|
sheesh
Jul 10, 2003, 7:44 PM
Post #101 of 168
(7930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 2, 2003
Posts: 37
|
Fine, well thought out post, Bill. Really adds to the discussion. Gimme a ring, I can turn ya on to some anger management courses. Might help ya live longer :wink:
Peace
|
|
|
|
|
scottcody
Jul 10, 2003, 7:50 PM
Post #102 of 168
(7930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 27, 2003
Posts: 577
|
In reply to: IRREVERSABLY kill
wow, thats deep
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 10, 2003, 8:25 PM
Post #103 of 168
(7930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Climb: Put yourself in a position to make policy changes like I did. Peace
No peace. Chris Zinda, you are an enemy to us all.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 10, 2003, 8:30 PM
Post #104 of 168
(7930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: I said we ALL have a responsibility to minimize our impact. Trad, sport, it doesn't matter.
Why? Because a deadfish says so? You don't get to assign responsibilities to me.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 10, 2003, 8:33 PM
Post #105 of 168
(7930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Your side, if I can point a non-accusatory finger, doesn't seem to accept that it does degrade the experience for some of us.
It's not about acceptance. I just don't care!
Cheers,
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 10, 2003, 8:35 PM
Post #106 of 168
(7930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Minimizing impact should be every climber's goal.
Well it isn't.
NEXT!
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
robmcc
Jul 10, 2003, 8:40 PM
Post #107 of 168
(7930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2003
Posts: 2176
|
You sure have a quick finger on the submit button for someone who doesn't care. Shouldn't you be climbing something? :P
|
|
|
|
|
climblouisiana
Jul 10, 2003, 8:44 PM
Post #108 of 168
(7930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 3, 2002
Posts: 506
|
In reply to: In reply to: The bolting ban in wilderness areas was caused by a lone hiker/photographer who claimed that his wilderness experience was being ruined by seeing a bolt in the rock in the Actually, if you read the Wilderness Act of 1964, and I'll be happy to send you a copy, it clearly outlines what is permissable within wilderness boundaries. Bolts would not fit that permissability. The hiker didn't cause the bolt ban, he simply had it enforced. It you were placing bolts in a wilderness area you were violating the Wilderness Act before the hiker raised a stink. It's kind of like doing 7mph over the speed limit, you probably won't get pulled over but it's still not legal. Just because as a climber you don't see something as an eyesore doesn't mean it's not. Perhaps the hiker/photographer was going to take a shot of the cliff in he morning light and he noticed the bolts were detracting from the picture. Tell me thats insignificant and then try to argue that climbers don't cause there own access issues, I'll be waiting :D :?:
I have read some of the Wilderness Act. I guess my point was not clear.
No matter how insignificant someone thinks their actions are, someone will view them as significant and make a big deal out of them. Laws and regulations are often made because someone doesn't like the way something is done. In this case, someone may see quickdraws on a cliff and try to restrict access. To leave quickdraws hanging from a rock is taking a risk.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Jul 10, 2003, 8:49 PM
Post #109 of 168
(7930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: The bolting ban in wilderness areas was caused by a lone hiker/photographer who claimed that his wilderness experience was being ruined by seeing a bolt in the rock in the Actually, if you read the Wilderness Act of 1964, and I'll be happy to send you a copy, it clearly outlines what is permissable within wilderness boundaries. Bolts would not fit that permissability. The hiker didn't cause the bolt ban, he simply had it enforced. It you were placing bolts in a wilderness area you were violating the Wilderness Act before the hiker raised a stink. It's kind of like doing 7mph over the speed limit, you probably won't get pulled over but it's still not legal. Just because as a climber you don't see something as an eyesore doesn't mean it's not. Perhaps the hiker/photographer was going to take a shot of the cliff in he morning light and he noticed the bolts were detracting from the picture. Tell me thats insignificant and then try to argue that climbers don't cause there own access issues, I'll be waiting :D :?: I have read some of the Wilderness Act. I guess my point was not clear. No matter how insignificant someone thinks their actions are, someone will view them as significant and make a big deal out of them. Laws and regulations are often made because someone doesn't like the way something is done. In this case, someone may see quickdraws on a cliff and try to restrict access. To leave quickdraws hanging from a rock is taking a risk.
I'm not argueing with your point, I'm argueing with the fact that you seem to think bolts are/were permissable in designated wilderness in the first place. Thats my point. But I agree, it only takes one cry baby to start a problem.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 10, 2003, 8:50 PM
Post #110 of 168
(7930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: You sure have a quick finger on the submit button for someone who doesn't care. Shouldn't you be climbing something? :P
That was yesterday. Today I comment. Tomorrow, I climb some more!
I care about the subject. I do not care that hanging draws on a sport project offends some small percentage of climbers.
Cheers,
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
sheesh
Jul 11, 2003, 12:14 AM
Post #111 of 168
(7930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 2, 2003
Posts: 37
|
Dingus continues to give the climbing community a bad name with narcissitic, egocentric behavior that results in restricting access for everyone.
The sterotype will never die unless attitudes like his die.
Peace
|
|
|
|
|
jcinco
Jul 11, 2003, 12:23 AM
Post #112 of 168
(7930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 395
|
In reply to: Dingus continues to give the climbing community a bad name with narcissitic, egocentric behavior that results in restricting access for everyone.
Yet you continue to evade the question of how this behavior restricts access.
|
|
|
|
|
jcinco
Jul 11, 2003, 12:29 AM
Post #113 of 168
(7930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 395
|
In reply to: In reply to: The bolting ban in wilderness areas was caused by a lone hiker/photographer who claimed that his wilderness experience was being ruined by seeing a bolt in the rock in the Actually, if you read the Wilderness Act of 1964, and I'll be happy to send you a copy, it clearly outlines what is permissable within wilderness boundaries. Bolts would not fit that permissability. The hiker didn't cause the bolt ban, he simply had it enforced. It you were placing bolts in a wilderness area you were violating the Wilderness Act before the hiker raised a stink. It's kind of like doing 7mph over the speed limit, you probably won't get pulled over but it's still not legal. :
Wrong.
The Wilderness Act specifically prohibits fixed "installations". What that means is open to debate. Personally, I don't think a fixed anchor or a trail sign is in the spirit of what the authors of the Act had in mind as "installations".
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 11, 2003, 1:10 AM
Post #114 of 168
(7930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Dingus continues to give the climbing community a bad name with narcissitic, egocentric behavior that results in restricting access for everyone. The sterotype will never die unless attitudes like his die. Peace
My behavior has never resulted in restricted access at any cliff. Period. I bet if you had your way though, YOURS WOULD.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 11, 2003, 1:12 AM
Post #115 of 168
(7930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: In reply to: Dingus continues to give the climbing community a bad name with narcissitic, egocentric behavior that results in restricting access for everyone. Yet you continue to evade the question of how this behavior restricts access.
WHAT BEHAVIOR??? He doesn't know me. He doesn't climb with me. He's never met me. Never mind restricted access, WHAT BEHAVIOR???
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
sheesh
Jul 11, 2003, 1:27 AM
Post #116 of 168
(7930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 2, 2003
Posts: 37
|
You don't care who you offend in the pursuit of your pleasures. Clear enough, big guy?
Peace
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 11, 2003, 1:46 AM
Post #117 of 168
(7930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: You don't care who you offend in the pursuit of your pleasures. Clear enough, big guy? Peace
All he said is that he doesn't care if he offends you and your little circle of fanatics.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
sheesh
Jul 11, 2003, 2:03 AM
Post #118 of 168
(7930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 2, 2003
Posts: 37
|
Read a little further up, JT, then provide a comment.
Peace
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Jul 11, 2003, 2:10 AM
Post #119 of 168
(7930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
In reply to: Read a little further up, JT, then provide a comment. Peace
All he said is that he doesn't care if he offends you and your little circle of fanatics.
-Jay
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jul 11, 2003, 2:59 AM
Post #120 of 168
(7930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: In reply to: Read a little further up, JT, then provide a comment. Peace All he said is that he doesn't care if he offends you and your little circle of fanatics. -Jay
Actually I said Chris Zinda is an enemy to us all, that I don't accept responsibilities as assigned and defined by deadfish, that I am not bothered that a small minority of climbers think project draws degrade their experience at sport crags (which is a very funny notion) and I stated the patently obvious that minimizing impact is not the goal of every climber.
And that's all I said. Sheesh chose to read all sorts of "behaviors" (lol!) into that. Kind of figured he would. Can I extrapolate the radical and extreme nature of sheesh's position based upon his behavior? Sure I can.
He's freely admitted, seemed proud in fact, to selling his fellow climbers down the river by going to land managers and advocating postitions contrary to what are clearly the wishes of a majority of climbers. He then presumes to tell these climbers, the ones he already sold out you know, that we have a bad reputation (clearly notwithstanding his own). Then he dictates what our actions should be.
Thanks sheesh, but I'll look to others for inspiration and advice. Frankly, you set a bad example. I hope others now see your true stripes as well.
This is the sort of person who would sell us all out. He already did! He's an admitted enemy to access and therefore is an enemy to us all.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
sheesh
Jul 11, 2003, 4:04 AM
Post #121 of 168
(7930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 2, 2003
Posts: 37
|
Absolutely, ding. I DO work against those that feel that public lands are theirs and theirs only. Ranchers, Climbers, ATVers, etc. Public lands are not your private stomping ground - they are the stomping ground for 250 million other Americans. And, natural and cultural resouces are, in my opinion, much more important that some killa climb.
Absolutely right again, ding. I have never assoicated myself with the climbing community and say so when approached with the question: Are you a climber? Although I do climb, I have already said that I am not interested in being called "A climber". The majority in this sport, I belive you included, completely overlook the damage their activities cause for their own selfish pursuits.
In any case, enjoy it while you can. Restrictions are coming faster than you can imagine.
Peace
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Jul 11, 2003, 6:52 AM
Post #122 of 168
(7930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: The bolting ban in wilderness areas was caused by a lone hiker/photographer who claimed that his wilderness experience was being ruined by seeing a bolt in the rock in the Actually, if you read the Wilderness Act of 1964, and I'll be happy to send you a copy, it clearly outlines what is permissable within wilderness boundaries. Bolts would not fit that permissability. The hiker didn't cause the bolt ban, he simply had it enforced. It you were placing bolts in a wilderness area you were violating the Wilderness Act before the hiker raised a stink. It's kind of like doing 7mph over the speed limit, you probably won't get pulled over but it's still not legal. : Wrong. The Wilderness Act specifically prohibits fixed "installations". What that means is open to debate. Personally, I don't think a fixed anchor or a trail sign is in the spirit of what the authors of the Act had in mind as "installations".
Actually, you hit the nail on the head with the statement " I don't think a fixed anchor". Fixed means permanent and I do believe the authors of the act had that in mind.
The goal of the Wilderness Act of 1964 seems to be preservation of a natural character of the land for future generations and to minimize permanent human induced scarring of the land. Installations were probably meant to refer to buildings, boot launches and helipads, ect but the vagueness of the term installation is in fact all that needs to be included for bolts to be interpreted as being illegal. I don't believe, and neither should you, that any act could cover every misuse of wilderness land. As such the word installation could have been intended (and can certainly be interpreted as) as an inclusive term to prevent any man made additions to a wilderness area, which would seem to fit the context of the rest of the Wilderness Act of 1964. In order for you to argue that you'd have to ask the creators of the act exactly what they had in mind. I'd be interested to know as well? Bolts and anchors are typically installed, are they not?? Therefore, a bolt anchor can be considered a "installation". Furthermore, bolts permanently scar the rock and do not leave them "unimpaired for future use." Arguing a trail sign is a permanent addition is a poor argument. Most wilderness areas I've been to mainly have trail markers at intersections and those are temporary signs made of wood installed by the managing agency and not the hikers themselves. A bolt and a drilled hole in a rock face are far from temporary and certainly don't allow the land (or rock) to retain "it's primeval character… , without permanent improvements…" Bolts also don't fit the definition of wilderness according to the Wilderness Act of 1964 which clearly states "A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain."
|
|
|
|
|
mike_ok
Jul 11, 2003, 1:25 PM
Post #123 of 168
(7930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 21, 2003
Posts: 345
|
In reply to: Actually, you hit the nail on the head with the statement " I don't think a fixed anchor". Fixed means permanent and I do believe the authors of the act had that in mind. The goal of the Wilderness Act of 1964 seems to be preservation of a natural character of the land for future generations and to minimize permanent human induced scarring of the land. Installations were probably meant to refer to buildings, boot launches and helipads, ect but the vagueness of the term installation is in fact all that needs to be included for bolts to be interpreted as being illegal. I don't believe, and neither should you, that any act could cover every misuse of wilderness land. As such the word installation could have been intended (and can certainly be interpreted as) as an inclusive term to prevent any man made additions to a wilderness area, which would seem to fit the context of the rest of the Wilderness Act of 1964. In order for you to argue that you'd have to ask the creators of the act exactly what they had in mind. I'd be interested to know as well? Bolts and anchors are typically installed, are they not?? Therefore, a bolt anchor can be considered a "installation". Furthermore, bolts permanently scar the rock and do not leave them "unimpaired for future use." Arguing a trail sign is a permanent addition is a poor argument. Most wilderness areas I've been to mainly have trail markers at intersections and those are temporary signs made of wood installed by the managing agency and not the hikers themselves. A bolt and a drilled hole in a rock face are far from temporary and certainly don't allow the land (or rock) to retain "it's primeval character… , without permanent improvements…" Bolts also don't fit the definition of wilderness according to the Wilderness Act of 1964 which clearly states "A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain."
Our local crag, the Wichita Wildlife Refuge, clearly articulates that bolts are illegal and cannot be placed. (Of course, they came to this conclusion with the help of several zealous trad climbers, but that doesn't change the ruling itself). This, however, has somehow become the point of the thread, and it should not be. Even in the Wichitas - who, as I stated, are clear in their ban on bolts - bolts placed before the ban are legal and not to be chopped. This thread should be about 1) areas where bolts are common and legal and 2) the removal of QD's from a project in said area.
Whether you like bolts, whether you like sport climbing, whether we will see all types of rock climbing banned in the future, isn't relevant. The bolts where legal, sport climbing was legal, in this instance. As such, the question is, does removal of project QD's constitute theft? The answer: yes. As I said in another post, if your ethics are so convincing that leaving QD's is liter, then take it to the rangers (or equivalent authority). If they want them taken down, they will remove them. Perhaps you'll be given the honor of removal yourself. But at least at that point you have proper authority attached to you, rather than your somewhat ellusive use of taking justice into your own hands. Don't steal!
|
|
|
|
|
igcuesta
Jul 11, 2003, 1:54 PM
Post #124 of 168
(7930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2001
Posts: 139
|
In reply to: ]As I said in another post, if your ethics are so convincing that leaving QD's is liter, then take it to the rangers (or equivalent authority). If they want them taken down, they will remove them. Perhaps you'll be given the honor of removal yourself. But at least at that point you have proper authority attached to you, rather than your somewhat ellusive use of taking justice into your own hands. Don't steal!
Not neccesary. Should it be the point (QDs are liter) thefts could have try to dialogue with the owners, instead of stealing their draws. Anyway, though the liter talking's been in the forum for sooooo long, I'm sure that's NOT the point. They are bare thieves.
|
|
|
|
|
climblouisiana
Jul 11, 2003, 2:46 PM
Post #125 of 168
(7930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 3, 2002
Posts: 506
|
If you leave quick draws up, you risk that they will be stolen or "removed as litter". Someone may feel justified in saying that if you leave something on public land then it is booty.
Is it even a prosecutable offense? Can you go to the land manager where your quickdraws were removed and make a complaint stating that your quickdraws were stolen? What would the land manager's stance be in this matter? They would probably take your complaint and file it in the "who the feck cares file".
|
|
|
|
|
|
