|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jan 14, 2003, 6:52 PM
Post #76 of 127
(7382 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Trash is different - it doesn't alter the rock. Of course we shouldn't litter - and yes, if the locals do, that's bad. But if someone else litters, and I pick it up, this is fundamentally different from bolts and glue and the like because the rock isn't permanently altered. And no, I'm not saying you need to lower yourself to anyone's level by throwing trash, or chipping, or gluing, or anything else.
The question is around the ethics of when it's okay to alter the rock and when it isn't. Boulderingmadman, I suspect that you and I are pretty much in perfect agreement about where we would like those lines to be drawn. What I don't like is when folks try to sell their ethics, whether on the rock or off, as some universal truth. It's like religion, two people can have a very similar belief, but one guy is all in your face about it, and for the other guy it's a personal thing. But I'll let that drop.
One thing boulderingmadman said though that I take issue with is this: "access is far more often restricted because of poor ethics and behavior...not good. youre using words in a literal sense to confuse the actual issue. i have never heard of an area being closed because land managers wanted people to be less responsible. thats a ridiculous statement. "
You misunderstand - the land managers aren't closing areas in Colorado and Connecticut (among other states) because they don't agree with the climbing ethics of the locals. They don't give a $#i^ what ethics local climbers profess! But when climber group A gridbolts a route, and climber group B comes along and says "this is wrong" and chops the bolts. Next thing you know, group A puts up a new set of bolts, and group B's people get mad, and they just flatten the hangers to make it hard to use or remove them. The war escalates to other climbs know to be put up by the opposing group on that crag, and before you know it the whole face is a scarred mess. That's what gets the land managers (rightfully) upset, and that's what I'm arguing against. It's not some artificial (climber invented) set of ethics that I, or the land managers, care about. The question is, can we follow a regionally accepted land use policy that includes climbers? Unfortunately, sometimes a lack of respect for each other's different ethical judgments has made otherwise decent climbers behave like little kids in a sandbox.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Jan 14, 2003, 7:09 PM
Post #77 of 127
(7382 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
So you are arguing against people arguing.
Gneiss.
|
|
|
|
|
boulderingmadman
Jan 15, 2003, 2:38 AM
Post #78 of 127
(7382 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 448
|
this is getting further and further off topic. it appears to me from your most recent post that you agree with me...here, let me show you:
"Trash is different - it doesn't alter the rock....this is fundamentally different from bolts and glue and the like because the rock isn't permanently altered...."
if i wasnt quoting it, youd think it was something i wrote in my post. without distinguishing it as a quote from you...youd never know.
so what youre really arguing is that i shouldnt be preaching my ethics across the board...
whatever. the dude asked for opinion and i gave it. i just happen to be able to back it up convinvingly enough that you think im preaching...
look, i never said i was more right than you were, and i never said i was trying to impose my ethics on anyone else. i did say i would like to see these sort of ethics universally accepted and practised. but you are taking it toooooopersonally.
im not trying to impose my belief on anyone else any more than you are.
the situation has devolved from a pleasant debate to a character assination attempt. im not forcing you to believe me. im just stating my opinion and backing it up with reasonable scenarios to support it. chill the %@#$ out, bro...i aint gonna steal your freedems away...
|
|
|
|
|
boulderingmadman
Jan 15, 2003, 2:45 AM
Post #79 of 127
(7382 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 448
|
and i simply HAVE to retort this...
"You misunderstand - the land managers aren't closing areas in Colorado and Connecticut (among other states) because they don't agree with the climbing ethics of the locals. They don't give a $#i^ what ethics local climbers profess!
are you really that dumb?? you think land managers dont give a $#!& what ethics the locals profess about? let me ask you this WHY then, do areas get closed??? because of the ethics that the poeple climbing there practice. youre being alot duller than you are, i think.
you honestly think that land managers dont care whether or not climbers practice and advocate clean and trace-free climbing ethics??? man, i shouldnt even have to point out how dumb this statement is...as a climber, you really need to reconsider what land managers consider important...
|
|
|
|
|
realitycheck
Jan 15, 2003, 2:40 PM
Post #80 of 127
(7382 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 15, 2003
Posts: 16
|
Whoa Boulder-guy... settle down... if you get anymore cranked up your head may explode.
You've made some pretty sweeping statements here ... Now try to prove them. Just answer one simple question, please.
Name for us one climbing area in the country where access to climbing has been prohibited solely because of the of climbers' "bad ethics”.
We're waiting...
I don't think you can, because there aren't any.... (And, please don’t tell me I’m "stupid" because you don’t have an answer…..)
Consider these few examples:
-The past and current problems at Hueco have nothing to do with bolting, chipping, glue or climber "ethics." Ask anyone who has ever been there what the attitudes of the Park's management has always been toward climbers. Park Supervisor himself will tell you that Hueco is an Historical Park and not a Recreational Park. They just do not believe that climbing is an appropriate use of the Park. They just don’t want to deal with climbers.
-Access issues in CT are almost entirely about crowds of climbers parking in upscale suburban neighborhoods. Chipping, glue and, most certainly, bolts are not an issue.
-In New Jersey, climbing is prohibited in most County Parks solely because of liability/tort fears. In one case, even though the elected officials wanted to allow climbing; their lawyers said no.
-Also in NJ, the best bouldering area was closed because the land was sold and a multi-million dollar home was built on it... The new owners wanted their privacy.
-Religious concerns of Native Americans have closed Devils Tower to climbing.
-If I remember correctly there was one area in the PNW (Leslie Gulch, maybe) where somebody got a little too crazy with a drill on BLM land; with the result that new bolting was prohibited, but not climbing.
And the list goes on....
I think if you examined the actual facts (rather than the "facts" you'd like to believe) behind the vast majority of closures; you’d see that liability and an unwillingness of land managers to deal with climbers are the two most common reasons for access problems on public lands.
Will some land managers use 'bad ethics" as excuse to prohibit climbing? Of course. But even if there is no evidence of "bad ethics;" believe me, some other reason will be found to prevent access.
For example: there is an East Coast state where climbing is prohibited in the Parks because a drunk teenager fell to his death off a cliff while partying. No one who worked for the state could explain to me the relationship between the youth's very tragic death and climbing. The fact is, there isn't any; they just used it as an excuse to ban climbing....
I think that Cracklover is right; the land managers who want to prohibit climbing are doing it for reasons other than "bad ethics." And personally, I think you owe him an apology.....
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Jan 15, 2003, 4:34 PM
Post #81 of 127
(7382 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
Here's a little something to think about:
Chipping, gluing and bolting are only part of the ethics people practise.
Quote:Access issues in CT are almost entirely about crowds of climbers parking in upscale suburban neighborhoods. Chipping, glue and, most certainly, bolts are not an issue.
If CT areas get shut down in the scenario you describe above, it is because of the local ethic: Parking in upscale suburban areas is OK when you go climbing.
In Texas, our ethic is: Park as concealed as you can, since you don't want to alert wary landowners of your prescence.
I personally hold that local ethic close to my heart and I wouldn't exacerbate CT access issues by practising their LOOSE local ethic. I'd practise my own ethic by parking further and hiking.
In this case and in the case of the gridbolting/chopping that Cracklover brought up, it's the ethics that these local climbers have adopted which HAVE got them in trouble... since apparently, the local ethic allows them to chop bolts, bend hangars, insult other climbers and park where they shouldn't be parking.
From dictionary.com:
Quote:eth·ic n. A set of principles of right conduct.
This definition is applied to climbing as is... you shouldn't limit your thinking of it to bolting and chipping and gluing. You should adopt an ethic which promotes a good climbing scene and good access... even if it means parking further away or putting aside differences and working things out.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 15, 2003, 5:11 PM
Post #82 of 127
(7382 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
realitycheck,
Absolutes are difficult to prove, and you have also made some sweeping statements. I can give you a couple of examples of climbing areas that have been closed maybe not "solely" because of bad climber ethics, but certainly primarily due to bad climber ethics.
1) Hueco Tanks. I am not referring to the current situation there, but rather to the total ban on climbing that was imposed several years ago when a local climber told a German climbing contingent that it was OK to bolt a certian route--which was actually in violation of park rules.
2) Skytop Cliff, Shawangunks. Although the precise reason for the closure of Skytop is somewhat a mystery (The MMH will not say) it is most likely related to climbers being rude to Hotel guests. This may not be "climbing ethics" per se, but it is bad behavior on the part of climbers, so it is close enough for me.
Curt
[ This Message was edited by: curt on 2003-01-15 09:13 ]
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Jan 15, 2003, 5:24 PM
Post #83 of 127
(7382 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
No!
That is a climbing ethic !!!1
Perhaps "being rude to Hotel guests" isn't as climbing specific as "drilling a bolt hole"... but it's bahavior on the part of members of the climbing community.
If that is indeed the reason teh cliff is closed, then it is directly due to the local ethic.
OMG !!11
|
|
|
|
|
drector
Jan 15, 2003, 5:29 PM
Post #84 of 127
(7382 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 1037
|
Whwn going out to play paintball, a guy fired at a tree near where the cars where parked. Most of the entire group gave him a hard time about it. The ethic is to keep out of the public eye. Just like the climbers mentioned in an earlier post about parking. This is a very useful ethic and seems essential for survival. Many small animals have this behavior as instinct.
The flake olters failed to adhere to this ethic which is enough reason for me to condemn it. The public sees these guys glueing and bolting but doesn't see me picking up trash from hikers, etc... and the impression, which is more important than the truth, is that climbers are a bunch of chipping, gluing, bolting yahoos. The rest of the public then calls for closures.
I don't much worry about rocks since the forces of nature will do more damage than I ever could. I follow a path that is more similar to politics where the impression you give others is what enables you to get what you want and is also what can cause your downfall. More climbing is what I want. Always think about how to get more climbing and think of nothing else.
(this argument is limited to type issues. picking up trash for the esthetics and to preserve nature is a good thing even when no one see the impact, as is any other conservation action).
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
realitycheck
Jan 15, 2003, 8:07 PM
Post #85 of 127
(7382 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 15, 2003
Posts: 16
|
Lox,
I can see why you get yourself into trouble on web boards all the time. The issue is not as simplistic as you make it sound. I certainly agree with you that climbers do need to behave in responsible, respectable manner.
However, I don’t think most access issues really involve climbers behaving badly… and perhaps CT is a good example.
You seem to be implying that all CT climbers are all some kind of idiotic, “me first,” “I don’t give a $#!& about anyone or anything else” types. With very few notable exceptions this is just not true. For example: through hard work, much effort and expense, a climbers group (Ragged Mtn. Foundation,) is now the legal Trustee of what was the most threatened climbing area in the state. This ensures the area will remain open to all outdoor recreation not just climbing. Personally, I think their actions are to be praised and more climbers should be doing things just like that.
You also seem to be criticizing CT climbers for wanting to utilize the limited climbing resources in the State.
CT is a small, crowded state. While many of the cliffs are on land that is open to the public, most are surrounded by private property. Open space, as well as residential space is at a premium. Because of this, there are going to be conflicts between the two user groups. It seems to me that many of the landowners do not feel that “outsiders” have any right to enter their communities to use the lawful, public resources. In order to further their goals, they constantly try to limit legal parking.
In this situation, the only way to avoid the conflict is for climbers to avoid climbing… Don’t you think that’s a little unfair?
Believe me, most CT climbers are well versed in carpooling, “parking further away,” and “hiking” to get to a legal crag.
The access issues in CT are really about conflicts between two legitimate user groups over a limited resource…. If you know a good way to solve that sort of problem; maybe you should head the United Nations and get a Nobel Peace Prize.
-r
ps. I also can assure you there is only one individual climber in CT who isn’t interested in “putting aside differences and working things out.”
pps. Curt--The total ban on climbing in Hueco was eventually lifted and new bolting was even allowed for a time (with severe restrictions.)
-The MMH claims that insurance liability is the reason for Skytop’s closure. We can debate among ourselves the “real” reason, but that’s their explaination.
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Jan 15, 2003, 9:17 PM
Post #86 of 127
(7382 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
Acutally, reality... while it might SEEM as if I am attacking CT climber with my IMPLICATIONS, I am actually not attacking anyone and I am not implying anything.
I am responding using the examples given.
There was some talk of CT climbers bolting a crag, then having those bolts chopped, then rebolting the crag, then having those hangers banged flat... I was using this as an example of poor ethics. Not necessarily because I don't agree with bolting or don't agree with chopping... but because the reactive actions of these climbers has taken the situation from being the simplistic (ironic, considering your assertion of me...) 2 user groups fighting over resources and turned it into a split user group infighting about those resources.
Practise that ethic and it's no surprise that areas in CT are being closed.
Which is my POINT:
Ethics dictate behavior. If you have ethics which are seen as unfavorable by the authorities, then your access is threatened.
When you tell me that access is threatened by people parking in these spots, I merely suggested that the local ethic be reevaluated to NOT hinder access... then you come back to tell me that I am implying untruths about Ct climbers and attacking Ct climbers.
I know nothing about CT climbers.
If I am wrong, it is based solely on misinformation given to me IN THIS POST, presumably by people who know more about the situation than I do.
This does not change or degrade my position that ethics have a further scope than bolting, chipping and gluing.
This does not change the fact that even though Ct climbers know how to carpool, park far and hike in, YOU CLAIMED that Ct access being threatend by poor parking practise and THAT IS a lack of responsible ethic.
If you feel like recinding your previous statement, please do so. It was ridiculous to begin with...
|
|
|
|
|
number7
Jan 15, 2003, 9:20 PM
Post #87 of 127
(7382 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2001
Posts: 175
|
I haven't seen the clip, but I feel that what is described is bad; and even if it's not all that bad, it's still bad.
my $0.02
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Jan 15, 2003, 10:11 PM
Post #88 of 127
(7382 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Okay, I'll try to keep it simple. I think both Lox and RealityCheck, despite their differences, would agree with me on this... If I may quote myself: "The question is, can we follow a regionally accepted land use policy that includes climbers? Unfortunately, sometimes a lack of respect for each other's different ethical judgments has made otherwise decent climbers behave like little kids in a sandbox."
Let me try to put this particular ethical dillemna (what were we talking about again - oh yeah, that flake that got glued on tight) into a little perspective. Wanna know what gets land managers and city councillor's panties in a bunch? When we cut down trees, when we fight in public, when we pour gasoline on the rocks and set them ablaze, when we insult the neighbors and give the local police chief the finger, when we carry our bolt wars out on the rock, when we refuse to follow the usage requirements of the owners or land managers, when we get ourselves killed or require expensive rescue. Those are just a few of the things that screw up access in sensitive multi-use areas. Unless it's against the land use rules of that area, nobody but us gives a damn if someone does a delicate and nearly seamless patch job to keep a flake from breaking off.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 15, 2003, 10:13 PM
Post #89 of 127
(7382 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
realitycheck,
I realize that Hueco was reopened to climbing after its closure from the bolting incident. The point I was trying to make is that ethical lapses on the part of the climbing community can (and have) led to area closures.
Also with regard to your statement:
"-The MMH claims that insurance liability is the reason for Skytop’s closure. We can debate among ourselves the “real” reason, but that’s their explaination."
Insurance is the one thing we know for a fact IS NOT the reason for climbing closure at Skytop. The Access Fund has offered to supply the necessary liability insurance to The Mohonk Mountain House and this has been rejected by the MMH as a solution.
Curt
[ This Message was edited by: curt on 2003-01-15 14:18 ]
|
|
|
|
|
boulderingmadman
Jan 16, 2003, 12:50 AM
Post #90 of 127
(7382 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2002
Posts: 448
|
realitycheck--
my "braod and sweeping generalizations" are no more so than youre own.
hueco tanks was closed primarily because of bad behavior on the part of climbers. call it "misbehaving" or "bad ethics"...its all the same thing.
publicly declairing a lack of respect for the land we are given permission to use is a bad idea...we dont have any rights to use this land the way that we do. it is public land for all to use and enjoy. unfortunately, climbers are the first user group blamed for the deterioration of areas (again think hueco) because of our visibility.
thats simply it. yes this is a small incident. its not the incident itself that bothers me. its what it could lead to that bothers me.
with that said, im done with this. you all refuse to acknowledge any difference in opinion, and that plainly negates the possibility of reasonable debate. either open up to other possibilities, or end it. we obviously wont agree...
here, ill make you feel better [sarcasm]youre right, im wrong. you win, i lose. youre great and i suck[/sarcasm]. feel better now???
ps--youre stupid...
|
|
|
|
|
realitycheck
Jan 16, 2003, 4:37 PM
Post #91 of 127
(7382 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 15, 2003
Posts: 16
|
Lox,
Let’s try this again; perhaps I’m not so good at explaining things. I’m sure you’re very aware how easy it is to be misunderstood….
You’ve said, “Ethics dictate behavior. If you have ethics which are seen as unfavorable by the authorities, then your access is threatened.” I don’t disagree with either of these statements, but…
Based on my experience, I do not believe that climber behavior or “ethics” are the most important factors used by land managers when they make decisions concerning access.
The simple fact that we want to climb is enough to cause access problems. We do not have to do anything else. Climbers don’t have bolt, chip, chop, glue, park in the wrong place, build fires, litter, or deface Native American petroglyph for the typical land manager to want to ban you from climbing on “his land.”
I am not saying that it is ok to behave badly… it is imperative that we behave impeccably.
You are right, if climbers misbehave, access issues can certainly only get worse. But it is also important to realize that good behavior will not necessarily make access issues better… You can have the most well behaved group of climbers who have ever lived, and still others may try to prohibit access. You can do everything that is expected of you and more, and some people will still not want you to climb.
Let’s use the example of the climbers in CT. Among other problems (which have also been dealt with in a rational, preemptive manner), there is a parking issue to which the climbers have responded positively to minimize local impact. They carpool, park far and hike in. They have behaved as well as any group can be expected, and it is still not “good enough” for many of the surrounding landowners. The only thing that would satisfy the surrounding landowners is for climbing to cease entirely….
What do you do when simply “going climbing” is the “something that will be seen as unfavorable”? I don’t think this only happens in CT, either.
Interestingly enough, the whole idiotic bolt war cycle that cracklover described has had little influence on access in the State.
Once climbers start thinking that other climbers and their misdeeds are the sole cause of access problems, it will be easier for even more areas to be closed. The climbing community will become even more fragmented and less able to work together. We will even start to believe that other climbers “deserved” it.
As Ben Franklin said, “We must indeed all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”
-r
Ps. Curt—You point on Hueco is true, the climbers were wrong and climbing was banned for short time…but I think that you’d have to agree that the Park Superintendent was looking for any reason to ban climbing. In other words, it was inevitable that climbers were going to do “something” to get banned…
--Again while what you say about the AF’s offer to the MMH is true, but the MMH is a $400/night hotel and I suspect that they don’t want to expose their guests to any climbers, no matter how well behaved orwho paid their insurance.
In both of these examples, I don’t think “bad ethics” was the only (or even the major reason) for the closures.
Pps. And Loxy, if it makes you feel better---“ethics” can include anything you want, although considering how most climbers actually misuse the term…maybe you should call your viewpoint “plain common sense….”
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 16, 2003, 4:54 PM
Post #92 of 127
(7382 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
"publicly declairing a lack of respect for the land we are given permission to use is a bad idea...we dont have any rights to use this land the way that we do. "
Three comments:
1. You are right, calling public attention to potentially controversial acts such as glueing on a flake seems, um, to be asking for trouble. If you are going to do it, and you are a craftsman, doing it in a way that no one can tell seems to be the ticket. If you then turn around and tell people about it... you have circumvented your own work.
2. I don't believe climbers have any rights to climb at all to be blunt. We have to A.: fight, kick, scratch, cajole, plead and otherwise ingratiate ourselves to often unfriendly land managers so as not to endanger out access. Or B.: we just do our thing and let the cards fall where they may. Incidently, for most climbers, option B is the path taken.
3. With Bush trying to reopen the drilling legislation for ANWR, and many of his other initiatives with respect to public land, I'd say 'use' of public land is a broadening concept. What is a glued flake when compared to a thousand oil derricks? Bush may ultimately prove to be a friend of climber access in a sick sort of way. Wouldn't that be ironic?
Cheers,
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Jan 16, 2003, 4:57 PM
Post #93 of 127
(7382 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
I agree with the fact that simply wanting to climb is too much for some landowners...
Part of our local ethic is: Don't ask, don't tell... and use trespassing voices at the cliff.
But to further the silly circular arguement you seem to want to engage in, reality:
If your personal ethic is to push yourself athletically and you choose to act on that ethic by climbing, is it not your personal ethics which cause you to want to climb in the first place ?!?
If so, then is it not the behavior (climbing) as a result of the ethic (pushing oneself physically) that makes the landowners want to shut the place down ?!?!
Also... I don't think blanket statements can really be said about "landowners." There is a wide spectrum of people and entities that own land and they each have their own concerns...
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Jan 16, 2003, 5:53 PM
Post #94 of 127
(7382 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
realitycheck,
I will grant you that the Hueco Tanks State Park folks have always (and still do) have a tendency to grab onto any reason to clamp down on climbing. Their attitude is precisely why it is so important to not provide them with any ammunition. The unethical and illegal bolting was that ammunition--and was therefore the triggering event to the Park closure.
The situation at Mohonk, however is different. You stated:
"--Again while what you say about the AF’s offer to the MMH is true, but the MMH is a $400/night hotel and I suspect that they don’t want to expose their guests to any climbers, no matter how well behaved or who paid their insurance."
This is a very recent position taken by the MMH. They warmly welcomed climbers there for over 60 years--until quite recently. The most disturbing thing is that the MMH management will not even tell the climbing community the reason for the ban, except to cite a reson (insurance) that we know to be false. Part of this may be due to newer "faceless" management at the MMH. I truly believe that if Dan Smiley were still alive, this closure policy would never have been implemented.
However, I have personally heard numerous stories of climbers there being rude to MMH guests and have no doubt that this unethical behavior did have something to do with the climbing closure at Skytop.
Curt
[ This Message was edited by: curt on 2003-01-16 09:55 ]
|
|
|
|
|
phyre
Jan 16, 2003, 6:44 PM
Post #95 of 127
(7382 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 120
|
I only read about 3 of the 7 pages of replies to this forum so this may be redundant but that's ok. I don't understand how the rock being unsafe justifies fixing it. I doubt it's the only problem in the area. how about putting a sign up so that people don't climb on it. Sure some idiot might disregard the sign and kill himself but that's a risk I'm willing to take. the point is, the climbing community comes off looking a lot better if we use discression about what we climb instead of changing stuff so we can climb it.
phyre
|
|
|
|
|
realitycheck
Jan 16, 2003, 7:02 PM
Post #96 of 127
(7382 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 15, 2003
Posts: 16
|
Lox,
I’m not so sure that I’m the only one here going in silly circles…
Personally, since I don’t claim to know “ethics” from “e. coli,” or the real point you’re trying to make about it, I can’t answer you….
All I do know is that when the climbing population in any area gets large enough to be noticed by the land manager, access will be threatened. It is a function of how many of us there are, not necessarily what we do…
You can be as stealthy (which is a really good thing) as you want at your local crag, but once the number of climber reaches a certain point; access to your crag is going to be threatened. I have seen this too many times for anyone to convince me it isn’t true.
Dingus,
With all due respect,
On public land where other recreation is allowed, I think climbers do have a right to be there. If hunters are allowed to hunt, climbers should be allowed to climb, if hikers can build trails, climbers should be able to create routes…. We may still have to “fight, kick, scratch, cajole, plead and otherwise ingratiate ourselves,” but I don’t think we should have to be beggars asking for scraps. Do land managers have a right to regulate climbing? Sure, but no more stringently than they do any other user group.
Of course, there is a distinction between public and private property…. On private land, we have no other rights than the landowner’s permission….
Curt,
Perhaps you are right about MMH, but I can’t help but believe that climbing would have been eventually banned there no matter what…. If I owned the MMH, I’m not sure I’d allow the general public of today to climb there. Let’s face it; the average Gunkie (or climber anywhere) isn’t Fritz W or Hans K….
A climbing partner of mine claims to have been present at the time of the “fat-ass tourist” incident, apparently it occurred a number of years before the actual closure. I do know that the climbers involved in that and the “Pumping Pygmies” problem were vilified by the rest of the community.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 16, 2003, 7:15 PM
Post #97 of 127
(7382 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
"On public land where other recreation is allowed, I think climbers do have a right to be there. If hunters are allowed to hunt, climbers should be allowed to climb, if hikers can build trails, climbers should be able to create routes…. "
I don't know, perhaps you have I have a different understanding of the word "right." it has constitutional implications, literally. Then again, with your use of "allowed" I think we both know the difference. A government entity can't legally disallow a right without a huge fight all the way to the Supreme Court. A government entity can discontinue a privilege, such as revoking your driver's license. You have no right to drive and as far as I know, no right to climb either.
For what ever it's worth, I agree with the spirit of your point. But don't confuse a right with a privilege.
Splitting of hairs? Perhaps. I find these sorts of discussions interesting however.
Cheers,
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
realitycheck
Jan 16, 2003, 7:51 PM
Post #98 of 127
(7382 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 15, 2003
Posts: 16
|
dingus,
Since we're splitting hairs...
I think I know the difference between a right and privilege...
Having a drivers licence is a priviledge; my freedom of speech is a right....
But is climbing on public property where other recreational activites are allowed and even encouraged only a priviledge?
Is hunting in a National Forest a priviledge?
Is using Public Lands that are open to recreation a priviledge?
I realize this is just semantics, but "priviledge" sounds like some thing that can be granted and taken away abitrarily...
Is the general public's access to taxpayer supported lands (excluding, of course, places like Army bases and Nuclear test sites, etc) something controlled by the whims of government buearacrats? Or do we have a "right" (not necessarily a constitutional one) to use public property?
-r
|
|
|
|
|
lox
Jan 16, 2003, 8:17 PM
Post #99 of 127
(7382 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 2, 2002
Posts: 2307
|
In regards to larger numbers of climbers creating an access issue: I totally agree.
However, when it comes down to how manageable that large group is, a good deal of that is based on the ethics of each individual.
We can only control ourselves, and we must realize that a "local ethic" at any given crag is a forged agreement between the members of the local climbing community and the other people who's lives are affected by that group's actions (state park employees, landowners, people who's street you park on to walk to a crag, etc.)... as long as we, the visitors respect this local ethic, we are not in danger of creating or worsening problems.
And that's really the best we can hope for, eh ?
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Jan 16, 2003, 8:56 PM
Post #100 of 127
(7382 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
"Is the general public's access to taxpayer supported lands (excluding, of course, places like Army bases and Nuclear test sites, etc) something controlled by the whims of government buearacrats? "
The short answer is "yes." I thought it was obvious! Arbitrary denial of access for activity "x" has a long and robust history. Lots of reasons are offered up, but in the end, a denial is a denial.
Consider:
Spotted Owl (a red herring on wing if there ever was one).
Raptor closures of cliffs when there are no nesting raptors around.
Hueco closures. Bolting bans. Fixed pro bans. Fishing bans. Hunting bans (mountain lions in CA prime example).
On and on and on. The legislation enacting some of the major land agencies in the US gives them great latitude to do as they wish to serve their primary purpose (which varies agency to agency). And ironically, climbers in general would support many of these denials.
What of 'birds of feather?' One of climber's strongest potential allies in fighting access denial is from the off-road community. Whole stretches of formerly accessible public land have been declared off limits, carte blanche. Will you apply the same "right to access" arguments to these demonstratably destructive activities? What of snow machines in Yellowstone? Don't they have a "right" to recreation too? How about mining, logging and cattle grazing interests?
Climbing is not non-destructive despite the assurances of the 'leave no trace' prophets. Even THEY leave destructive traces, albeit on a somewhat smaller scale than a strip mine!
The NPS has the power and authority to ban all climbing in Yosemite Park, should they choose. Of course there would be litigation and that decision might be over turned in court. But they certainly have the murky legislative authority, power and the law enforcement capability to do it. And on limited scales in the past it has been done. Don't forget the arbitrary (I didn't forget to get back to this!) closure of Warren Harding's Nose Attempt because too many people were standing in El Cap Meadow! I can think of no finer example. The Diamond used to be off limits; period. Then you had to prove you could affect self rescue to get permission to attempt it.
I used to see things much more in line with you. But over the course of the last few years, as I first expressed outrage and then sought means to fight things like the Yosemite Valley Management Plan, and actually read some of the legislation that brought these agencies into being, I realized just how few rights we do possess when it comes to national lands.
I no longer think of it as my land. I think of it as the King's Land. There are two types of access... that granted by the King and that taken by Robin Hood. I personally opt to find as much of both as I can.
Access Fund! Contribute!
DMT
[ This Message was edited by: dingus on 2003-01-16 12:59 ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
