Pro Climbing the Tower:
www.devils-tower.com/freedom/

Why should the Native Americans (....hey, I was born in Ohio...aren't I a Native American?) religious beliefs be more important than mine? I wouldn't climb D.T. to be disrespectful to them, but merely to worship the same Earth and Great Being they do.....just in a different way. The next time I go to DT, it will be in June.....no lines!

Freedom: use it or lose it.

T
What about the guide that only has a few months to earn his bread?
I suspect there may be some anti-anglo racism involved. Yeah we murdered them, they murdered us, but none of us climbers had anything to do with it.. Whats next?
I'm all for protecting the rights of minorities (I am one), but this crosses the line and if made mandatory becomes tyranny of the minority . We're all lucky just to be around. We should learn to share.

If you want to read the real rant, do View - Source on the page that shaggyj mentions...

Climb in June as much as you can, and never support the Access Fund ~ They have tried, and are continuing to try, to close climbing areas, but couldn't at Devils Tower. The Access Fund Representatives that negotiated on behalf of the climbers during the planning stage of Climbing Management Plan agreed to close the Tower to climbing.

You're kidding, right?

How about the fact that we murdered them, stole their land, and forced them into fragments of their previous lives (STEALING THEIR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS)?

Get off your fecking horse and get some respect. Imagine if the Indians pissed on your cross.

Jonathan

It doesn't seem like too much to ask. There are many altruistic reasons to respect the voluntary closure and only selfish reasons not to.

And if you tell me climbing on Devil's Tower is your religion... bull s---.

Basically, I want no ranters who spew without a backup! !

WE DIDN'T KILL THEM AND TAKE THEIR LAND!!

HE nor his parents nor his grandparents killed any Indians. Although I can sympathize with the Indians, this argument about stealing land and all that has gotten to me. WE, as in you and I and EVERY other member on rc.com, has never had any part in killing indians or any other "atrocity" in the past.. Show me 1 person in this country today that was involved in killing off the Indians and taking their land.

I just can't sign on to policies that exclude other users of open space. Sorry. Banning snowmobiles and motorcycles, sure. But keeping group X out because group Y doesn't want to see them, no. Forget it.

There are many sanctimonious reasons to respect closures as well.

So you only respect numbers, eh? How quaint.

I'm sorry, but aren't you contradicting yourself here?

There are thousands of rocks, of non-Native American Indian importance, to be climbed. It's not a ridiculous argument. There is probably a greater number of the population that would side with cultural preservation than the cause of climbers. If we want to climb in these areas (Hueco, Devil's Tower, etc), we have to respect their history, their wishes, and find a compromise. The middle way is the only way.

Sorry, but whether you like it or not, you are responsible for your government actions, and for all of history. Go to Vietnam and see for yourself. People will still double take when they find out you're an American, and there are still craters in the earth. More currently, most of the rest of the world hates you and me, and the bulk of rc.com because of recent history and politics. WE didn't have anything to do with (insert American foreign policy stance of choice here). Nobody cares, we're still responsible for the things our government does. Take some responsibility.

To a degree you are correct, but I would argue that the noise from snowmobiles and off road bikes without a real muffler is a lot more intrusive to the average user's wilderness experience than simply seeing another person. And I think it's great that many of you have chosen to honor this request to stay off the tower in June. That's a private negotiation between you and the party requesting it. But for you to browbeat others into seeing the light with assertions to do otherwise is selfish and deserving bad karma is a bit much.

But the real issue is not whether or not to honor such bans, but rather where do they come from? What mindset demand one group to not tread in an arbitrary area for an arbitrary reason? That's what I question more than anything else. The idea that because something is sacred that it should be fenced off, closed down, and preserved from the poluting influences of the great unwashed (or the unworthy heathens) is offensive to me personally.

So compromise if you will. I seriously doubt it is truly appreciated by the groups that demand it of you. You are only meeting them half way after all. In the future there will be new demands that you stay out of yet another area for similar reasons. In short this gesture of good will is meaningless. They still want you gone.

Let me preface this by saying that I actually support the voluntary closure, because Devils Tower is too bloody hot to climb in June anyway. No skin off my back to not climb it then. However, fargoan, I fail to see how punishing me for the actions of a government that I did not elect, did not support, did not yet exist to follow solves anything. The sins of the father argument only works if your father sinned. Both of my parents were against the Vietnam War, but am I still responsible for it? I'm part Jewish, does that make me responsible for the Holocaust? My family was too poor to own slaves before the civil war, should I still have to pay reparations to descendents of slaves? Why should I be punished for the unforgiveable sin of being born in this country, while others who are no different from me get the spoils because they were born in this country?

Israel (IMO, and I'll say that I don't know jack about this history other than a broad understanding) seems to me that it was in part created due to the Holocaust, as a means of repayment. Now, the Palestinians and others may see this as some kind of punishment ("one man's terrorist...."), but it seems to me that it was an attempt to make amends for a terrible history of actions against a group of people.

Israel was a result of the Balfour Declaration following the first world war. The British (specifically Arthur Balfour, Foreign Secretary) pledge their support for a Jewish state to Lord Rothschild, a Jewish leader. The purpose of the declaration was to gain Jewish support for the allies in the first world war. The letter that Balfour wrote is dated Nov. 2, 1917. It was part of the propaganda effort of the British against the Germans.

In the past, Native American objections to public land use were often just a handy excuse for land managers to do what they want anyway. But, since many of the tribes have finally found a profitable way to use the crap lands that we have banished them to, Indian Gaming Money has become a significant political power. If mommy told you it was easy to fight city hall, she was lying. Making enemies with reasonable political clout is a good way to turn a voluntary one month ban into a year round in-voluntary one.

So, if you like climbing, and would like to be able to share special climbs like Durrance, Black's Crack, etc. with your own kids in the future, think twice about thwarting a voluntary compromise.

-jjf

...

the idea behind the voluntary closure is that this is "sharing" the land. but this is not "sharing" this is "segregation" or "seperatism". it's counterproductive to this whole noble cause of "respect" everyone is spouting off about. put down your karmic superstition, and pick up your cams and your minds.

When anyone’s land usage requires ommitting others, then I take umbrage with that. It’s not private property. Monument Valley, on the other hand, is owned by a particular tribe as I understand and they can do with it what they please and keep out anyone they like. And if all you are concerned about is not hurting some group’s feelings by disagreeing with them, then that is your cross to bear.

Poor justification for your argument again. See “sins of the fathers� comment.

What, in the philosophy of letting all users use the same land resources for recreation and other purposes is selfish? How is this “me first�? To say one can’t enjoy a place because others are there is selfish. It is so selfish that to say otherwise is sheer mendacity. The water is just pouring out of that sieve of an argument. It is not limited to climbers being singled out. It has everything to do with the principle of the argument, that special groups can demand others vacate a public park for what amounts to religious reasons.

What if another tribe that predated the one making the claim of ownership came forth and said this tribe killed off theirs in a bloody battle? Give it to them? What if their tribe wanted to build a casino on top of the Tower with a cable car ride to access it? Still want to go with your “they came first� argument?

Nicely phrased there, Rob.

Aliens will snatch you right off the 3rd pitch of the Durrance and take you to the Narvik 5 system where they will perform experiments on you and feed you regurgitated copies of Backpacker before dumping you somewhere in the Everglades minus a kidney and your retinas.

Originally posted by Slabmaster:

granitegod, remember Sonny Bonno? Made some dumb ass remark about the Endangered Spices Act being a waste of time. Seems a tree jumped out in front of him while he was skiing some time later. Bad karma.

Watch for falling rock this year...

I fail to see a relevent point that you are making here. I am talking about cultural sensitivity, which does not seem to rank high on your list of priorities. Land usage does. That's fine. Who care about other cultures anyway?

It's a "voluntary closure." Basically, this just means they're saying, "Please don't climb, but you can if you want to."

If you believe that NAs have a valid claim to ask for no climbing, you should respect those wishes. If you don't, climb on.

I think that it's important to note the following:
(1) We (climbers) do not own DT.
(2) They (NAs/LBRPs) do not DT.

However, we both have competing purposes for DT. There is a difference between appeasement and compromise, something many in this forum are not recognizing. With the current tenor of SCUS, as well as the prevailing legal precedents regarding the establishment of religion, it is highly unlikely that any mandatory closure will ever be legally enforceable. The 'slippery slope' is a creation of our paranoia and suspect of other's motives.

The political environment is also not conducive towards a mandatory closure. Contrary to what other believe, AIM and its successor organizations have expended most of their political capital. NA lobbyist groups are spending most of their time and effort on NAGRA as well as gaming agreements. Closing access to areas is low on national agenda, rather, it is a result of a variety of smaller local groups.

The NPS has created a win-win situation for everyone involved, in my opinion: through the announcement of the voluntary closure have requested that we, climbers, respect the religious beliefs of another group. However, we are free to whatever we wish to do. It is a stronger message than the LBRPs could send, due to source authority, et al, but lacks enforcement teeth.

I believe that we should respect this closure. It creates goodwill and a sense that compromise is an effective solution. The alternative proposed by Friends of Devils Tower (in their source message) is to increase climbing, forcing a confrontation. This will only demonstrate a lack of understanding and respect from the climbing community, hurting us both politically and in terms of public opinion. There are visually powerful images availible to LBRPs: Christians - Would you like it if climbers could climb your church during Christmas? (Imagine the OWs on the Notre Dame Cathedral.) Moslims/Muslims - Would you like it if climbers could climb your minaret during Ramadan? (Masjid al Haram would offer great exposure ...)

If climbers are willing to respect the voluntary closures, it allows us greater political capital to spend, both in relation to NA issues of access as well as NPS access issues. If we demonstrate to the NPS that we are willing to work with them, rather than against them, we have the opportunity for greater access.

coylec

Factual corrections, not that anyone really cares. Mount Rushmore is a memorial. Monuments are made by Presidential Proclamation and not legislation, as Roosevelt did in 1906 (using the power given to him in the Antiquities Act) with Devils Tower saying that it was "a natural wonder and object of great scientific interest…to reserve, preserve, and protect the lofty isolated road and surrounding reserved public lands as an object of historic and scientific interest for the public benefit."

Oh, and there was some preacher in Oklahoma who actually wanted to put a big statue of Jesus on the Tower in the 1950s, and people think Rushmore created a storm, so a casino isn't the craziest idea! Nonetheless, I think a casino is out.

Get a grip, we are not just talking about public land, we are talking about a National Monument.

...the actual transfer of the land into public domain is dirty. Emminent Domain requires fair compensation and we changed our mind about paying.

Second, the legislation that makes the tower a National Monument doesn't talk about climbing, it talks about preservation and historical and cultural significance.

When you look at a place like Hueco Tanks or Devil's Tower from even a slightly objective point of view, it seems pretty miraculous to me that you can climb in these areas at all.

When you can still go to a place like the Tower, mid-week and offseason, and enjoy a classic route and view without waiting for hours at each belay station for a spectacularly rotund group of spandex clad women from Saint Paul to stop dropping hexes on you, it seems pretty accessible to me. If stopping commercial climbing and discouraging private climing for a month each year is a compromise that keeps that experience available, I'm all for it.

That way I'll have time to do the Tower with each of my children before you get out of prison and screw up access for all of us...

-jjf

It can be said that we worship by climbing.

"Sins of the Fathers" arguments to justify this and that don't have a leg to stand on.

But the real issue is not whether or not to honor such bans, but rather where do they come from? What mindset demand one group to not tread in an arbitrary area for an arbitrary reason? That's what I question more than anything else. The idea that because something is sacred that it should be fenced off, closed down, and preserved from the poluting influences of the great unwashed (or the unworthy heathens) is offensive to me personally.

Is it bad form (or at least extreemly disrespectful) to climb the tower in the month of June?

You're kidding, right?

How about the fact that we murdered them, stole their land, and forced them into fragments of their previous lives (STEALING THEIR RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS)?

Get off your fecking horse and get some respect. Imagine if the Indians pissed on your cross.

Jonathan

I thought this thread was dead in April.

It is so last month guys!

Get over it!