Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
it's a good point, but climbers have to be able to explain that their "trails" are similar to what happens along very popular hikes.
Land managers, by-and-large, understand this, the difference is that the public can see signs of climbers in popular areas, where as few but hikers see the other...
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
"Your argument seems to revolve around
-few people are offended by bolts---so they don't matter."
True
Then be fully prepared and happy, when the vast majority of visitors to Yosemite make it known that they want the small minority of dirtbag climbers banned.
Those that live by the sword had better be prepared to die by it.
I'm curious Ken, how often do you do new routes, how much sport climbing do you do, and how much bolting have you done? The answers to these questions are relevant to the understanding you have of the issues here.
My experience is that such questions are generally used to attack whoever is asked, particularly when they are not preceded by your own resume. For example, you've set a standard that relates to what a spouses occupation is. What is your spouses occupation?
But I'll play your game. While I've recreated in the Sierra for 55+ years, I am now severely disabled and can only walk with the use of a cane, with great pain, and slowly. I've been more of a mountain climber than a rock climber (note my avatar), although I taught rock climbing for a number of years at Stoney, and elsewhere. Some of my first ascents are recorded in Secor, some by name, most not. I've never placed a bolt, and never will. I've spent the majority of my last 10 summers working as a volunteer trail crew supervisor.
There are several people on this board who know me personally.
Now, of course, you can proceed to tell me why I'm inadequate to have an opinion about anything.
My point was that climbing is no more of a "privilege" than any other outdoor activity. I'd like to know why it is if you disagree. The other point is that public land is just that, public, and the public should have considerable freedom to enjoy it as they like. Of course some regulation is needed, but it should be balanced with user needs.
You generally need a permit to backpack, generally not to climb.
You generally need a permit to ride a horse overnite, not to climb.
You need a permit to BASE jump in Yosemite, not to climb.
I agree with your last sentence, but the prison rules should not be decided by the prisoners, to use an analogy. User needs are not even the first on the list of things that need to be balanced.
|
|
Todd Eastman
climber
Bellingham, WA
|
|
Yo Warbs,
Are you at the table when the land managers make decisions about what is and is not permitted on public lands?
And, are you a constant representative of the broader climbing community?
Point is that hikers, bird watchers, horse riders, and dirt bike riders are more likely to be at the table than climbers...
... and then climbers wonder why their accustomed behavior is considered off-base.
|
|
10b4me
Mountain climber
Retired
|
|
Conservation issues trump mere recreation desires unless a carefull plan a la perrigrene falcons on el cap or the chief can be crafted.
+1
This applies to anyone who recreates in the outdoors.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
^
^
^
Yup!
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
for whatever it matters, I didn't think I was being "attacked," certainly challenged.
My wife does influence my thinking on these matters, that's a good thing, we should all be influenced about our thinking on these matters.
There is certainly a spectrum of thought among climbers about what constitutes acceptable access. If we cannot joint together in some consensus as a group, then each of us face the daunting task of defending our own personal vision. However, if we can find the important commonalities we talk with a much stronger voice.
Williamson Rock is a good example for us to learn from.
|
|
pud
climber
Sportbikeville & Yucca brevifolia
|
|
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
You need a permit to camp in a wilderness area, not to day hike in one. You don't need a permit to day hike anywhere else in any National or State Park that I'm aware of, there are probably exceptions, but they're unusual enough to be irelevant.
Half-Dome trail. Mt Whitney Trail. Mt Shasta trails. Mt. Rainier trails above a certain altitude.
I wouldn't call them "irrelevant."
Are you suggesting the vast majority of visitors to Yosemite are offended by bolts? Not just by the concept of bolting when asked about it, but actually directly offended by seeing them whilst recreating when they visit?
I can confidently say that very very few people who don't climb have ever seen the hundreds of bolts I've placed in Yosemite. My routes tend to be in out of the way places.
It would be interesting to know how many complaints the NPS gets in Yosemite from visitors who see bolts, are offended, and otherwise don't have any kind of agenda against bolting. My guess is that it's extremely rare.
I'd respect your opinions more if you prove me wrong w facts rather than conjecture. I've never heard that the vast majority of visitors want climbers banned because of bolting. Have you? If so, who told you that?
I don't assert that anyone is offended by bolts--YOU made that stipulation. I am speaking to the larger presence of climbers, vis-a-vis other visitors, who are probably offended by the dirtbagging, and would certainly be offended that there is this culture of ignoring rules, particularly with camping, when all other visitors are constrained. The only saving grace is that they don't know.
But you are missing my larger point, intentionally, I think. Which is that when you dismiss the rights of a small minority that you don't agree with, you'd better get used to the fact that you BELONG to a small minority, and would be subject to the same dismissal of rights. This brings on the concept of "class warfare", which is always ugly. My position is that everybody is far better off being respectful of other groups, and working to find a common position acceptable to all, and to managers.
"... but the prison rules should not be decided by the prisoners, to use an analogy."
Don't get that analogy, Ken. Are you implying that climbers are somehow deviant or criminal? Your description of climbers as dirtbags in your opening quote is perhaps telling. Maybe you see only climbers who place bolts as "dirtbags"? I dunno, it's your choice of words.
Human rights should be decided by humans. Climbers have a right to climb if it does no significant harm to the environment. I don't see it as a privilege any more than a walk in a park is a privilege. That's all I'm saying.
Are you familiar with the phrase "concrete thinking?" The above is an example. Being incapable of understanding an analogy. "A rolling stone gathers no moss" means nothing to do with stones, moss, nor climbing.
Concrete thinking is generally a sign of mental illness. You may want to think about the contrived image that you are projecting.
You appear to be unfamiliar with the proud description by climbers of themselves as dirtbags, and the "dirtbag lifestyle". If you aren't, you need to do a lot more reading.
You still didn't answer the question about your spouse, although you challenge others on theirs.
You post an impressive resume. I don't know that it is true, when you are unwilling to attach your name to it.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
My climbing was focused there once, but things were way different 45 years ago. Now basically all the routes I do are on BLM and USFS land in San Diego County. Basically no rules, never any other climbers, no hype, no drama, no media.
Then why, oh why, are you involving yourself in a place where you don't climb, jumping directly into the issue of rules, other climbers and recreaters, hype, drama, media???
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
I hope that the discussion on this thread prompts some collective action. In any event, discussing the issues amongst ourselves is at least a start to something that has been off our radar for a while it seems.
Ed, thanks for posting the court decision. I'd like to review it before work fires up again and robs me of any free time or energy.
Also, for the record, I am not in favor of access at the expense of an endangered species. I like to think that climbers identify with some of the creatures that make a home of the places we frequent. Having said that, I don't believe climbers should be singled out as the sole activity that should be regulated when such issues arise.
To get back to a point that I raise a few pages back but that I don't think anyone responded to: if the findings purport that the frogs need the area around Williamson protected in order to preserve the species, then how is "climber involvement" going to change that underlying fact?
I also looked into the CBD and generally agree with most of the policy they support and litigate for. However, if the data they're relying on is either outdated or possibly unreliable (since I different study might have produced different results), is this a basis for reopening discussions?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Ken M -- "You need a permit to BASE jump in Yosemite, not to climb."
There's no such thing.
Hey Kevin .... I can't believe this guy ...... :-(
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
To return to Willy has anybody read the 'study' the closure is based on? I'd like to know what
human activity is causing the froggies' decline, other than the obvious Malthusian issues and
global warming. Could the Angeles Crest Highway not be a bigger factor than a few climbers
walking around a mostly dry creek? The constant thunder of Harleys and the constant
banshee wailing of rice rockets all weekend long up there would cause me to hate life there.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Where is that guidebook btw? : )
even as I post here, I do it with the guilt of not spending those moments on that book...
believe me, we are hard at work, and while I could retire and work completely on it, I'm not sure it would go faster for it.... but rest assured.
my perspective isn't entirely focused on the Valley, as I do climb many different places, and I do like to climb in remote areas far from the crowds...
and while we have our disagreements, I believe we have much more in common, and even on the disagreements we could figure out a way to work together.
I'll try to dig up information on the challenge to climbing from the various organizations that are interested in insuring the environmental assessments are being conducted according to law.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Reilly, if you read the case documents you will learn that the plaintiffs' complaint is that the USG didn't produce the studies that would indicate, one way or the other, the impact of human activity on the endangered species.
What they won was the order by the court to compel the USG to produce those reports prior to issuing the land management plans.
It is entirely possible that those reports will (have?) shown that there is no adverse affect...
as for Williamson Rock, it is also possible that additional studies have to be done for that particular setting.
The language in the current laws layout the concerns to be addressed in such reports, that language is reviewed in the court's findings I linked to up thread.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
So what they're really saying is:
"Science be damned! We don't need no stinkin' study to close an area!"
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
no, you don't seem really patient with reading...
the studies have to conclude that the activities do not further harm the endangered species... once the species have been identified as occupying the area.
the resource manager has to ensure no harm is done to that species in that area.
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
Ed, thanks for your assessment. So, based on your reading, if there were no studies prior to the issuance of the presumed management plan we're dealing with, does the current plan violate the court's order requiring such before the plan's issuance?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
as far as I can tell, and the trail gets pretty thin, the Forest Supervisor's order closing climbing ends in a week and a half. I'm not sure that the funds for the study were found and the study completed yet in this same time, so I presume the closure will continue...
however, I'm sitting up in Livermore, what do the concerned locals know about the situation?
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
no, you don't seem really patient with reading...
You're right, I read between the lines to cut to the chase and, as I noted
earlier, our logical progressions stem from somewhat conflicted axioms.
However, as unlikely as it may seem I do care about the frogs but perhaps
I'm more open to an honest assessment of their plight. Frogs are very
'audible', as it were, as are birds (my particular interest) which truly
makes me fail to see why that highway is allowed to remain open given how
easy it is to prohibit a few climbers from sharing the same 'space'. You
are apparently unfamiliar with the decibel levels up there on weekends -
it is an audible war zone.
|
|
10b4me
Mountain climber
Retired
|
|
Also, for the record, I am not in favor of access at the expense of an endangered species.
thanks for that
I like to think that climbers identify with some of the creatures that make a home of the places we frequent.
judging by the responses on this thread, I think they are few and far between.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!