed anchors and ensuring

56:30

that they could be preserved in wilderness.

56:32

But then in general, we have to

56:35

actually respect the landscape and the other

56:37

users of the land. And so that's

56:39

one of the tricky sort of tightrops

56:41

that we walk now. Yeah, we're at

56:44

an interesting moment, just in terms of

56:46

all of these issues, where, you know,

56:48

here in the US, we've made a

56:51

lot of progress through the Park Act,

56:53

and, you know, things are looking bright

56:55

and sunny, but then you look at

56:57

Australia, which is like, you know, a

57:00

black mirror version of, in terms of

57:02

climbing access, of what's going on here.

57:04

happening at the same time where, you

57:06

know, they're losing huge swaths of important

57:09

and historic crags at Arapoles and throughout

57:11

the Grampians. And I'd love to hear

57:13

your comments just on what, you know,

57:16

I'm sure you're paying attention to what's

57:18

going on there and what your thoughts

57:20

are on it. But, you know, it's

57:22

just a really interesting dichotomy that underscores

57:25

the importance of this kind of, you

57:27

know, the kind of work that you

57:29

guys are doing. I think in general,

57:32

like you said, Andrew, really underscores, you

57:34

know, what can happen if you don't

57:36

build these relationships. And we've seen it

57:38

in the United States, too. Arapoles is

57:41

obviously a world-class area, and it was

57:43

a massive loss to the international climbing

57:45

scene, but we've had losses like that

57:47

in the United States, you know, and,

57:50

you know, we lost massacre rocks. because

57:52

there's a real disconnect between the Shoshonee

57:54

Vanic tribe and the climbing community. They

57:57

didn't want people scrambling on the rocks.

57:59

It wasn't about fixed anchors, it wasn't

58:01

about Trad versus... sport climbing is about

58:03

just being there on this land, on

58:06

this sacred wintering site for the Shinnebanaic.

58:08

So this is something that's relevant to

58:10

all climbers in the world, this idea

58:12

that we need to be sensitive and

58:15

we need to be knowledgeable and we

58:17

need to be thinking about indigenous communities

58:19

and sovereign rights and cultural resources and

58:22

traditional values. And I think one of

58:24

the success stories in this country on

58:26

that topic is bears ears and that's

58:28

a place where we have put the

58:31

time in. And it's not something that

58:33

you can just talk to the tribe

58:35

once and you're good to go. This

58:37

is maintaining relationships forever and keeping these

58:40

discussions going and listening to people and

58:42

understanding people. And that's really hard work.

58:44

And another reason, I keep going back

58:47

to, you know, it's one of the

58:49

real important things about the Access Fund

58:51

is just we just stick with it.

58:53

You know, if something, if a 10-year

58:56

project, a 20-year project, these are the

58:58

sorts of things that we really dig

59:00

into. And I think that the future

59:02

is going to be determined by how

59:05

well we do that, how well the

59:07

climbing community can sort of engage with

59:09

tribal communities. how well the climbing community

59:12

can understand and make compromises also on

59:14

these issues. So we'll see how it

59:16

goes and obviously, you know, the indigenous

59:18

community and Native American tribes are that

59:21

it's not a monolith. Every single one

59:23

is different. We're going to have to

59:25

sort of make connections and build these

59:28

relationships at the local level and maintain

59:30

these things forever or else we're going

59:32

to sort of lose that, lose that

59:34

connection. and the outcome is sometimes not

59:37

not good. I was going to build

59:39

on what you said, Eric, which is

59:41

the tribes are not a monolith and

59:43

yet at the same time they talk

59:46

to each other and they pay attention,

59:48

right? And it's the same thing where

59:50

you've got, you know, land management agencies,

59:53

so say the BLM that's managed. land

59:55

across multiple places. Maybe it's mascot rock

59:57

and it's bear's ears. And, you know,

59:59

we're trying to navigate climbing access in

1:00:02

multiple different places. And so sometimes there

1:00:04

are very tricky conversations that happen around

1:00:06

what's going on here versus what's going

1:00:08

on here versus what's going on here

1:00:11

versus what's going on here. We can't

1:00:13

die on every sword. We can't always

1:00:15

fight for, well, we try to fight

1:00:18

for climbers access everywhere, but at the

1:00:20

same time, sometimes there, as Eric said,

1:00:22

these difficult tradeoffs that have to be

1:00:24

made. And so, you know, these agencies

1:00:27

are looking at how we as access

1:00:29

fund and how we as a community

1:00:31

behave and show up across the board

1:00:33

nationwide. And I think for climbers, that's

1:00:36

tricky because they see what's happening at

1:00:38

their crack and they don't always necessarily

1:00:40

see that what we do in one

1:00:43

place actually can affect our ability as

1:00:45

a community to have access everywhere. You

1:00:47

know, we're in that place where we're

1:00:49

consistently operating kind of across all these

1:00:52

agencies in all of these locations and

1:00:54

trying to build relationships with each of

1:00:56

these tribes. to try to preserve the

1:00:59

access and get the best outcome we

1:01:01

can everywhere, but sometimes that happens where

1:01:03

we actually do well over here, but

1:01:05

then we're not able to do as

1:01:08

well over here. And that's a difficult

1:01:10

thing for us to be able to

1:01:12

share with the community because people are

1:01:14

not always going to understand that. Yeah,

1:01:17

that just reminds me of a comment

1:01:19

I made about the damage literal and

1:01:21

more importantly figuratively that the... the bolted

1:01:24

petroglyphs did two years ago. It's like

1:01:26

what? There was like three bolts, four

1:01:28

bolts or whatever, but even in this

1:01:30

recent petroglyph thing that that was cited

1:01:33

in every article is like, you know,

1:01:35

climbers did this and now they're doing

1:01:37

this kind of a thing and it

1:01:39

just they had the damage, you know,

1:01:42

again to everywhere that that did was

1:01:44

a real shame. But let me ask

1:01:46

you a question about, you know, maybe

1:01:49

the last thing about this park act

1:01:51

sort of... I don't want to call

1:01:53

it a fight anymore, but whatever, whatever

1:01:55

you, however you want to characterize it,

1:01:58

you know, good, you know, good offense

1:02:00

is a good defense sort of a

1:02:02

thing. What, what do you see? you

1:02:04

know, looming the forces against the fixed

1:02:07

anchors and wilderness have not disappeared? Is

1:02:09

there, I mean, what do you anticipate

1:02:11

for opposition to this going forward, even

1:02:14

after a big victory? It's hard to

1:02:16

say. You know, it's hard to say

1:02:18

what's going to happen. Obviously, there were

1:02:20

people who really opposed this idea, this

1:02:23

ideological idea of like, man, it just

1:02:25

seems crazy that climbers are allowed to

1:02:27

have fixed anchors. in wilderness and that's

1:02:29

not going to go away. You know,

1:02:32

sometimes you ask these people, you know,

1:02:34

have you ever seen a bolt or

1:02:36

a sling? No, I haven't seen it,

1:02:39

but it's just the idea. That's a

1:02:41

really difficult argument or difficult discussion to

1:02:43

have. So I think we're going to

1:02:45

continue to see that. I mean, it's

1:02:48

what Armando started the access fund for.

1:02:50

It's, you know, every 10 years we

1:02:52

fight this battle. Yeah, this was, this

1:02:55

was pretty universal. risk to the climbing

1:02:57

community, which has happened, but we suspect

1:02:59

that there's going to be more in

1:03:01

the future. And I think to build

1:03:04

on what Heather said, I mean, it

1:03:06

really depends on how climbers behave, how

1:03:08

we engage with tribes, how we engage

1:03:10

with land managers, how we sort of

1:03:13

show up to these planning processes, these

1:03:15

individual ones, you know, what happens in

1:03:17

North Cascades, you know, National Park, you

1:03:20

know, is going to affect what happens,

1:03:22

perhaps in other places. I'm just using

1:03:24

that as an example. Yeah, I mean,

1:03:26

we're just going to keep plugging away.

1:03:29

And like, you know, before we got

1:03:31

on this call, you were talking a

1:03:33

little about this administration. You know, we'll

1:03:35

see who comes in. You know, there's,

1:03:38

all of these agencies have career folks

1:03:40

and then they have appointed folks. We

1:03:42

don't know who these appointed folks. We

1:03:45

don't know who these appointed folks are

1:03:47

going to be. We don't know who

1:03:49

these appointed folks are going to be.

1:03:51

We don't even know these people are

1:03:54

going to be. So we need to

1:03:56

sort of learn. We do know they're

1:03:58

probably have these people. Perhaps.

1:04:01

What we do know now, I tell

1:04:03

you, is that we're losing, you know,

1:04:06

grant programs and other things that are

1:04:08

really important to managing public land, seasonal

1:04:10

workers are getting cut. And so we're

1:04:13

sort of seeing this thing play out

1:04:15

and the damages, you know, the future

1:04:17

damages to public lands. I don't know

1:04:19

what's going to happen with the implementation

1:04:22

of the Park Act. So we're going

1:04:24

to just be in there and be

1:04:26

working as we have and just, you

1:04:29

know, we just are charging forward regardless

1:04:31

of who's in the administration, who's running

1:04:33

Congress, what's going on with the Supreme

1:04:36

Court, you know, we just keep moving

1:04:38

forward. That's going to be the future

1:04:40

of climbing. This will never end. We're

1:04:42

going to need to be. on our

1:04:45

best behavior forever. We're going to need

1:04:47

to be engaging with land measures forever.

1:04:49

We're going to need to be engaging

1:04:52

with tribes forever. That's just our lot.

1:04:54

And once we accept that, you know,

1:04:56

it's sort of, you know, we just

1:04:59

have to take responsibility for what we're

1:05:01

doing. I do think it's worth looking

1:05:03

back at when excess funds started. And

1:05:05

I don't have the exact numbers on

1:05:08

the membership. I think it was probably

1:05:10

like around, I don't know, 2,000, 2,000

1:05:12

folks in the early days. But at

1:05:15

the time, the climbing community itself was

1:05:17

so small. And most everybody who was

1:05:19

a climber was an outdoor climber and

1:05:22

probably a trad climber, starting to sport

1:05:24

climb. And so everybody knew kind of

1:05:26

what was going on. Everybody consumed information

1:05:28

from probably the same sources, a couple

1:05:31

of magazines and guidebooks, right? And so

1:05:33

when people, when there were access issues

1:05:35

and there were threats, like everybody knew

1:05:38

about it. And so I looked back

1:05:40

at some of the archives from Axis

1:05:42

Fund. board meeting minutes from like 1992

1:05:45

and like every single you know pro

1:05:47

climber and brand outdoor brand was like

1:05:49

all in on supporting access fund and

1:05:51

people really really really passion about it.

1:05:54

And I think what's tricky is that,

1:05:56

you know, the world has changed so

1:05:58

much. Obviously, climbing is like exploded. We

1:06:01

talk about 8 million climbers. And that's

1:06:03

really, I think, based on the numbers

1:06:05

I've seen, that's really anybody who's climbed

1:06:08

indoors or outdoors within the last year.

1:06:10

So that's that's not necessarily outdoor climbers.

1:06:12

But you know, nonetheless, I think the

1:06:14

number of outdoor climbers is probably close

1:06:17

to about a million of people who

1:06:19

go outside five, six, seven times a

1:06:21

times a year at a year at

1:06:24

a year. It's just fragmented, right? You

1:06:26

know, there's no more, well, there's hardly

1:06:28

any print media anymore, and people are

1:06:30

consuming information from all over the place,

1:06:33

Instagram and the amount of project posts

1:06:35

and read it and whatever. And so,

1:06:37

you know, people today that have been

1:06:40

climbing maybe five, six, seven, even ten

1:06:42

years have not sort of been, you

1:06:44

know, grown up in this era where

1:06:47

you knew of these existential threats to

1:06:49

climbing, where you actually had seen it

1:06:51

happen, where something was shut down. And

1:06:53

so not only do maybe the brands

1:06:56

not have that same kind of sense

1:06:58

of like, oh my gosh, I need

1:07:00

access fund to make sure that my

1:07:03

sport continues to thrive, but climbers themselves

1:07:05

are kind of like, yeah, they talk

1:07:07

about the threat, but yeah, I haven't

1:07:10

really seen it. And so I think

1:07:12

that's really for me when I think

1:07:14

about like the future and Eric's, you

1:07:16

know, figuring out how we're actually going

1:07:19

to navigate through all of these questions

1:07:21

around implementation of explore in the Park

1:07:23

Act and all these ongoing true challenges.

1:07:26

How do we make sure that climbers

1:07:28

actually care? And so I think, you

1:07:30

know, a rhetorical question I would ask

1:07:33

you is like, how many climbers do

1:07:35

you think support access funds work out

1:07:37

of, say, the million who climb outside?

1:07:39

Nine. Nine. Nine. Nine. It's just better

1:07:42

than that. It's like less than 1%.

1:07:44

Less than 1%. Yes. And, you know,

1:07:46

it just, it closed my mind, like

1:07:49

the day that we announced the, I

1:07:51

think it was either that the park

1:07:53

service that we sent into the guidance

1:07:56

or that the exploration past one of

1:07:58

those two. One of those two. I

1:08:00

went in and looked to see if

1:08:02

we had like a bump in membership

1:08:05

that day. There was not a single

1:08:07

new membership that day that came in.

1:08:09

It's like, wow. And so I think

1:08:12

that is the fundamental question. It's like

1:08:14

this is the wonky work that has

1:08:16

to get done to protect America's climbing.

1:08:19

But people, you know, people have a

1:08:21

lot of things they're thinking about, a

1:08:23

lot of things they care about, a

1:08:25

lot of things they're putting the resource

1:08:28

toward. And so I think for us,

1:08:30

it's like, as I think for us,

1:08:32

it's like, as Eric said, we're always

1:08:35

going to be fighting for climbing as

1:08:37

long as we can afford to do

1:08:39

it. And so I guess that's just

1:08:41

sort of the appeal I would make.

1:08:44

the benefits from it, being willing to

1:08:46

support it. So I just want to

1:08:48

make that that little pitch. Yeah, but

1:08:51

maybe buying the Access Fund Superyot was

1:08:53

a mistake, you guys. I mean, it's

1:08:55

an investment. It was an investment. I

1:08:58

mean, I know Bayesus was getting rid

1:09:00

of it in a fire sale, but

1:09:02

still. Nice. Yeah, no, it's totally true.

1:09:04

You don't know what you got till

1:09:07

it's gone, like that kind of thing.

1:09:09

Yeah. Is that a phrase. I did

1:09:11

want to ask you about the flip-flopping

1:09:14

of possible monuments here in the West.

1:09:16

You know, that's been a threat since

1:09:18

the moment, Bears' ears appeared, the next

1:09:21

administration shrunk it, and then it got

1:09:23

bigger again, and now we're back. And

1:09:25

plus just the threat of whatever you

1:09:27

call it, giving away, divesting federal lands

1:09:30

to state control. is been a big

1:09:32

movement in the West. But it sounds

1:09:34

like maybe Utah has somebody in there

1:09:37

that's fighting for climbing, which could be

1:09:39

a good thing. But what do you

1:09:41

see in the future of these monuments

1:09:44

that maybe are on the chopping block?

1:09:46

Well, we'll see what happens. I mean,

1:09:48

we're ready to protect these monuments with

1:09:50

climbing and we've been stalwart in this.

1:09:53

You know, a lot of this is...

1:09:55

speaks to our engagement and relationship with

1:09:57

the tribes, but it also speaks to

1:10:00

the importance of certain laws, fundamental bedrock

1:10:02

conservation laws, like the Antiquities

1:10:04

Act. So yes, we believe

1:10:06

Bears ears is the right

1:10:08

size and protects the cultural

1:10:10

resources and the historical resources

1:10:13

that it was designed to

1:10:15

protect. But also, we know,

1:10:17

looking back, that national monuments

1:10:19

are really important for our

1:10:21

public lands. When we look

1:10:23

at the, you know, the

1:10:25

grand teats on grand... Grand

1:10:27

Canyon, Joshua Tree National Mark,

1:10:29

all these places were national

1:10:31

monuments to start out. So we owe

1:10:33

national monuments a lot. We

1:10:36

owe the antiquities a lot. And so we

1:10:38

want to protect these things. So I

1:10:40

don't know what's going to happen, but

1:10:42

if these bedrock laws are threatened,

1:10:44

and if Beresiers is threatened, the

1:10:47

access fund is going to stand up.

1:10:49

And we hope we don't have to do

1:10:51

that again. And we hope that it's not

1:10:53

downsize. But these are really important

1:10:55

things, not just for climbing, and

1:10:58

not just for the climbing landscape,

1:11:00

which we really want to protect.

1:11:02

We want to make sure that

1:11:04

climbing areas have clean air, clean

1:11:06

water, view sheds that are rich

1:11:09

in cultural resources, that the integrity

1:11:11

environment, as good as it can be,

1:11:13

but we're also really concerned about public

1:11:15

lands in general. So that's our

1:11:17

position on public lands. We're going

1:11:20

to protect these things, you know, and

1:11:22

as Heather said, I mean. For climbers

1:11:24

we're the last line to defense

1:11:26

and we're going to make

1:11:28

sure that we're going to

1:11:31

try to make sure that

1:11:33

our kids have similar experiences

1:11:35

to our grandparents. Today's final

1:11:38

bit is from a climber

1:11:40

at heart, Maddie Ringe, aka

1:11:42

Maddie Bisharot, my cousin and a

1:11:44

brilliant musician whose music I'm honored

1:11:47

and excited to share. Check out

1:11:49

the show notes for her links

1:11:51

to her albums, including this song,

1:11:53

Alien, as well as a go

1:11:55

fund meet a supporter father who

1:11:57

lost his house in the Palisades

1:11:59

Fire this year. I want

1:12:03

to know

1:12:06

you, but

1:12:10

being from

1:12:13

different worlds

1:12:16

makes it

1:12:20

hard. You

1:12:23

look at

1:12:27

me like

1:12:30

I'm from

1:12:32

ours. Is it because

1:12:35

my eyes don't see

1:12:37

it like yours? Say

1:12:40

it and I'll stop

1:12:42

trying hard to force.

1:12:45

I'll end in. Why

1:12:48

does it feel like

1:12:50

the sky went dark?

1:12:53

Losing more light every

1:12:55

time I'll start understanding.

1:13:09

again. Waking

1:13:55

to dreams that don't lie.

1:14:04

It's hard to breathe in,

1:14:06

the air turns

1:14:08

to gas to gas. Waiving

1:14:10

my arms, trying to wake you

1:14:13

arms trying to

1:14:15

wake you up,

1:14:17

name, name But

1:14:19

it's not enough, you

1:14:22

don't hear

1:14:24

me me. Trying to save

1:14:26

what we to

1:14:28

save what we made

1:14:31

for us, it's faded

1:14:33

into dust and leaving

1:14:35

him. I'm

1:14:37

running out

1:14:40

of oxygen, orbiting

1:14:43

the

1:14:45

sun again

1:14:49

Desperate for a

1:14:52

place to

1:14:54

land Before we

1:14:56

crash and

1:14:58

burn Pretending

1:15:02

like I

1:15:04

haven't been

1:15:07

Feeling like

1:15:09

an alien

1:15:14

Drifting through the

1:15:16

dark again Before

1:15:20

we hit the

1:15:22

earth Oh,

1:15:43

oh,

1:15:46

oh,

1:15:49

oh

1:16:00

You've just listened to another episode of The Run Out

1:16:02

podcast. If you like our show, the best way to support

1:16:04

just listened to another episode

1:16:06

of the money. We If you

1:16:08

like our show, the best

1:16:10

way to support us is

1:16:12

by giving us money. We don't

1:16:14

care about iTunes ratings, you

1:16:16

can share it with your

1:16:18

friends or don't, whatever. But

1:16:21

we are 100% listener supported we believe this

1:16:23

is the best way to stay

1:16:25

independent, say what we think what be

1:16:27

accountable to the most important people in

1:16:29

our lives, which is people in our lives, which

1:16:31

is you, To support our show, check

1:16:33

us out on us out on Patreon. .com/runout podcast. For

1:16:35

as little as as $5.14 a month, cents

1:16:38

a month, you can become part of

1:16:40

the runout nation and get bonus episodes

1:16:42

that will your ear your ear Thanks

1:16:44

for listening and we'll see you next

1:16:46

episode. next episode.