|
|
|
|
roughster
Oct 28, 2003, 7:44 AM
Post #176 of 267
(20715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: Response to "roughster": Quoting you, "...most likely both camps if they had been open up front and willing to work together could have solved the issues before the damage was done in the 1st place". Of course, I'm open to being educated. How would you propose resolving all of the issues by collaborating with Kennedy? I'd like to see your master plan. Thanks, J. S.
Dave goes to CT, likes what he sees. Recognizes untaped potential for a guidebook. Being a professional guidebook author he contacts the areas developers and starts feeling them out about the issue. Initial response is either cold shoulder or flat out aggressive behavior.
The ball is in Daves court now. We know that he chose to proceed. Here is what I would do from that point. Dave contacts John (or vice versa), instead of drawing lines, making demands/threats, they talk about each perspective. Dave is clear that he would prefer to work with John to help preserve the areas uniqueness but also to get the information out.
Johns gets the locals together and discusses the fact that Dave is willing to proceed on his own if need be with a guide. The realization must be there that if dave is not persuaded to not release a guide, that standing idley will have no benefit to CT but rather cause more issues than just working with him. (To me this is really a given, but obviously others would rather see impact and possible closure instead of it)
1st Goal. Discuss and resolve access. At this point there is no point in continuing until the owners are approached. Ultimately they are the stopping point one way or the other. Both camps go and give them some idea about a possible increase in usage. Let them voice their concerns. If possible address them. If not, nix the idea of a guide all together. Once the "deal" is done. Move forward.
Next, develop some sort of proceeds back to CT program. Decide where the funds would be best spent and what would be the best uses. This could include clean up, maintenance, fudning future developments of the developers, etc... Get this down in writing!
Next, document the history of CT. Talk about whats it defining characteristics are. Stress the importance of preserving them. Discuss development and where people perceive the future to be going with CT. Talk about the access concerns resolved in the 1st part and stress the importance of following whatever guides where laid out by the owners.
Next, both of you sit down and decide what should and should not be in the guide. Perhaps extensively cover the central area and El Trono Blanco. Then chronicle the perimeter areas as "adventure areas". These adventure areas are limited beta: How to get to the climbs, maybe some brief comments on quality and/or characteristic of it. Run this by the other developers. Get their input, maybe modify things on their expectations as well. Put a blank "Notes Page" next to all adventure areas to encourage people to write down their beta they get from others etc..
When the map is sectioned off into areas to be coevered extensively vs those left as adventure areas, work together to get accurate beta for the extensively covered areas and write up some cool pieces for the adventure areas.
Back to the intro, make sure it is well defined and the reasons why the adventure areas are listed. Give people the understanding for the reasons. Go out and snap some cool shots of local climbers.
Go to print, sit back and toast up the beers on a job well done.
How does this resolve the issues?
#1:Both camps get their wishes. A guide is out, but there are still "adventure areas" where the "unknown adventure" can still be found.
#2:Access Issues resolved up front and were the basis of the go/no go decision on the guide.
#3:Possible impacts about approach, camping, crowding etc.. can be addressed up front in the guidebook. Users can be made aware of the area concerns and ethics.
#4:$$ from the guide is pumped back into the aea both via clean up/maintenance but also into the developers for funding future climbing developmens.
Is it perfect for everyone? Nope! But it is a compromise betweent he two groups and does satisfy some of the major concerns from both sides.
|
|
|
|
|
sharpender
Oct 28, 2003, 5:28 PM
Post #177 of 267
(20715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2003
Posts: 663
|
roughster wrote: In reply to: There is no contradiction there. The form of the exploitation could be non-improvement and charging a fee.
that is not exploitation, but the landowners right of use to charge that climbbaja pointed out. Been to Deep Creek east of LA? It's a hot spring and the easiest access is through private property, which the owner charges to park on. We, don't consider that "exploitation"; most certainly not the way John posted it and you responded to it. Your in politics right?
|
|
|
|
|
tucker
Oct 28, 2003, 6:04 PM
Post #178 of 267
(20715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 28, 2003
Posts: 1
|
I have been to Canon Tajo region a bunch, aiming at it after reading Peterson’s “The Baja Adventure Guide”. First time by an attempt from the “Lake” to the east that never quite made it. Second time by the road that went in from near La Rumorosa. This also was unsuccessful as I missed the turnoff(s) to the domes on my way to finding Parque National.
I have made it in six or seven times. I like the place; its beautiful, its remote, it has elements of adventure not common to many of the park experiences within the San Diego region. There’s no water. No supervision. No help if you get in trouble. Its in Mexico, which depending on your affinity for that country is exciting or imposing.
But I would not call it pristine. While not what I call developed, its got well-established campsites, blackened rock fire pits and pretty straightforward roadways to the sites. I have come across cached 5 gallon bottles of water, clothing, massage signs, climbing gear and toiletries scattered about the base camp regions and as far as beyond the notch and in the vicinity of the north dome.
There is much more in the way of human evidence at CT than say in Dusy Basin in the Sierras; and Roper thinks that Dusy Basin is exceedingly degraded from human presence. CT is less impacted than say, Alta Meadow, in my opinion.
I have experienced it when I have seen absolutely no one as I have wandered around the domes and down into the canyons. I have experienced it when there were people from the local region hiking, out of state climbers there from the ROCK and ROAD guide. I have been there when a group lab workers were being shepherded around by members of the local climbing community. Nice group, dutifully impressed by the offerings of beauty in the region and the horseback experience that was arranged for them. Their guides were good conversationalists and I enjoyed the time I spent with them. They did a good job for their charges.
I have experienced it when the campsite region rocked with music from nearby parties. Searching through Google does give TR that confirm my “crowd” experience and as far as I can tell this is a common experience here, as the following excerpts highlight.
from Vawter TR Canon Tajo, rec climbing, 10/19/2001:
“The occasion was the more or less annual autumn bash which usually
entails a lot of climbing on Saturday, huge quantities of alcohol and
climber bull on Saturday night, and peaceful, if painful, recovery on
Sunday.”
“While Inez had crawled down the badly washboarded road on Saturday in first and second gear, she drove out in third, now a canon Tajo regular.”
from Mike Salomon “More Chicken than a Turkey”:
“Back at camp, temperature plummeting, the evening commenced with more liquid antifreeze. This time we polished off the numerous bottles of Sauza, Jose Cuervo Especial, Bacardi rum, and Cervezas de Corona, Bohemia, y Dos Equis. The stereo was cranked up until the battery of one vehicle was depleted. Techno trance consumed another battery before we finally did justice to both batteries and bottles.”
Point here is that the area gets a lot of activity, much of it arranged by a central group, who in the main seem acting as good custodians of the region, albeit very invested in who and how one experiences CT.
I heard it described once by a San Diego climber as the group who maintain their own private national park. While this might infer some Machiavellian overtones, they are doing a good and responsible job and I have no beef with this as long as they do not tell me that I can not visit the region.
Been there with Kennedy twice, one of those times serendipitously while I was showing my wife around the notch. That was SOME visit and the only time I met Smallwood. I would say that they had quite the row, but it takes two to make a fight and Dave didn’t lift a finger nor raise his voice. John on the other hand was volatile, abusive, threatening (“this is your last warning!, you are being watched, F@@@ you, F@@@ you, F@@@ you) and possessive (“you’re in MY backyard!”, get the F@@@ out of here, NOW!). It was quite the public display and would qualify in the USA as criminal assault. Needless to say, I was quite surprised to learn that his occupation is a counselor (sorry, JKV).
What do I think about a guidebook to the region? I don’t give a rat’s ass if DK writes a book or not. If the people who own the region the region – not the people who use the region – give him permission, and he wants to put the time in, fine, go to it. Some things will change if there is a guide, some things will stay the same. None of us can predict the future.
But to use imitation and threats of physical violence to dissuade him…..well that is really wrong.
Help DK with beta if your want a guide; withhold beta if you don’t want a guide. But be honest about the motives. And refrain from the violence.
Peter Durdaller
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Oct 28, 2003, 7:16 PM
Post #179 of 267
(20715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
A thirty year policy of “staying under the radar” and ensuring that it is a non issue with the local landowners.
A stupid greedy gringo comes in and tells the local landowners that he wants to exploit the area to make some bucks.
The local landowners say’s “if a gringo is going to make money off our land then we should be able to also.”
Who says this was inevitable? Maybe it was, all it took was one greedy person who has no vested interest in the area and could care less if he threatens to upset the applecart as long as there is a possibility of him making some bucks.
People tend to get possessive about things that they put a lot of time and effort into; this is a natural human trait. It is not a “secret area” and has been well documented as a potential destination area. I find it natural that if someone comes in and threatens the status quo with possible closure and or commercialization on the basis of a strictly financial motive, then people are going to react strongly to that.
Some things are worth fighting for, and some things are worthy of an ass whooping. This is another long standing tradition in the climbing community.
|
|
|
|
|
bvb
Oct 28, 2003, 7:47 PM
Post #180 of 267
(20715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2003
Posts: 954
|
not much to say about that except "amen, brother". well put.
|
|
|
|
|
climbbaja
Oct 28, 2003, 8:31 PM
Post #181 of 267
(20715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 177
|
Response to Peter Durdaller "tucker":
Sorry you and your wife had to be witness to that basecamp scene with Kennedy. Also glad you wisely stayed out of it.
The part you are leaving out is the same that DK didn't want to understand when I told him in no uncertain terms:
I had received a call, relayed from Baja by radio and operator that DK was at basecamp. I surmised that the outcome would result in a burned vehicle at the least, and possibly worse. Not knowing if they had given DK "fair warning" to leave, I got word back to them that I would get down there.
This was on a Wednesday, so I left work and got there before sunset. There were an impatient few "locals" who were watching and ready to jump bad with the "pinche gringo" and physically kick him out of their country, on foot. These were not nearby ranchers as DK later seemed to think. Requesting that they back off, I told them I would warn Kennedy to leave on his own.
When I walked into basecamp, I warned DK in no uncertain terms. He wasn't hearing me and argued. I figured that his hardheaded stubborness was going to put him in danger, and result in a 20 mile walk for you, your wife and DK's assistant. That's when I began using expletives, yes, lots of them. Sorry if that offended your ears, I felt it urgent that someone hear the warning message. I did not put a hand on anyone. I can't imagine what law in the USA would qualify that as an assault. You are writing that I was assaultive, have you heard of libel?
I don't expect DK, or you, to be appreciative that I made the effort to protect him. He has accused me of "trying to fight" him, "inciting" others to violence, etc. None of that is true. I should send him a bill for my time off work and gas! Btw, I will not go out of my way to intervene in the future.
FYI, the semiannual parties which I have hosted have had a purpose beyond the scope of what you found on the internet. My primary purpose has been to develop a cadre of climbers and some non-climbers who will care for and protect CT long into the future. It creates bi-national friendships and dialogue which benefits CT and the CT climbing community. The horseback riding optional activity provides sorely needed US dollars to the nearest ranch. This helped save most of their cattle from starvation in the recent drought. Maybe you also missed that there have been organized work crews on those weekends. Old, rusty, time bomb 1/4" bolts have been replaced, trash picked up, graffiti scrubbed, fire pits cleaned out and rebuilt, etc.
-John Smallwood
|
|
|
|
|
mister_mestizo
Oct 28, 2003, 8:45 PM
Post #182 of 267
(20715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2003
Posts: 30
|
John, if I remember correctly there was a ground-up bolting ethic that was rigidly enforced at CT. Is this still the case? Do you believe that route development etihics will have to change with the growth of visitors over time?
|
|
|
|
|
rockfax
Oct 28, 2003, 9:22 PM
Post #183 of 267
(20715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 26, 2001
Posts: 652
|
This is one area THAT DOESN'T NEED A GUIDEBOOK.
If there was an existing book it's fair game. But there isn't.
But for one person to write and publish a guidebook to this area.....after two visits is A DISGRACE.
And I say this as someone who has written a few guidebooks.
Let the local Mexican climbers and people who work the land there, along with those out-of-towners who have invested much time in this area decide.
All you need is a map of the best spots...........
Come on...everything doesn't have to be documented....let's leave some areas as SELF-EXPLORATION......so we get a chance to escape the rat race that we may experience at the more popular and publisized areas.
I say......DO NOT PUBLISH.
Mick
Rockfax Guidebooks
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Oct 28, 2003, 10:20 PM
Post #184 of 267
(20715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: ...his experience...
Ahh very interesting. As we can see, there's always two sides of every story now isn't there. John has done his best to put his spin back on the encounter, but obviously there was some very negative and "possessive" feelings relayed to Dave in front of others. I'm sorry, John doesn't come across as the Holy Angel of CT that others have portrayed him to be.
Where is the bvb/alpine/jv defense of "its not a localism thing"?? Sounds like those comments from the start had their roots in fact, not fiction. Also, funny that the semi annual parties came up and then John's own admission that he has already started bring in non-climbers to:
In reply to: The horseback riding optional activity provides sorely needed US dollars to the nearest ranch.
provide $$ to the nearby ranch. To me that has started the "exploitation" of CT as much as a guidebook would. Yes I realize that John was not the ultimate recepient of the funds, but this directly contradicts what John said was his concern that the ranchers would recognize the potential to make $$ off of CT.
Once again, Peter says he has been there Twice with Dave, however that does not mean Dave has only been there twice. Good God people, it has not been established that Dave has only been there twice. There has been plenty of speculation and if Dave came on and said that he had only been there twice, it would be different! Think about it! You go down to CT and some lunatic freaks on you, your wife, and friends and then threatens you with violence. Are you going to start publicizing your visists? LOL, man you guys have thought this one through right? No help, no rescue, no call 911, "I have a guy here with a gun in my face yelling to me about "his backyard"."
Common Sense and Self Preservation folks, it goes a long way.
|
|
|
|
|
bvb
Oct 28, 2003, 10:41 PM
Post #185 of 267
(20715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2003
Posts: 954
|
aaron, whatever transpired between john smallwood and dave kennedy during their encounter has no bearing whatsoever on the question at hand: does CT need a guidebook? So, I ask you: why have you chosen to focus on this altercation in your post? to becloud the real issues?
I'll be happy to explain to you, again, the how's and why's of the notion that this question does not revolve around an attitude of localism. But before I do that, I'll need a starting point: an explanation from you as to what led you to the determination that folks don't want to see a CT guide because they wnt to keep it for the "locals". And who are the "locals"??
I'm not a local, at least not by my definition. I've only been there five or six times since 1980 or so -- my the last trip to CT was in 1993.
|
|
|
|
|
bvb
Oct 28, 2003, 10:54 PM
Post #186 of 267
(20715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2003
Posts: 954
|
In reply to: Once again, Peter says he has been there Twice with Dave, however that does not mean Dave has only been there twice. Good God people, it has not been established that Dave has only been there twice. There has been plenty of speculation and if Dave came on and said that he had only been there twice, it would be different!
aaron, i regard the question of how many times dk has been down there as a red herring. again, it has no bearing on the primary question: why publish a guide to CT?
if it puts you're mind at ease, we can say for the sake of argument that hes been there two, three, four dozen times. it simply has no relevance.
to me, the main question remains this: why would we seek to knock off the last of the large, easily accesssible, unpublished areas? does every single area in the united states warrent a guide? aaron, is there anyplace where you would draw the line, purely to maintain an undocumented adventure area? to use this analogy once again, we're all standing around staring at the last living buffalo. who wants to shoot it, and why?
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Oct 28, 2003, 11:12 PM
Post #187 of 267
(20715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: aaron, whatever transpired between john smallwood and dave kennedy during their encounter has no bearing whatsoever on the question at hand: does CT need a guidebook? So, I ask you: why have you chosen to focus on this altercation in your post? to becloud the real issues?
It does when the issues is whether or not localism exists and is a factor in people wanting a fully public guide.
“you’re in MY backyard!”
"get the F@@@ out of here, NOW!"
Seems to send a pretty strong localism message as well as defines the mindset that John feels he has the right to tell people when they can or cannot be there.
I focus on it because claims have been made that it "isn't" a localism issue. Because John and others are "friendly" locals who love nothing more than to give beta to others. LOL.
So tell me, who wants to send me all the beta? I would love to suppliment my meager maps with better topos and info. Ahhh but now we see the crux of the issue. YOU (you being the so called locals) controls WHO sees the info and it is dependent upon your whim as to whether or not you send it.
In reply to: I'll be happy to explain to you, again, the how's and why's of the notion that this question does not revolve around an attitude of localism. But before I do that, I'll need a starting point: an explanation from you as to what led you to the determination that folks don't want to see a CT guide because they wnt to keep it for the "locals". And who are the "locals"??
Easy enough. I have heard 1st hand from others (not internet slander) that people have refused to give them information about CT. I have also been around a campfire discussion talking about the "banditos" story and it was expressed by someone "in the know" that the story was made up to keep people away from CT. BVB in case your not aware I have mingled with many old and new SoCalers during my 10 year stint in SoCal in places both north and south of the border. I am not some clueless person to the issue no matter how hard you try to make it that way.
Locals to me are the mexican climbers that frequent the area, not San Diego self appointees. However, the "locals" to which I refer are those who perpetuate myths about the area, discourage others from going there for no other reason than to keep it "quiet", refuse beta to others, throw fits when people they don't want there "show up". People who think that it is their "backyard".
The localism issue is just one of the issues. It is not something I have placed all stock on.
Other issues include:
Hordes - not going to happen. Too remote, too far, too hard to get to, too much slabby rock :)
Automatic destruction of the land - Also not a "given". A good guide could go a long way to help curb this issue and hell evn possible make the area better!
Character Assasination- You and others making false statements about someone and things about him that you have no way of knowing. I personally take offense to it. I have talked to Dave (once or twice via email) and he has always been very nice. Before I am willing to label him a "greedy gringo" I want to see proof, not more internet slander.
Work on those issues for awhile I can throw some more at you.
|
|
|
|
|
crotch
Oct 28, 2003, 11:20 PM
Post #188 of 267
(20715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 1277
|
In reply to: I have also been around a campfire discussion talking about the "banditos" story and it was expressed by someone "in the know" that the story was made up to keep people away from CT. BVB in case your not aware I have mingled with many old and new SoCalers during my 10 year stint in SoCal in places both north and south of the border. I am not some clueless person to the issue no matter how hard you try to make it that way.
Aaron,
I was held up at gunpoint driving home from CT this April. Now what's that about banditos being made up?
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Oct 28, 2003, 11:24 PM
Post #189 of 267
(20715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: to me, the main question remains this: why would we seek to knock off the last of the large, easily accesssible, unpublished areas? does every single area in the united states warrent a guide? aaron, is there anyplace where you would draw the line, purely to maintain an undocumented adventure area? to use this analogy once again, we're all standing around staring at the last living buffalo. who wants to shoot it, and why?
I think calling it "the last of the large...etc..." is a misrepresentation of the issue. I personally know of VAST amounts of rock right here in California that would easily rival if not exceed CTs potential and they have zero "documented" routes on them (not to say that they don't have established routes). The difference, those who frequent some of these areas (of which I am in that company) are smart enough to not publicize it AT ALL. Hell I know of one area that everytime I think about it I get itchy fingers, and if "outed" would cause jaws to hit the floor across SoCal.
Ignorance is bliss when it comes to secret areas. If your want adventure, keep it that way. Don't distribute underground topos, promote the area to people via mags, guides, and videos. When people don't know about an area, they don't ask about it, and then the issue of "denial of info" never comes up.
TRUE adventure means you find the place, you head up the unknown, you leave it at that. TRUE adventure for the "masses" has been lost on CT for a long time now. The only people experience true adventure in CT are those who go down and add new routes, not just run laps on previously established. I don't call getting direct local beta about a few routes and going and climbing those "adventure". In all sense and purposes it is no different than climbing with a guide in your hand.
You want adventure, buy a topo map of the desert and grab the nearest available 4X4. Thats adventure. Going to an established area with semi-annual bashes, well defined campsites, black sooted fire rings, people blaring music into the dawn and being drunk as a skunk, getting underground topos, getting hand fed beta from locals, reading about it in mags, guides, and seeing it in videos. Thats not adventure. Its the Boys Club of Mexico Canon Tajo style.
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Oct 28, 2003, 11:27 PM
Post #190 of 267
(20715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
Not one climber has responded to this thread in the context of describing climbing with DK prior to his initiating a guidebook effort. Dk has not made any claims to the effect that he has spent time there, only that he has spent time contacting people that have climbed there. John provided knowledge of two trips by DK, and those are the only ones that have been substantiated. You seem to feel that it is a safe assumption that someone that wants to write a guidebook to a particular area would actually have climbed there. I see no basis for that assumption, particularly given that on one of his two known trips he apparently didn’t even bother to actually climb.
As far as the “Locals” aspect: of course the logical thing is that climbers in new york should be the ones that establish the policies that should be followed in respect to CT. Get real dude, policies are at the discretion of the people that actually climb at an area. Accordingly, they get the biggest say in how a particular area is treated. There is no viable alternative to this tradition.
Your comments that people have made false statements regarding DK is as much of an assumption as any of the comments that you are complaining about. You have no basis whatsoever to verify or deny any of them.
I find it interesting that the one main person that that has spoken up for kennedy and his guidebook, is someone who is pro guidebook on principle and doesn’t actually know him.
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Oct 28, 2003, 11:31 PM
Post #191 of 267
(20715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: I was held up at gunpoint driving home from CT this April. Now what's that about banditos being made up?
I have heard the bandito issue @ CT used as a defense for why there shouldn't be a guide from others.
In fact, I say in my 1st few posts that banditos are a valid reason why CT would never see "hordes". I have never claimed that they don't exist, just they shouldn't be used as one of the justifications for not releasing a guide or giving people beta.
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Oct 28, 2003, 11:37 PM
Post #192 of 267
(20715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: Your comments that people have made false statements regarding DK is as much of an assumption as any of the comments that you are complaining about. You have no basis whatsoever to verify or deny any of them.
Thats exactly the issue; I don't buy your guys' load of crap and internet slander. I have never claimed that Dave has climbed there more than twice, only that it has been suggested and accepted as fact by many from people who have no clue how many times he has climbed there.
In reply to: I find it interesting that the one main person that that has spoken up for kennedy and his guidebook, is someone who is pro guidebook on principle and doesn’t actually know him.
I find it interesting that people who don't know Dave are villifying him, creating lies, misrepresenting themselves, and generally giving a severly one sided and biased side and expect other to believe it. Tell me do you know Dave? You have thrown a lot of names his way, surely you know him personally then right to make those types of statements? And here I am saying, "You don't know the truth" and you have the nerve to call me out by saying I don't "know" him??
The one person who does apparently "know Dave" who has posted said nothing bad about him, but rather shed a lot of light on how Dave got to where he is now. Read Peters account above of the "friendliness" of the locals.
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Oct 28, 2003, 11:45 PM
Post #193 of 267
(20715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
There is only one truth in this thread:
Canon Tajo has had a tradition of no guidebook for thirty years and DK has unilaterally decided to ignore that tradition.
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Oct 28, 2003, 11:47 PM
Post #194 of 267
(20715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: There is only one truth in this thread: Canon Tajo has had a tradition of no guidebook for thirty years and DK has unilaterally decided to ignore that tradition.
Here is another:
There is more to the story than that.
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Oct 28, 2003, 11:47 PM
Post #195 of 267
(20715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
In reply to: Read Peters account above of the "friendliness" of the locals.
See above for a complete explanation.
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Oct 28, 2003, 11:52 PM
Post #196 of 267
(20715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: See above for a complete explanation.
We done got us a one-liner battle ;)
I would say:
See above for excuses.
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Oct 28, 2003, 11:54 PM
Post #197 of 267
(20715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
I will say this: I am enjoying this thread immenesly :) Good job all! 13 pages down, how many more can we go! We have an Ironman worthy thread here.
I find it interesting to go back from page 1 and reread it every few posts are so just to keep the flavor of the thread alive. It is pretty clear that some people at the end of the thread have not bothered to do so, but would encourage everyone who wants to jump in to do exactly that: Read the thread from start to finish. IMO it is a great discussion on not just CT but also the impacts, and some solution to guidebookks and what people perceive as problems associated with them.
|
|
|
|
|
climbbaja
Oct 29, 2003, 12:20 AM
Post #198 of 267
(20715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 177
|
Response to "mr_mestizo" Arian's questions:
"John, if I remember correctly there was a ground-up bolting ethic that was rigidly enforced at CT. Is this still the case? Do you believe that route development etihics will have to change with the growth of visitors over time?"
You are correct that bolting is ground-up. Three or four "rap and tap" ascents have been chopped. There may be folks willing to push the limits with regard to CT traditions in the future. But then there are several CT climbers with crowbars, hammers, and epoxy who would say that the tradition will last several more years/decades and die hard ;) Paul Piana's rap bolts got chopped on the Pan-Am route.
Btw, does anyone here have direct knowledge of Dave Kennedy's "bolt war" at Mission Gorge (San Diego crags)? Something about bolting next to a crack, chopped, rebolted, chopped again...?
-John Smallwood
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Oct 29, 2003, 12:25 AM
Post #199 of 267
(20715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: Btw, does anyone here have direct knowledge of Dave Kennedy's "bolt war" at Mission Gorge (San Diego crags)? Something about bolting next to a crack, chopped, rebolted, chopped again...? -John Smallwood
Are we or are we not sticking to the CT issue? :D
Anyways, ground up bolting is easy as pie with RBs. Next time down to CT I plan on bring the drill for sure and I will bolt sport routes ground up no problemos :) Then the question will be, who to give the info to....
|
|
|
|
|
climbbaja
Oct 29, 2003, 12:26 AM
Post #200 of 267
(20715 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 177
|
Also in response to "mr_mestizo":
Additionally, CT does not seem to have the type of climbing where one would expect sport climbers to congregate. The rock is granitic, the best routes are steep friction/slab, occasional vertical dikes, and cracks. The approaches are long and the cattle aren't too impressed by lycra/spandex ;)
-J.S.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Canon Tajo Guidebook???
[
