Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
May 28, 2009 - 01:38am PT
|
jstan--maybe I'm missing something, but your "very practical reason" to prohibit climbing would apply with equal force to prohibiting climbing everywhere in the country. I don't get your point.
Don't worry about responding, it's probably just me.
Talking about climbing access in the cases where some Indians (and more importantly, their white sympathizers) want to curtail it seems to end up suspiciously like talking about abortion rights or gay marriage or whatever other cultural wedge issues people like to talk about: it is almost impossible to get anyone to budge.
I like to climb rocks and see it as a generally positive activity in this world where so many are content to live 99% of their lives on the sofa, in their car, and in their cubicles. So I resist when the government tries to limit climbing on public land on the pretext that it that hurts some other people's feelings. It doesn't actually affect me that much--I have the means to pretty much go wherever I want to go within reason. But I feel especially bad for local kids who want to climb, but can't because it hurts someone else's feelings and the government decides that protecting those hurt feelings is more important than allowing recreation on publicly owned land. That hurts MY feelings, big time. Maybe it's just a battle of who has more political power, but I don't think governmental decisions to ban a generally lawful recreational activity should be based on the fact some other people claim psychic injury when third parties engage in the activity.
Seems real simple to me.
I guess the opposite conclusion seems real simple to some of you. What I really don't understand is: why are you on a climbers' forum, and not on a native-American-right-to-stop-climbers forum, or a pioneer "view shed" forum (the lame-ass excuse used to limit climbing at City of Rocks), or the forum of some other group who acts all butt hurt when other people are climbing rocks? (And it mostly is an act, as easily proved by the FACT that Cave Rock was a literal dump until cleaned up by climbers.)
Again, I'm not sure why I'm writing this because I don't expect to change anyone's mind, just as you won't change mind. (But if anyone does respond, I'll at least try to keep an open mind.)
A final point: to all of you who are support Indian rights to stop climbers because it hurts the Indians' feelings and allegedly violates their religion--how is that different from those trying to stop gay marriage because gay marriage hurts their feelings and violates their religion? Or to equate it to the abortion issue, I've always liked the slogan: if you don't like abortion, don't get one. It doesn't change anyone's mind, but it makes my point: we generally don't limit activity just because some people claim they don't like it when some other people engage in that activity.
Now back to planning my June trip to Devils Tower . . . It will be freaking SWEEEET!!!!!
|
|
Todd Gordon
Trad climber
Joshua Tree, Cal
|
|
|
May 28, 2009 - 02:32am PT
|
The climber in the picture removing the bolts reminds me of the climbers who the Navajo Nation paid to come remove the bolts on the Totem Pole in Monument Valley......only the Totem Pole climbers got to be the "last" climbers to do the climb....THEN they removed the bolts on the way down......(that's twisted....)....of course...the bolts have been replaced.....It's sad to see a cool place taken apart......A place where people got together to challenge themselves and enjoy each other's company;......something that the human race seems to respect and value.......now it's just something to look at out of the corner of your eye as you buzz past on the highway.......
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
May 28, 2009 - 02:42am PT
|
Man, it's unreal how the Cave Rock closure has so many skivvies in a twist. Is it unfortunate? Yes. Was some level of climbing history made there? A little, yes. Is there great irony in the big hole adjacent, and the 'improvements' made by the developers, as compared to its previous, trashed use? Absolutely. Did some stupid *ss political shenanigans occur during the process? Depending on who you talk to, no doubt.
Stop fixating on this site, and move on. The Sierra Nevada is a 450 x 60 mile wide batholith of the finest granite on earth, and if that isn't enough for you, it is only one of hundreds of ranges in the world. How about spending your energy on another site, or better yet, how the climbing community can better approach the next access issue that pops up?
|
|
maxdacat
Trad climber
Sydney, Australia
|
|
|
May 28, 2009 - 07:49am PT
|
what a shame....but on the bright side maybe get sonnie down for some retro trad ascents.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
May 28, 2009 - 09:59am PT
|
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
Only in Sonnie wants to get arreested, possibly spend some time in a federal prison and, probably, upon release, be banned from entering the US for a good long time. I hope the guy's got better things to do.
Climbing is illegal at Cave Rock.
It's not about the bolts, yo.
CLIMBING, ITSELF, IS ILLEGAL. BOULDERING, RETRO TRAD, SOLOING, WHATEVER!!!
There's been an incredible amount of igornace posted in this thread (or related threads)--for example, someone posted that the routes were rap bolted, when that's not the case.
That ignorance, I believe, had led to the "this is no big deal" attitude lots of you seem to have.
Not saying this is the end of the world, but it is a big deal to me and to many others.
(My statement is based on reading press accounts, not any court documents. If somehow the press has screwed this up, let me know.)
|
|
Hootervillian
climber
the Hooterville World-Guardian
|
|
|
May 28, 2009 - 11:28am PT
|
Actually I can think of a very practical reason why climbing might specifically be prohibited.
Imagine for a moment that there had been a long history of noncompliance. Responsible authorities have to worry about having a recurring budget for enforcement. One way to keep that budgetary requirement down in such an environment is simply to prohibit all forms of that activity. Then when any such thing is seen the LEO has a cut and dried situation. And it makes the intention of the authorities so clear no one can play games. Many fewer arguments and much easier enforcement. Like "I was not climbing. I was bouldering." Or, "Yes I was climbing but it was not recreational. My friend here was paying me to climb."
If the hands and feet were on the rock the wristlets can come out immediately.
Now close your eyes and imagine you're in "Yosemite". (with all due respect to Matthew McConaughey) Despite rescue costs, improvements, waste management, cleanup, a pervasive discord with authority, etc... unfettered access during the 'golden years' must have been nice; develop rock, a name, and cottage industry.
Hey, let's get together as climbers and set a real example. "One Percent for Posterity". Organize and campaign in good faith to give the Ahwahnee back to the descendants of the Ahwahnechee.
Not just a token but finally something resembling a resource.
down wit OPP?
Edit-
"One has to wonder if other areas in the US face questions like those at Cave Rock.
read the previously posted [url="http://www.rgj.com/article/20090503/NEWS07/90503009&OAS_sitepage=news.rgj.com%2Fbreakingnews" target="_blank"]link.[/url]
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
May 28, 2009 - 11:29am PT
|
I repeat an earlier post of mine.
"One has to wonder if other areas in the US face questions like those at Cave Rock.
If so, do we plan to follow the same script?"
BB:
Having the same thing happening in many places is exactly what I am worried about. You will note my first words were, "Imagine there had been a long period of non-compliance.."
If climbers were generally to feel there were NO RULES and it was an entitlement for them to do whatever they please, wherever they pleased, whenever they pleased any thinking person would come to expect trouble.
What is all of this really about?
A society can exist only when its members work cooperatively. Thanks to John Muir our society became convinced of the benefits afforded by holding certain lands undeveloped. People paid taxes to make this possible. Society provides benefits to its members in exchange for their taxes and cooperation. Jobs, good water, a chance at housing, a law abiding populace where you can raise your children. You know. Small stuff like this.
Now the ideal society is one where everyone understands the exchange and they cooperate willingly. No one gets ordered to do anything. Climbers can avoid getting ordered around if they accept that the rules they impose upon themselves have benefits.
Climbers who place no rules upon themselves are attempting to place themselves above everyone else. In society generally this is what jails are for. If we imagine Cave Rock involved an extended period of non-compliance then I have to suggest Cave Rock would have been sent to jail. WE have to determine for ourselves what truly happened at that site and act accordingly. If society's requirements were flaunted then we need to make sure this is not repeated elsewhere.
Look to all of the areas, like Yosemite, the Gunks, and climbing areas in the southeast, Eldorado, Oregon, and many others where climbers are working proactively with managers of the land.
And then make your choice as to which approach you think will provide you with a future.
It's a tough move. Think you can do it?
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
May 28, 2009 - 12:19pm PT
|
I agree with jstan's point that climbers must work within society's rules to keep climbing access open. Being an "outlaw" in this age of ultra-efficient and aggressive law enforcement just gets you arrested and gets more money appropriated for LEOs. My point is that I, and I would hope most climbers, will resist closures of public lands based on the concept that climbing, allegedly, causes psychic injury to others. I don't mean resist by breaking rules (although I'm not above that if the rules can be broken w/o causing any real trouble. I think most people who like to smoke a certain plant feel the same way).
I think we mostly agree on this--the difference may be that I think the closures are BS and I oppose them, generally within the law, whereas many others here seem to think the closures are all just fine.
Edit: Haha--see the post about the "tourons" in the "Devils Tower Rack" thread. I guess I can see why those "tourons" don't give a crap if climbing access is closed, if they get treated like crap but those too-cool-for-skool climbers
(Minor thread drift: my experience has been that nonclimbers generally find the act of climbing to be interesting and want to talk about it. In the many times I've climbed at Devils Tower, I get asked by about every third person whether I "made it to the top" and how "we get the ropes up there." I'm sure the rest of you have the similar experiences. I try to give helpful and positive responses as much as possible. Kind of pisses me off that many climbers think it's a great time to be a condescending A-hole. Aren't I cool?--I just smoked Crack Diablo (ok, I put in a new C4 about every 4-5' cuz I was scared, but I still smoked it). Don't have time to waste talking ma and pa from Iowa.)
|
|
Blitzo
Social climber
Earth
|
|
|
May 28, 2009 - 02:50pm PT
|
Gone.
Photos by Blitzo
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
May 28, 2009 - 02:55pm PT
|
BB:
We are not that far apart if at all. Disagreeing with a law or policy is the only reason you need for trying to get it changed - while at the same time taking that guidance very seriously.
As for poor treatment of others take it from me as a fact. Poor treatment by climbers has, in fact, been an important cause of closures to climbing. On the flip side of that my first trip tp Facelift I was given a lift by a lady in Merced despite my scuzzy appearance. Frankly I would never have picked me up. When she found out what climbers were doing at Facelift she started apologizing for not being able to take me all the way to my destination, even though it was far out of her way.
Ma and Pa from Iowa will line up with us shoulder to shoulder when we make it clear that is the order we seek.
When we say we don't care what Ma and Pa from Iowa think, don't be surprised at what we shall get.
Great simile by the way.
|
|
crunch
Social climber
CO
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2010 - 02:16pm PT
|
There is now a book of the closure:
Cave Rock, by Matthew Makley and Michael Makley.
Their book has its faults and omissions, and is slanted toward the side of those who wanted the place closed, but it does lay out exactly how the whole deal went down.
The book suggests a clear sequence of events with surprisingly little connection with the comments upthread. Either the book’s authors are badly wrong, or we climbers have much to learn.
1. jstan’s comments upthread are astute and wise, but in this case, irrelevant (sorry jstan). The Washoe Chair, Brian Wallace, had no intention of compromising. The authors specifically state that Wallace never varied from his stance. He wanted climbers gone, period. Climbers and the Forest Service went to great lengths to attempt some compromise, to no avail.
2. It’s not clear from the book whether Wallace was really lucky or really clever to prevail in this quest. It’s also not explained what the average Washoe Joe Blow thought of all this fuss. Wallace was voted out in 2006. I wonder why? By this time it was too late to stop the legal trainwreck that he had set in motion.
3. Closing a federally-owned/managed location (this was Forest Service land) for any kind of religious use is a big no-no, under the First Amendment. Plus the Forest Service is supposed to allow for “multi-use” on its land. What went wrong at Cave Rock?
4. The most interesting thing explained in the book is the legal loophole by which Wallace got his closure: he sidestepped the whole “religious” debate and managed, in 1998, to get Cave Rock placed on the National Registry of Historic Places. With this designation comes a raft of requirements as to protection and conservation. In the case of Cave Rock, the tunnels (the first of which was blasted in 1931, the second in 1956), were old enough that they, too, were regarded as “historic” and worthy of protection. They were part of the old Lincoln Highway. They create their own “historic transportation district.”
5. The reason climbing was singled out for being banned was that Cave Rock climbing began in the 1980s, too late to be a valid use when looked at under the “historic” perspective that was now required. Ongoing climbing activity was deemed “damaging” to the “setting, feel and association” of this cultural, historic location. Note: it’s the activity itself, not the physical evidence of climbing (bolts and landscaping), that is deemed damaging.
6. From the above reasoning, it follows that even if Cave Rock had been a trad climbing area, without bolts, climbing could still have been banned.
6. But it’s not all bad news. This perspective, if it’s correct, can work to climbers’ advantage with other potential public land disputes. Devils Tower, where climbing has been around since 1893, with modern routes first established in the 1930s, should be in no danger of being closed, since climbing IS a historic usage (which is why the Native Americans have not pushed for anything beyond the voluntary June closure; they know they will not prevail). Similarly, Half Dome, first climbed in the 1880s. And El Capitan, first scaled in 1958, more than 50 years ago (fifty years being a rough guideline for when something is deemed “historic”).
So, by this reckoning, recording or documenting the history of the first use of an area by climbers can be helpful to keeping an area open. And, year by year, more crags on public lands will become established as locations where climbing is a legitimate, historic usage.
Discuss....
|
|
mark miller
Social climber
Reno
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2010 - 03:54pm PT
|
Drove through it 2x yesterday to & from the Pie Shop. Still pisses me off and I respect the Tribes. This was atypical example of the "INjustice" of the system at work. NDOT has KNO sack. I love their brilliance and designs on the Reno Freeways, Gawd help us all ,and Tiny Tim Too.....
|
|
mark miller
Social climber
Reno
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2010 - 06:50pm PT
|
Amen Ron.....said what I couldn't........
|
|
Charlie B
Social climber
Santa Rosa, Ca
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2010 - 12:14am PT
|
Thanks again Access Fund!
|
|
mark miller
Social climber
Reno
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2010 - 12:19am PT
|
Charlie B. hittin' the nail on the head...........Access fund let us down here, but you know how the judicial system works ? right?. Justice is never served but on a burnt platter of over cooked SPAM, just an educated and experienced servant of the system......
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2010 - 02:34am PT
|
We have had years of P&M about this before, during, and after. Nowhere have I seen a disciplined effort to compare the trend for more restricted freedom in a number of areas.
It would take a bit of very dull work, some thought, and listening to others.
The real impediment, however, may be doing this might tell us something we don't want to hear.
|
|
Curt
Boulder climber
Gilbert, AZ
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2010 - 02:46am PT
|
"...Charlie B. hittin' the nail on the head...........Access fund let us down here..."
If you think that the AF let you down with respect to their efforts to preserve access at Cave Rock, you are a true idiot. I'm actually amazed anyone would go on record saying that.
Curt
|
|
Tahoe climber
climber
Davis these days
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2010 - 12:05pm PT
|
Someone needs to add a bit of fact to this thread.
The Access Fund worked their asses off.
Look. Don't be stupid.
The Indians don't want anyone there - they just picked climbers b/c that's the only battle they can win. Much easier than NDOT or CALTRANS, or even hikers / equestrians / day users - and none of these last are ever really there anyway, honestly.
The ones that screwed this up were Forest service, pure and simple. It was an inner office memo way back that provided 5 or 6 options to go with in case of these kinds of conflict. They range from just letting climbing happen as a shared resource to various levels of comprimise to stopping climbing entirely. Devil's Tower and Lover's Leap are both examples of different levels of compromise resulting from the same exact memo.
For Cave Rock, the FS simply chose the most stringent one - without a clear reason, though the anti-establishment attitude of climbers at the time likely didn't help. In other words, on a whim, probably while pissed at running off climbers and staring a Native American in the face at the time.
The Access Fund fought hard - do you have any clue of how hard it is to take the suit as far as it went?
The implications are more interesting.
1. You can technically still climb at Lower Cave Rock. It's within 30 feet of Lake Tahoe and so is technically still public property without use restrictions. Bolts still there, too.
2. The routes in Upper Cave Rock are almost all hard - a pretty low percentage of climbers can even do them at all, and there aren't a ton. We didn't lose much.
3. The scarier implication - and the greater loss - is the precedent of discriminating against climbers based on religious historical use. Worded correctly, this endangers any climbing area that any American Indian (or anyone else for that matter) claims their great-great grandfather used to pray under. That's why the AF took the suit so far, and why this is so important.
The Sierras have so much good rock - we didn't lose much in actually routes and rock - but stand to lose way, way more if we're not very careful in the future.
Know your facts and behave when bothered by The Man. And PAY ATTENTION.
TC
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
Wolf City, Wyoming
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2010 - 12:28pm PT
|
we didnt loose much note spelling....
Only one of a kind.
|
|
crunch
Social climber
CO
|
|
|
Sep 28, 2010 - 01:03pm PT
|
Hey, Tahoe climber, excellent analysis. You are right to be concerned for the future. I’m reaching slightly different conclusions though.
In the book Cave Rock, by Matthew Makley and Michael Makley, the authors give an explanation of the legal loophole by which Brian Wallace, the Washoe Chairman, got his closure: he sidestepped the whole “religious” debate and managed, in 1998, to get Cave Rock placed on the National Registry of Historic Places. With this designation comes a raft of requirements as to protection and conservation. In the case of Cave Rock, the tunnels (the first of which was blasted in 1931, the second in 1956), were old enough that they, too, were regarded as “historic” and worthy of protection. They were part of the old Lincoln Highway. They create their own “historic transportation district.”
When Tahoe climber says:
“For Cave Rock, the FS simply chose the most stringent one - without a clear reason, though the anti-establishment attitude of climbers at the time likely didn't help. In other words, on a whim, probably while pissed at running off climbers and staring a Native American in the face at the time.”
Maybe the book has this wrong, but the book says that once Cave Rock was placed on the National Registry of Historic Places the FS had little choice about how to run Cave Rock, for this reason:
Cave Rock climbing began in the 1980s, too late to be a valid use when looked at under the “historic” perspective that was now required. Ongoing climbing activity was deemed “damaging” to the “setting, feel and association” of this cultural, historic location (just as it would be on say, Mt. Rushmore).
If there was a point at which decision-making was “on a whim” it was the decision made by the National Registry of Historic Places board that Cave Rock was worthy of inclusion.
The point of my attempt to resurrect this thread about this unfortunate episode (I’m sorry if it’s still too recent, and too raw--it does sounds it was like a very, very painful process, with climbers and the AF going to great lengths to find some compromise that might work), is that this book suggests some really different implications for future access in other areas:
Basically, if a climbing area has had recorded climbing activity for over 50 years, it is safe from a Cave Rock-style closure. But if climbing is a more recent activity, it is not.
Devils Tower, where climbing has been around since 1893, with modern routes first established in the 1930s, should be in no danger of being closed, since climbing IS a historic usage (which is perhaps why the Native Americans have not pushed for anything beyond the voluntary June closure; they know they will not prevail). Similarly, Half Dome, first climbed in the 1880s. And El Capitan, first scaled in 1958, more than 50 years ago (fifty years being a rough guideline for when something is deemed “historic”).
So, by this reckoning, recording or documenting the history of the first use of an area by climbers can be helpful to keeping an area open. And, best of all, year by year, more crags on public lands will become established as locations where climbing is a legitimate, historic usage.
Does this conclusion make sense? Apologies if I have this all wrong.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!