|
|
|
|
gerald
Mar 9, 2005, 6:28 PM
Post #1 of 11
(4107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 19, 2005
Posts: 7
|
I think that the health of our culture can, to large extent, be measured by the activities of fringe groups of individuals such as rock climbers.
Meek and compliant climbers are not a good sign. Are we brave enough to defy gravity yet afraid to express dissent or even question well oiled and funded attempts that limit climbing access?
A current example is Queen Creek/Oak Flats. Politicians are about to make decisions on a prime climbing resource under the primary influence of a barrage of PR inspired "facts". By "facts" I mean information that is only warm, fuzzy and happy.
I'm making a meta argument here. Can "facts" that are exclusively positive possibly reflect reality? Are we afraid to demand of our representatives real public discourse before public land is handed over to a private entity?
Some RC "members" have sung the song of Resolution's happy stuff on the QC thread. They are willing to bow to the barrage that seems to allow for only one way to proceed. Are they afraid to bring more ideas to the surface before making decisions?
This thread runs in other access issues too. Nrgroscoe wrote in the current New River Gorge thread:
In reply to: It's easy to sit at home in your big city, with comfy job and the creature comforts of your city and then come up here and tell people what is best for their economy and future.
He makes many assumptions, the worst, IMO, implying that a climber doesn't have a stake or say in a resource that the climber utilizes because of an arbitrarily drawn description of 1) a local and 2) "their economy".
I implore climbers to show more backbone, express themselves and their love for climbing resources and not to submit to such authoritarian and contrived ideas.
Gerald
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Mar 9, 2005, 7:11 PM
Post #2 of 11
(4107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Getting a group of non-meek and uncompliant climbers to rally to a cause, any cause, is like herding cats. It can't be done.
But I hear you.
Me? I'm not meek or compliant but I really don't care all that much about Queen Creek, sorry. I gave to the Access Fund. Other than that, the fight belongs to you bold ass law breakers. Go git me Charlie!
Tar and feather John Sherman, lol! That's old west justice, law of the mob, yee hah!
Just be sure to not cut any deals with the DA to lessen your jail sentence. And don't narc out your compatriots either. Everyone hates a tourist.
Earth First!
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
olderic
Mar 9, 2005, 7:35 PM
Post #3 of 11
(4107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 1539
|
I realize that your opening statement about judging the health of society had little to do with your actual point (drumming up interest in preserving climbing as we know it at Queen Creek - which I do care about having climbed there 10 times over the last 15 years - not a lot but for someone from 2K miles away it is significant I think) but I will dispute your premise that climbers represent a fringe group. Any group that would rally around something as main stream as rc.com is hardly a fringe group (and hardly a group of real climbers IMHO)
|
|
|
|
|
studiggity
Mar 9, 2005, 7:47 PM
Post #4 of 11
(4107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 5, 2004
Posts: 85
|
I'm all for standing up for what you believe in but you must stop assuming that people who don't jump in line behind you have no backbone. I think there is a perfectly logical argument against preserving wilderness - I don't often times buy it myself but that doesn't mean that a rational person can't reach that decision.
Look, I know nothing of the Queen Creek situation that I didn't read in that thread so I wont toss out my opinion on that one. However, I do find the argument that a group of people who are interested in climbing a cliff should automatically trump all other parties interested in said cliff because we some how "get it" completely preposterous. Sure the climbers should have their chance to be heard and should do what they are able to do to make a case for preservation but you can't expect to win every fight - and I don't think that you should win every fight!
Hey I'm a member of the Sierra Club and donate to the Access Fund but I don't think developing wilderness is automatically a bad thing. There are legitimate uses for land out there and sometimes that land happens to have some good climbing on it. Often times I think climbers are just as selfish as some of these developers are. You should really look into why it is that you want that land preserved. My guess is that its because you like to use it for climbing and not because you have dedicated your life to fighting urban expansion. I wonder if you would go to such lengths to protect a few acres of wetlands or a few miles of pristine beach.
I hope your heart is in the right place because your tone is not. Making a compelling logical argument is going to win over a lot more people than suggesting that everyone who doesn’t fly your flag has no backbone.
Stuart
|
|
|
|
|
studiggity
Mar 9, 2005, 7:55 PM
Post #5 of 11
(4107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 5, 2004
Posts: 85
|
I'd like to add that right now there are a ton of issues facing our nation that I would encourage people to contact their government representatives about before they start trying to save their local crag. But maybe I just "don't get it."
Stuart
|
|
|
|
|
cragb
Mar 9, 2005, 8:39 PM
Post #6 of 11
(4107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 9, 2005
Posts: 101
|
The development of wilderness areas and public land for business purposes is both shameful and irresponsible. The near-sighted approach that resource oriented business presents lacks respect for future generations. I applaud efforts that vehemently oppose the impactful and irreversible damage caused by extraction of resources.
|
|
|
|
|
rangertau
Mar 9, 2005, 9:08 PM
Post #7 of 11
(4107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2003
Posts: 50
|
I'm all for rolling back development. I think we should just deport, oh, about 150 million Americans away (who cares where) so we can have our old crags back. I hear the old cliff lines on Manhattan were awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
gerald
Mar 10, 2005, 1:22 AM
Post #8 of 11
(4107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 19, 2005
Posts: 7
|
In reply to: But maybe I just "don't get it."
Studiggity, I think your quote above nails it. You might try furthering your education in the area of reading comprehension, because you address several things that are far from what I wrote.
I also can't buy into your addendum post. The Queen Creek/Oak Flat area goes way beyond the status of just a "local crag", but certainly, I agree, there are a lot of important issues out there. Maybe it is time for folks to get more active in general.
Gerald
|
|
|
|
|
studiggity
Mar 10, 2005, 3:10 AM
Post #9 of 11
(4107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 5, 2004
Posts: 85
|
Actually Gerald, I apologize. You are correct; I should work on my reading comprehension skills. Something at work vaguely relating to this issue had put me in a horrible mood right before I first read your post and I misdirected some frustration at you. I was wrong and I'm sorry.
However, I do not agree that climbers are meek or failing to challenge the well oiled machines that are trying to limit access to wilderness areas. I think if we were compliant then organizations like the Access Fund would not exist. In fact I believe that climbers as a group are far from compliant. Look at the extraordinary lengths people from the climbing community have gone to preserve/gain legal access to restricted areas in the past. The Southeastern Climbers Coalition is a excellent example of what I am talking about. Not only have they spent years gaining access to areas like Little Rock City they have raised the funds to flat out buy areas like Boat Rock. You should check out their website, their accomplishments are truly impressive.
To address the "meta" portion of your argument; yes, I agree that exclusively positive facts cannot possibly reflect reality and it is the responsibility of the decision maker to recognize this and actively pursue the whole story. In this case, where an elected official is the decision maker it is also the responsibility of the public to hold the elected to account for his/her failure to pursue the full story.
I think what set me off about your post other than my terrible mood was that I believe Nrgroscoe approached an important issue with his statement. I do think that a climber's opinion should be heard but I don't that the desires of climbers are the most important opinions to consider when deciding what is fair use of land. Climbers in general appear to be excellent stewards of the environment but at the end of the day they just want to climb. I have seen people get up in arms when wildlife preservation threatens their access the same as when a mining operation threatens it. I applaud your efforts and would gladly support you but I think it is important that climbers be honest with themselves about why they go the lengths they go to save the land that they try save.
Regardless, in the end I would much rather see the land preserved than used and abused for resource extraction. And for the record I agree with you as well cragb.
Stuart
|
|
|
|
|
elvislegs
Mar 10, 2005, 3:21 AM
Post #10 of 11
(4107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2002
Posts: 3148
|
i hear once that the meek shall inherit the earth. so i was like, totally banking on that with this queen creek situation. i'm sure it will work if only i have enough faith.
oh... also, blessed are the cheesemakers.
|
|
|
|
|
bradmc
Mar 15, 2005, 9:45 PM
Post #11 of 11
(4107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2003
Posts: 78
|
thanks for the plug for The SCC http://www.seclimbers.org. :D
we are currently working like honey bees to secure our latest crag - Jamestown: http://www.seclimbers.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=267&mode=&order=0&thold=0
which has been closed for 12 years due to private land owner issues.
in the deep south (as in many other areas of the country to include Arizona and West Va.) our crags are under considerable threat due to urban sprawl, the housing boom of vacation homes (look at any cliff line in the SE) and private landowners concerns (liability, etc.).
we (southern climbers) just couldnt take it any more. we were the proverbial dog backed up in the corner and came out fighting. I hear your concerns on climbers being meek and compliant, but I find that there are in fact many climbers who will stand up and put their money where their mouth is and volunteer large amounts of time and energy to save our crags. We raised over $7,000.00 last week alone to help with our upcoming purchase of Jamestown. We have had dozens of volunteers put in hundreds of hours to save this crag when they could have been at home with their wives and kids or......out climbing.
I think the upright fighting spirit of climbers is alive and well. It just takes the right issue to get the fired up and a few of the right people to get them heading in the right direction. There are leaders out there as there are climbers that will stand up and draw a line in the sand. I have heard the "herding cats" saying before.. and there may be some truth to that. But that labeling is just us (climbers) trying to justify our individualistic (we are) nature and continual seeking of freedom (we do). So were our founding fathers and they certainly found a way to come together (when threatened) and make a stand.
I dont know much about the AZ. issue. I am trying to read about it and see what everyone has to say. I think the whole arguement that "you come from the city so your ideas dont count around here" are bunk. Travel a little and see that we are living in a global community where our decisions have further repercussions than our own little backwaters.
By and large when climbers have a goal of saving an area and standing up for whats right.. they are not meek and compliant. They are bold and daring; just like their sport.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
