|
|
|
|
mark99
Jun 22, 2003, 9:32 PM
Post #51 of 62
(5032 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2003
Posts: 92
|
A person who is quite simple told me that nature has a way of caring for itself.
This was in response to dams being built in his area. How people said it would kill all the plant, fish and disturb the natural balance. At first it seemed like it had. Now a few years on and you go back there and nature is doing better then ever.
Now there are issues like logging and clearing of forests which we need to stop and look at. But in regards to rock climbing damaging nature? I think people think nature is this little weak thing. Nature has a way of looking after itself. It has for million and millions of years. The world grows to its surroundings. Evolution is what nature does best. How to survive with it's surroundings.
Now I do believe we should look at what the world is doing to the plant life and animals. I believe in the fact we should be looking at the large picture here, in regards millions of species being wiped out in the rain forest. We need to make priorities, I hate to say it but we are not going to be able to save everything.
As for his concerns of the area, if he really wants to save that area, he needs to ban all people moving in and out of that area. He needs to stop the planes from flying overhead. He also needs to build a large bio fence stopping smoke, smog and other foreign agents.
Overall I believe he should sit down and mabe corner off an area to leave it intake and let some areas for the climbers. Then he should move on. One should never oppose one individual group for what has happened, until he can prove that it is the absolute cause. There is always a time to be political about situations. As now he has raised the hair on the climbers backs, and most of who are supports in his ideas.
(Good thing to get you going on a monday morning)
|
|
|
|
|
xanx
Jun 22, 2003, 9:37 PM
Post #52 of 62
(5032 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 6, 2002
Posts: 1002
|
yo this woudl be so fcking hilarious!
ok here is waht we do: find out where the dude lives and then write him a letter asking him how long it took him to [cyan]walk[/cyan] from where he lives to that cliff, and offer our sympathies for his sore feet. we then mention how admirable it was the he didn't drive anywhere because we all know how much cars destroy the enviroment! I mean, all the [olive]pollution[/olive], the forests that were destroyed to make way for the roads, the drilling for the oil for the gas, the forests destroyed to mine the minerals for the metal, the damage due tot he rubber and plastics, ect.... it just goes on and on!
how funny would that be!
what a hippocrit!
|
|
|
|
|
weaselman
Jun 22, 2003, 11:21 PM
Post #53 of 62
(5032 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 17, 2003
Posts: 294
|
xanx wrote:In reply to: what a hippocrit!
yeah.. no joke. I don't know if anyone else caught this part, but that girl was talking about how she was hanging 8 hours a day for a couple months on that cliff in order to study the damage. Now, how much damage do you think SHE did? probably hundreds of times more than any climber.
sheesh.
|
|
|
|
|
jefffski
Jun 23, 2003, 4:34 AM
Post #54 of 62
(5032 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 286
|
While i agree with most that has been written here, we do need to acknowledge some facts.
the trees that grow at the top of the escarpment are the last of a species of old growth trees in that region. the cliffs are also very special for the other flora that grows there.
concerted proactive action on our part will help ensure that we will always have access to climbing on established cllimbs.
i am not sure what actions the climbing community in toronto has taken but they can:
establish a moratorium on new routes;
close areas that are rarely climbed;
build good trail systems to established climbs to minimize impacts; and
work with the climbing community to promote responsible behaviour.
In squamish bc some climbs were at risk but the terrific access society here worked with the city coucil and now we have a big parking lot with toilets (paid for by valhalla pure) , better trails, a very nice climbers campground, an established park for the stawamus chief and good relationships with many if not all homeowners in the area. Climbers here are seen as assets to the community and that helps everyone. Similar stories can be told about fleming beach in nanaimo, and skaha in penticton, also in bc.
good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
ajkclay
Jun 23, 2003, 6:22 AM
Post #55 of 62
(5032 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2002
Posts: 1567
|
whew! just finished brushing my hair, did i miss anything?
gtg more grooming to do.
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Jun 23, 2003, 7:16 AM
Post #56 of 62
(5032 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
In reply to: yo this woudl be so fcking hilarious! ok here is waht we do: find out where the dude lives and then write him a letter asking him how long it took him to [cyan] walk[/cyan] from where he lives to that cliff, and offer our sympathies for his sore feet. we then mention how admirable it was the he didn't drive anywhere because we all know how much cars destroy the enviroment! I mean, all the [olive]pollution[/olive], the forests that were destroyed to make way for the roads, the drilling for the oil for the gas, the forests destroyed to mine the minerals for the metal, the damage due tot he rubber and plastics, ect.... it just goes on and on! how funny would that be! what a hippocrit!
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
if the trees are of a specific endangered sort, than offcourse they should be protected. but not by banning climbing. by installing rappel/belay anchors.
|
|
|
|
|
fitz
Jun 23, 2003, 8:49 PM
Post #57 of 62
(5032 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2002
Posts: 363
|
In reply to: A person who is quite simple told me that nature has a way of caring for itself. This was in response to dams being built in his area. How people said it would kill all the plant, fish and disturb the natural balance. At first it seemed like it had. Now a few years on and you go back there and nature is doing better then ever.
Again, I'm not into tree hugging, but you have to make a distinction between supply and diversity when judging the 'health' of an eco-system. A few specific species of fish do very well in the Salton Sea, but few of the people who watched their communities die, or who live within smelling distance of the perpetual stench could be convinced that it is anything but a decades old ecological fiasco.
A toxic freakshow fed by the "River of Shit" from Mexico, is nasty regardless if a few species are "thriving" or not.
Biodiversity is probably the most important ecology issue facing humans today. Virtually no one disputes that massive number of species will become extinct in the next 50 years. Conservative think tanks may put the number at 10% and left leaning groups may say 50%, but however you look at it, it is a lot - a die off on par with anything we can find in an archeological record stretching back 10s of millions of years.
Likewise, everyone agrees that reduction in biodiversity will be bad for our own health and quality of life, though, of course, left and right disagree about degree.
Surprisingly, everyone even agrees on the most effective preventive step to take, simple focus on preserving a handful of biological "hot spots" around the world. Essentially setting aside the smallest amount of space to preserve the greatest amount of biodiversity.
But, the last time I looked, a hot spot in California was slated for thousands of housing units. Sadly shortsighted, even to a moderate like me.
But, logical, sensible, and cost effective steps are seldom how human societies function. Look at this issue. Deep down, most Americans care more about who porked whom on a sitcom than an issue like biodiversity. None the less, minority groups, like climbers, can suffer a backlash if their activity is portrayed as ecologically unfriendly.
It is really supply and demand, without the economics. Recreational uses, like climbing, hiking, camping, etc. are tremendously profitable and sustainable uses of public land, but developers in Utah still don't get it (see another thread) and the NFS would still rather lose millions on another braindead clear cutting deal than spend a nickel supporting recreational uses of the same land.
Again, I'm not saying timber harvesting and development shouldn't occur. But, as I find fewer and fewer areas open to climbing, I find it more and more objectionable that agencies like the NFS can lose 10s or even 100s of millions of dollars on leasing deals, while spending the lion's share of its budget building roads exclusively for the use of the timber industry.
-jjf
|
|
|
|
|
evoltobmilc
Jun 25, 2003, 8:05 PM
Post #58 of 62
(5032 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2003
Posts: 85
|
Wow.
I read this post a couple of days and watched the video, and got flaming mad. Then I took a couple of deep breaths and thought about this analytically, and objectively. I found Larson's e-mail address (my dad works in the Pentagon) and sent him a letter. We've been exchanging e-mails for a few days now, and I've come to understand his contentions, and he understands my concerns.
Now, my beef with just about everyone who's posted here except ecoclimbchick: How many of you took the time, effort, and thought to write this man?? You vilify and criticize him without having a clue. Take a step back, and think about possibly having a balanced discussion of this topic. Getting angry, pumped and violent will only make it easier for those with the power to disregard us climbers as bonehead thrillseekers.
And as for violence- when was the last time that your mother condoned violence as a solution to a problem?
Overlord wrote: "talk about a screwed point of view." with regard to Larson's research. Overlord, talk about a screwed point of view!!!! I'm appalled that you would write something like that. :shock: Not to mention, it's probably against the law in some way or another.
Look, I don't want any climbing areas closed any more than the rest of you. I just think that there are better ways of keeping access than fighting for FULL rights. COMPROMISE!! have any of you hear this word before? One possible option would be to place bolting on a permit basis like in Eldo, and other places. This would allow climbers to keep climbing in already damaged ecosystems, while providing necessary protection to those virgin ones.
I'm not even about to get into sport vs trad ethics here, but sport ethics (or lack thereof) do contribute to access problems across the world. I remember reading in a post here not too long ago someone said something like, "Climbing has always had ethics, then sport climbing came along. It's been bleeding on the other areas of climbing since." OK, i'm gonna get flamed for that one.
My biggest point though is this: DEATH THREATS ARE NOT OK!!!!! I'm embarrassed that people from my "community" would send a person death threats for doing research. (Larson HAS received these via e-mail.) FCKING RIDICULOUS for a bunch of supposedly grown human beings.
Be responsible for your actions, be kind to the earth, and for god sake, don't kill anybody over route closures!!
David
|
|
|
|
|
hoppinbig
Jun 25, 2003, 8:38 PM
Post #59 of 62
(5032 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 409
|
David,
I too have been emailing Larson ever since I started this thread, a simple google search will get you Larson's email address - but good thing daddy at the Pentagon was able to get it for you.
Just today I received copies of Larson's research - so I have decided to abstain from making more comments on this matter till I read the report. I stand by the fact that the Discovery Channel should be ashamed of this blantantly biased piece of reporting - all this from a channel that spotlights Monster Machines that take up tremendous amounts of resources to build and cause unthinkable damage to the environment. How blatantly hypocritacle of them to be so slanderous against climbers
|
|
|
|
|
phitty
Jun 25, 2003, 9:06 PM
Post #60 of 62
(5032 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 16, 2002
Posts: 98
|
From the Gripped.com website (Canadian Climbing Mag)
______________________________
I just got this response from the discovery channel regarding my email.
Thanks for your note. I have been away from my desk for a
week and hence am late in replying, for which I apologize.
The story towhich you refer is one that I have seen, but which was
commissioned before I became Exec of Daily Planet. I ran the story, because I work in a reality where we cannot afford to throw away stories on which money has been spent, but while as a non-climber I don't share your outrage, I did think it was a silly piece. My son, who does climb, described it as an example of egregious kill-joying. I have found in my just under a year here at Discovery, that often people who love nature or animals, regard any human
involvement in either to be intrusive and destructive. It is at best a simplistic view. I understand your anger at being lumped in with people who leave garbage in parks, or who thoughtlessly destroy the world around them. I also understand that most climbers are exactly the opposite sort of people. We will certainly avoid painting everyone with the same brush in all future stories. Thanks for your thoughtful letter.
regards, Kim Orchard.
THE WHOLE THREAD CAN BE FOUND HERE
http://www.gripped.com/forum/toast.asp?sub=show&action=posts&fid=8&tid=533
|
|
|
|
|
evoltobmilc
Jun 25, 2003, 9:34 PM
Post #61 of 62
(5032 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2003
Posts: 85
|
hoppinbig,
The pentagon comment was sarcasm. I got it off of google, too.
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Jun 26, 2003, 12:06 AM
Post #62 of 62
(5032 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
Lemme get this straight. We have an ecologist who is worried about climbers on a cliff that is how long, did I hear right 700 kilometres long. Where is the balance in this "science". Methinks I smell a funding submission here.
What I would like to know is how many routes are affecting this cliff in its entire length and what is that percentage. From what I saw using tree protecting slings does absolutely nothing to the tree in any way harmful. I would be concerned if climbers were pulling their ropes around the tree without the use of a sling.
I was totally disgusted with the methodology as presented on this show. What an outrageous waste of funding.
Did anyone else notice the girl researcher climbing up the rock and developing significant slack in the rope coming down to her. If she had fallen and that being static rope there would have been severe consequences. Where is the scientific rigour in this study when they cannot even get basic risk assessment stuff right.
As with most if not all ecological and environment studies this study is also tainted with the bias of political and personal bias.
Of course this opinion of mine does nothing in a real sense to counter this persons so called scientific opinion. What is needed is for another study to debunk this study. Put the study under the microscope of proper scientific opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
