Noah Bosworth
HSTR 467 – History of Mountaineering
Maggie Green
May 6 (barely), 2016
Nepal and the Gallatin Valley: Case studies in recreational access
For as long as people have owned property, they have disputed this property ownership and disagreed over ways to use it. These disputes take many forms: private land owners pitted against the imposing public, public land management groups struggling to keep everyone happy, or government walking the tightrope between private, public, and national interest (Jensen, 267-268). Within these many guises, issues of land use exist on all scales. Here in the Gallatin Valley, we usually see the small end of the spectrum. For instance, the ability to step over a privately owned fence that runs through public land, or to cross a patch of farm field to access climbing, fishing, or other recreational areas. The larger (geographically and otherwise) end of this spectrum is exemplified around the globe, but particularly in remote, isolated areas like the Himalaya. These regions have long histories of border disputes, trade agreements gone wrong, governmental turmoil, and disagreements over land ownership assignment. The Himalayan country of Nepal is a poignant reminder of these challenges (Karan & Jenkins, 7, 17-18, 85-88).
There are many similarities, regardless of scale, between the Gallatin Valley and Nepal when it comes to problems of access and land use. In either case, following some period of seclusion, land owners and nations open public access to private or closed land. This expands to provide access to some resource, be it aesthetic, material, or otherwise. However, following a perceived misuse of resources or property, private entities, or their nationalized equivalent, too often end up closing their doors again. This usually follows some misuse of resources by recreators, or some perception of threat to their property (Personal Communication, Bill Dockins; Hornbein, 18). Large sums of money, exchanges of comparable lands or services, or fee-based use agreements are the dominant resolutions to this common impasse here in Montana, (SMCC). The Nepalese end of things is a little more complex, with national interest coming into play. This small nation has been forced into a corner where it must balance the maintenance of their culture and sovereignty against the opportunity to capitalize on trade opportunities and the tourist industry (Fleming, 213; Karan & Jenkins, 19-21, 101).
However, while the many stages of access problems have been played out locally, Nepal has only begun to feel the full consequences of enhanced interaction with the outside world, and is in the midst of sorting out their course of action (CN). To explore the full circle of local access issues, it will be useful to focus on one example: Croc’s Rocks. The story of the rise and fall of this one-time climbing hotspot carries with it warnings of Tibet’s possible future tribulations.
Croc’s Rocks, a.k.a. The Grove is a large cluster of boulders located along the West Gallatin River just North of the Axtell Rd. bridge, named such for prominent early Bozeman climber Crockett Nash (Personal Communication, Charles Bolte). Unique in the Bozeman area, which is dominated by gneiss and limestone, The Grove consists of several dozen large granite boulders in close proximity to one another. The Axtell family owns the surrounding gulch, sagebrush plateau, and river valley, where it maintains an active cattle ranch among these gems (Montana State Library, 2016).
Curious climbers first discovered this area and began its development in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s. The first wave of climbers who frequented this large deposit of granite boulders include, but are of course not limited to, Crockett Nash, Bill Dockins, Jack Tackle, Pat Callis, Tom Kalakay, Jim Kanzler, Scot Anderson, Peter Boveng, and Clark Alexis. (Dockins, 1987) To the modern Montana climber, these are names of legend and mystique, which often illicit hushed and amazed whispering from those of us residing in their substantial shadows.
In this early heyday of Gallatin Valley climbing development, Croc’s Rocks and other bouldering areas were generally thought of as training grounds, a way for climbers to hone their technical ability in a relaxed and safe environment. These skills would then be applied to the towering faces of Gallatin Canyon and elsewhere. As such, Croc’s Rocks saw frequent but minimal use leading into the late 1980’s, despite its close proximity to Bozeman and easy approach hike (Dockins, 1987). This level of use was just fine with “Old Joe”, the then-owner and operator of Axtell Ranch, who used to ride his tractor out to the boulders from time to time to shoot the breeze with climbers and hikers (Personal Communication, Bill Dockins). For the time being the boulders stayed clean, the impact seemed minimal, and the landowner was happy.
However, the early 1990’s marked the beginning of a second era in the Bozeman climbing scene. This new wave of climbers saw the boundaries of difficulty pushed even further toward the impossible, but more importantly there was a notable increase in the number of people participating in what has long been an activity on the fringe of society (Personal Communication, Charles Bolte). Bozeman’s population boomed from just over 20,000 in 1980 to nearly 30,000 by the year 2000, and the corresponding surge in the climbing community began to take its toll on the Gallatin Valley (Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce; Personal Communication, Bill Dockins).
While the response to increased climbing pressure was mostly positive and constructive, there were unfortunate consequences as well. Discovery of each new crag or bouldering area seemed to be offset by the closure of another (SMCC; Hutchinson, p.4-7). Croc’s Rocks was a casualty of these times. After a decade or more of responsible use, an increase in user impact and the passing of the Axtell Ranch from Old Joe to his son lead to the closure of Croc’s Rocks to all public access. In his words, the younger Axtell (also named Joe) grew tired of “not being able to step off his tractor to take a leak” without seeing climbers or the signs of their presence (Personal Communication, Bill Dockins). Essentially, Joe didn’t like the way that his land was being used by the public. As a result, the area has remained closed for nearly two decades, despite efforts by the Southwest Montana Climbers Coalition, Gallatin Valley Land Trust, and other private and public entities to re-establish access.
It is easy, especially as a climber, to begrudge Young Joe’s decision to close his land. In the long run though, we may be among the thankful, for as long as the land is his to close it will be preserved. And preserved in good hands. Joe’s wife Barbara summed up the Axtell philosophy well in a 2001 Bozeman Daily Chronicle article: “Land is not a possession [to him] – it’s family. It’s part of the family.”. The Axtell family may have closed their property in response to mistreatment, but they intend to keep it closed in the name also of conservation and ecological health (Personal Correspondence, Bill Dockins; Bozeman Daily Chronicle). The mainly rural agrarian society of Nepal also depends on its land resources for sustenance and income, but has not yet found a balance with how recreational industries use these resources (Karan & Jenkins 101-103).
In many ways, Nepal and its mighty Himalaya resemble the Axtell family and their boulders during the early days of climbing at Croc’s Rocks, with the exception that climbers were not providing an economic incentive to the family. For centuries, Nepal also achieved preservation of its prized aesthetic and recreational resources by excluding the general public of the world (Karan & Jenkins, 17, 115). However, with opening of the Katmandu airport in 1950, Nepal became the preferred route of approach for attempts on Mt. Everest via the South Col and West Ridge (Hornbein, 18). This development has had undeniable ecological, environmental, and economic consequences for the sacred mountain Chomolungma, as well as the trekking highways that lead to and from the mountain (Mazzolini, 41-43, 62-63,135-136). In his account of the extremely successful 1963 American expedition to Everest, Thomas Hornbein reflects on the impact that even a single trek might have on the region:
“It seemed to me that here man lived in harmony with the land, as much and as briefly a part of it as all its other occupants. He used the earth with gratitude, knowing that care was required for continued sustenance. He rotated crops, controlled the cutting of wood, bulwarked his fields against erosion. In this peaceful co-existence, man was the invited guest. It was an enviable symbiosis. The Expedition surely must have affected this balance: a thousand porters living off the produce of the land, a mixing of peoples, the economic stresses, the physical impact itself. Although we touched each place for only a day and then moved on, I wondered how many such passings could be made before the imprint would become indelible. But awareness of our effect on the land was lost beneath the effect of the land and its people on us.”
Horbein’s reflections shine light on the core issue present in both Montana and Nepal: changing methods or elevated levels of resource use result in degradation of that resource (Jensen, 171, 177). In Montana, climbers mingled with grazing cattle, leaving chalk, garbage and less sundry signs of their use. The shift toward tourism and mountaineering as industries in Nepal has entirely altered the balanced pattern of human use that has prevailed for thousands of years, devastating the flanks of mountains with refuse and inappropriate prayer flags.
While the country of Nepal is no doubt concerned for the health of its greatest tourist attraction, the economic benefit of allowing access appears to outweigh the environmental integrity of Mt. Everest and other aesthetic resources (Rose & Sholz, 94). This is a tradeoff that is at the heart of the access question for recreational activities like bouldering or high alpine climbing, which leave very visible and tangible traces of their occurrence. In a way, the exorbitant price of an Everest expedition fits the mold of the classic “pay to play” recreation model that has held little sway over Young Joe Axtell (Subramanian; Jensen, 44). The question remains, for how long is the destruction or misuse of a resource worth the economic services that it provides? Conversely, does every resource have a price, if the sum is right?
In the case of the Axtell family, the correct price hasn’t quite been hit, despite six-figure offers by a collection of public and private entities interested in restoring access to Croc’s Rocks (Personal Communication, Bill Dockins). To Joe and Barbara, the integrity of their land is worth more than the offers they’ve seen on the table so far. Nepal currently dangles on the edge of this challenging decision: Follow the Montana example and conserve their land on principle and for its ecological value, or allow resource exploitation to continue for a fee.
Eventually, Nepal may reach the same conclusion as the Axtells; deciding that misuse of their resource, which jeopardizes its future value, is no longer worth the income from expedition permit fees. The impact from sustained human presence on Everest is certainly an extreme example of visual and environmental degradation. Alternatively, some access agreement may be developed, contingent on certain conditions such as trash removal quotas or services rendered (SMCC). The final option, that of business as usual, does not appear economically or environmentally sustainable.
Works Cited
Dockins, B. (1987). Bozeman rock climbs: A climber’s guide to Hyalite Canyon, Gallatin Canyon & the Madison River area (1st ed.). Bozeman, MT: William S. Dockins.
Dockins, B., Kalakay, T., & Schmidt, H. J. (2009). Bozeman Rock Climbs: A climber’s guide to Hyalite, Gallatin, Rocky and Bear Canyons, the Madison River, Big Sky, and the Bridger Range. Bozeman, MT: High Gravity Press, LLC.
Hornbein, T. F. (1966). Everest: The West Ridge. San Francisco: Sierra Club.
Jensen, C. R., & Thorstenson, C. T. (1977). Issues in outdoor recreation (2nd ed.). Minneapolis: Burgess Pub.
Karan, P. P., & Jenkins, W. M. (1963). The Himalayan kingdoms: Bhutan, Sikkim, and Nepal. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Klieger, P. C. (2016). Greater Tibet an examination of borders, ethnic boundaries, and cultural areas. Lanham: Lexington Books.
Mazzolini, E. (2015). The Everest effect: Nature, culture, ideology. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.
Montana State Library (2016, February 24). Montana Cadastral Page. Retrieved April 26, 2016, from http://svc.mt.gov/msl/mtcadastral/
Pommaret, F. (2003). Tibet: An enduring civilization. New York: Harry N. Abrams.
Rose, L. E., & Scholz, J. T. (1980). Nepal: Profile of a Himalayan kingdom. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Schontzler, G. (2001, March 10). Area chambers celebrate agriculture in Gallatin Valley. Retrieved May 03, 2016, from http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/area-chambers-celebrate-agriculture-in-gallatin-valley/article_5ee74ba9-18cd-5a38-8e8a-7fb7741480e7.html
Southwest Montana Climbers Coalition (SMCC). (2009, June 6). A New Access to Allenspur Climbing. Retrieved May 03, 2016, from http://www.montanaclimbers.org/access/allenspur
Subramanian, A. (2015, April 12). Why the only thing tougher than climbing Mt Everest is raising the fund for it – The Economic Times (The Times of India). Retrieved May 05, 2016, from http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/why-the-only-thing-tougher-than-climbing-mt-everest-is-raising-the-fund-for-it/articleshow/46890443.cms
U.S. Department of Commerce. (2000, April). Population Estimates. Retrieved May 03, 2016, from http://www.census.gov/popest/data/historical/index.html