Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
fluffy
Trad climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Jan 29, 2014 - 01:58pm PT
|
The latest issue of Rock and Ice magazine has a (cover) story from Jason Haas about the legality of climbing on Navajo reservation lands: "Illegal - Not Necessarily". As someone who has always wanted to climb in Monument Valley I was excited to read about some relaxation of the outright ban on climbing. However, the article contained no such information.
Instead, what the article does is follow a couple of climbers who visited a Navajo climber on the reservation and managed to tick off a few routes with him under the guise of legality since they were with a Navajo. Jason provides a nice history of climbing in the Valley and a thought-provoking, reasoned discussion of the existing ban as well as his feelings about climbing there. I don't have a problem with Jason's article, but i do have some concerns about the way Rock and Ice presented it. For example, the cover itself claims that climbing on the Rez is ''not necessarily' prohibited. It is, a fact laid out in the article itself. There is nothing new regarding the ban, it is still total and official. Why would the magazine present it this way?
Further, the highlighted quotes from Jason's article are phrases like 'There is No Definitive, Official Reservation-Wide Ban on Climbing' which is taken out of context and leads readers to conclude that it's ok to climb there. The rest of that quote is the statement that would-be climbers would still have to get permission from the heads of each Chapter and the person(s) holding grazing permits on those lands.
I realize Rock and Ice is a business and as such they want to sell magazines. Putting what they did on the cover probably sells more mags than say, "Navajolands still officially closed to climbing, but one Navajo man disagrees, accompanies Anglo climbers on several routes."
IMO this is unethical, as is their recent glorification of climbing areas featuring manufactured holds and retrobolting existing routes in Connecticut. There are other examples of questionable ethics as well. Jeff Jackson and I had email correspondence awhile back after the Riggins article and he basically said he didn't think his magazine should take any ethical stance, only report what is happening in the climbing world...that to do otherwise would amount to censorship.
As the definitive American climbing publication does Rock and Ice have an obligation to uphold ethical standards? Their influence on climbing's collective conscience is beyond question. Do they have a responsibility to our community? Is it reasonable to hide behind a the veil of anti-censorship when you clearly edit your magazine to advance a particular interpretation? And select articles that frequently go beyond 'reporting' to editorializing?
Is Rock and Ice hoping by printing the Monument Valley article that climbers start going there against Tribal leaders' wishes? Are they willing to accept responsibility if this occurs? What do groups like The Access Fund think about an article like this, which seem to undermine their efforts to get approval from the Navajo to allow rock climbing on their lands...an article (and headline) that appears to encourage climbers to use some nebulous definitions and language regarding the climbing ban to justify their own ascents?
Seems pretty irresponsible to me. I won't be renewing my subscription.
How about you, at-large climbing community? Thoughts? Criticisms? I'm Gunna Die?
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2014 - 02:02pm PT
|
Anybody interested in the subject of the ban should read Crusher's recent desert towers book. He devotes a lot of space to this issue, and has put together the best analysis of it that I've seen.
And of course the rest of the book is great as well, but it's almost worth it just for that bit of history.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2014 - 02:08pm PT
|
I don't read the rags much and as long as it's not outright lies they have to do what they have to do to sell them / survive.
Seems like the smart thing to do would be to allow climbing only with a Navajo guide. It would create good jobs, and allow a Navajo to monitor activity to make sure the environment is respected. Win-Win.
|
|
patrick compton
Trad climber
van
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2014 - 02:25pm PT
|
"Navajo climbing guide" sounds like a great financial opportunity
Watch 'Navajo Cops' on Netflix to see what life is really like on the Rez.
opening up their land to guided climbing could be a real positive for people locked into poverty and addiction
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Social climber
SLO, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2014 - 02:37pm PT
|
It ain't Indian Creek out there, in more ways than one.
|
|
fluffy
Trad climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 29, 2014 - 02:40pm PT
|
Couldn't agree more. However there are still considerable barriers to accomplishing this and to me the RnI article jeopardizes the dialogue and negotiations necessary to accomplish this. Running a cover story green-lighting Navajolands should come AFTER permission is granted, not before.
|
|
crunch
Social climber
CO
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2014 - 02:45pm PT
|
Hey fluffy,
I actually really liked the article. It's honest, up front. It explores (and exposes) the complexity of the situation.
the legality of climbing is uncertain, in a land where no one has ownership of land (in the normal, modern, western sense) and where police/local Navajo/Reservation-wide Navajo/State/Federal jurisdiction is still not really figured out.
Best thing seems to be to climb with respect, with permission from the locals. If this is not forthcoming, leave. Navajos who enjoy climbing--recreating, engaging in a healthy way with their landscape--really changes the picture.
The cover is what it is. They are trying to sell magazines. Both R&I and Climbing are struggling to come up with anything to grab the readers' attention.They almost give subscriptions away.
Myself, while I enjoyed this article, I really hated the irresponsible, deceptive, distorted article about the rappelling fatality in the Cascades. One of the most annoying articles on climbing I've ever seen in print. Careful reading of the online version exposes how dishonest the final R&I print version is. There was a thread about this. The print version of the online article is actually worse than the online one.
http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum/2273906/Chopped-bolts-lead-to-death-on-Forbidden-Peak
I'd cancel my subscription for this ... then I'd start it up again when another Jason Haas article appears!
And thanks Ghost!
Crusher
|
|
Sierra Ledge Rat
Mountain climber
Old and Broken Down in Appalachia
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2014 - 02:45pm PT
|
opening up their land to guided climbing could be a real positive for people locked into poverty and addiction
yeah - like churches renting out rooms for prostitution would bring in a lot of cash for the church
ain't gonna happen 'cause it ain't about the $$$
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2014 - 03:16pm PT
|
For example, the cover itself claims that climbing on the Rez is ''not necessarily' prohibited. It is, a fact laid out in the article itself. There is nothing new regarding the ban, it is still total and official. Why would the magazine present it this way?
to get you to read it. To get you to talk about, and write about it.
They were right, it worked.
As the definitive American climbing publication does Rock and Ice have an obligation to uphold ethical standards?
They do. But here's the rub: you aren't a professional journalist, and you don't define what the ethical standards are for that profession. You think you do, because you are a God-fearing free American, and therefore have an opinion on everything. But you don't.
'There is No Definitive, Official Reservation-Wide Ban on Climbing' which is taken out of context and leads readers to conclude that it's ok to climb there. The rest of that quote is the statement that would-be climbers would still have to get permission from the heads of each Chapter and the person(s) holding grazing permits on those lands.
I'm not sure that you are in a position to state what people think or conclude. Probably, they do what you do, and read further.
|
|
fluffy
Trad climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 29, 2014 - 03:24pm PT
|
Crusher, thanks for weighing in. Your input and perspective are invaluable and greatly appreciated. Regarding the 'chopped bolts lead to fatality' bullsh*t that was just published I was similarly disgusted. This provides a further example of my original complaint. Thanks for bringing it up.
|
|
ß Î Ø T Ç H
Boulder climber
extraordinaire
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2014 - 03:24pm PT
|
rent-a-Navajo
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Social climber
SLO, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2014 - 03:26pm PT
|
Here's what the tribe has to say:
SPECIAL NOTE TO ALL VISITORS AND TOURISTS
All areas on the Navajo Nation are closed to non-Navajos unless you have a valid camping, hiking or backcountry permit issued by the Navajo Parks and Recreation Department or other duly delegated tribal authority. Failure to have a permit is considered Trespassing on a Federal Indian Reservation.
DO NOT desecrate Navajo lands and violate the trust of Navajo people by discarding cremated human remains on tribal property. Please respect tribal beliefs.
NO ROCK CLIMBING or BASE JUMPING on Navajo Land. Please abide by the humble religious requests of the Navajo people and do not climb the Monuments. “Navajo law will be strictly enforced on this issue,” Parks Department Manager.
http://navajonationparks.org/permits.htm
|
|
mucci
Trad climber
The pitch of Bagalaar above you
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2014 - 03:44pm PT
|
I have had issues with edits on submissions. Statements taken out of context, then printed without my approval.
Standard practice, they protect what they invest in....Repeat authors/writers.
Jeff Jackson and I had email correspondence awhile back after the Riggins article and he basically said he didn't think his magazine should take any ethical stance, only report what is happening in the climbing world...that to do otherwise would amount to censorship.
Talk about censorship...Yeah, right. Keep on cutting up others work, Spin it to the kids nice and neat JJ.
R&I is dead.
|
|
SteveW
Trad climber
The state of confusion
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2014 - 03:56pm PT
|
I agree with Crusher.
Jason did a good job with the article--I'd love to one
day climb in the Navajo lands. But only if it is a sanctioned
climb.
|
|
fluffy
Trad climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 29, 2014 - 04:04pm PT
|
In case I wasn't clear in the OP I liked what Jason wrote, and took no issue with it. The way it was presented bothered me.
Just looking for a little journalistic integrity, tough to find these days.
|
|
crunch
Social climber
CO
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2014 - 04:11pm PT
|
Here's what the tribe has to say:
SPECIAL NOTE TO ALL VISITORS AND TOURISTS
All areas on the Navajo Nation are closed to non-Navajos unless you have a valid camping, hiking or backcountry permit issued by the Navajo Parks and Recreation Department or other duly delegated tribal authority. Failure to have a permit is considered Trespassing on a Federal Indian Reservation.
DO NOT desecrate Navajo lands and violate the trust of Navajo people by discarding cremated human remains on tribal property. Please respect tribal beliefs.
NO ROCK CLIMBING or BASE JUMPING on Navajo Land. Please abide by the humble religious requests of the Navajo people and do not climb the Monuments. “Navajo law will be strictly enforced on this issue,” Parks Department Manager.
http://navajonationparks.org/permits.htm
What complicates things is that "the tribe" is far from a homogenous unit, and is not in agreement on this (nor on many other things).
An equivalent? Perhaps the conflict between federal and state laws, right now, over marijuana. Federal law states quite clearly that pot is illegal. Yet Colorado and Washington are openly in conflict with this. I read just today of CO mothers feeding specific, low THC strains of pot to autistic/developmentally slow toddlers and reporting that results were far superior to prescription drugs. Feeding pot to 3-year-olds? On the face of it this is criminal and totally immoral. And yet....
My take is that the real crux of the matter (back to climbing on the rez) is that a few climbers will usually be welcome. Small numbers allow for meaningful interaction and a pleasant, fulfilling experience for all. But if an easing of the ban results in crowds of gumbies, Half-Dome-Cables-style (or Everest-style), ascending the Totem Pole, Left Mitten Thumb or Shiprock, driving in, driving straight back out, this will be resented and will cause the currently nominal ban to be enforced again, and perhaps more strongly than ever.
EDIT: Sorry for the thread drift, fluffy. About the cover. I thought it was okay. But I don't have high expectations these days. The covers promise far more than the inside actually delivers. It's been that way for years. There's so much media--blogs, mags, websites, forums, sponsored climbers, on and on, all competing for attention that the print mags are kinda dying, they have to yell and exaggerate just to get any attention. Pre-internet they were all there was for information on new routes, opinion, access. They were more important and more careful back then. Now they seem to be all ads with a few frothy features, generally about sponsored climbers, thrown in. The Jason Haas article was an exception. Made me buy a copy.
|
|
Joshua Johnson
Boulder climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2014 - 04:23pm PT
|
Don't plan on climbing any of the towers in that article for a while.
You put this nonsense in a "magazine" and much like a bouldering area that is hyped, kids will come.
|
|
the albatross
Gym climber
Flagstaff
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2014 - 04:44pm PT
|
I believe that Jeff Jackson and his cohorts at Rock and Ice have been doing a real disservice to the climbing community for a number of years.
I am glad to see other folks upset with this magazine.
Several years ago R&I published an article with the headlines something like, "Climbers defy bolt ban at Red Rocks." I did not think it was a good idea to glorify criminal activity by climbers and contacted the author of the story. This young man basically told me that he and the photographer did it for the money.
|
|
Al_Smith
climber
San Francisco, CA
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2014 - 05:17pm PT
|
Sorry for the totally off-topic reply, but I also wanted to provide some praise for Bartlett's book...
As a total bibliophile, I have a great many books stacked all over the place in my apartment. In fact, I've purchased virtually every climbing related book I've been able to get my hands on, going so far as to fly home from Boulder, New Hampshire, even Chamonix and Switzerland, with books in my arms where I had purchased them without room in my luggage to transport them home. Its been a constant source of amusement and some frustration for my girlfriend. Now, with credentials established, I'll go on to say that Bartlett's book is without a doubt the absolute best climbing related book that I own...Deeply researched, incredibly well written, and full of awe inspiring photographs from one of our absolute luminaries of desert climbing.
I went so far as to purchase a second copy to send to a friend who is more interested in the desert than climbing and he reported back that he absolutely loved it.
If you haven't yet had the chance, I'd highly recommend you check it out! (And fwiw, I don't normally sling praise around, and certainly not in public. I know Crusher is on this thread, so want to be clear that I'm not a shameless flatterer...just someone who truly LOVES that book!)
|
|
fluffy
Trad climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 29, 2014 - 05:53pm PT
|
Yeah that Red Rocks article stands out as particularly offensive, though it is only one of many such articles published in recent years that demonstrate a lack of integrity, moral compass and commitment to ethical standards.
Anything to sell ad space I guess. Even if it means jeopardizing access and goodwill with land managers.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!