Don't know what year it was, and they didn't just give permission, they got paid A LOT of money for it!

I agree! If it gets closed, lets return it too it's pre-climber state:

- Piles of trash everywhere
- Old tires
- Human Crap (as in feces)
- No nice flagstone paths (going to have to pull them all up)
- Weeds and thistles. (we'll have to retransplant some of these back into the area)
- Loosely glue on a ton of rubble and death blocks climbers knocked off. Mind you, they need to be precariously perched and ready to fall at any time.

I mean, we climbers are ruining their "spritual" experience! Lets give it back to them. Oh, and everytime a climber is in the Tahoe area, feel free to "drop a load" on by.

The same tired arguements.

People endlessly try to superimpose their own version of what constitutes the spiritual "defilement " of a sacred area over that of the people that hold the site sacred.

I've seen the same attitude in many places, from the arctic to South America. We dig up the dead of a tribe for anthropological study, yet would be outraged if someone dug up our own revered dead to measure their bones..

just the same, we look at a sacred site and decide that, since there is garbage there, it will be o.k. to clean the old stuff out and replace it with our own..

hell, it can't actually be sacred can it? Just look at those beer bottles! Its hard to step away and consider that trash on the ground might not equal steel in the stone, or that a highway through the stone might not be the same as climbers on the rock itself. Hard to consider when we wear our special set of cultural blinders anyway.

Laws aren't necessarily the answer. Respect for other human beings might just be. If a group asks us not to climb at an area of spiritual importance to them, then each climber has to ask themselves if they will honor that request or not. But, whatever you do, at least throw the old, tired rationalizations away. If we choose to climb there, then lets admit to ourselves that its because our own personal desire for recreation outweighs our respect for those peoples spiritual beliefs.

Make as many excuses for our actions as we will, there is no other reason. That reason is no longer good enough for me..I will not support continued access to Cave Rock, or violate that area again myself.

One group's religious beliefs do not take precendent over anothers. Bleeding hearts may have a hard time swallowing it, but thats just the way it goes :)

Thank you roughster for your response.

As I read through it, your words serve as a perfect example of exactly the type of thinking that changed my own opinion from supporting access to the Cave Rock site to one of opposition.

My own words couldn't have illuminated the situation any better.

Enjoy your day.

I don't think "Separation of the Church from State" is the right wording for this argument. The phrase "Separation of the Church from State" doesn't exist in the constitution or declaration of independence. The actual amendment reads,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." (Emphasis mine)

I know saying this will likely result in a lot of juvenile bashing by Roughster...

but has anyone concerned with this issue wondered why, if the place has no value apart from climbing, the Washoe even bothered to gain it back? I mean, it's highly unlikely a casino will ever fit there (not that they could build one; they are only asking for access to it without unnecessary infringements). And I truly doubt they are just being "greedy"; although it's pretty obvious we climbers can be that way--even though we go to great lengths to build justifications for our actions. I COULD be wrong, and maybe the Washoe DO have some secret agenda for the use of Cave Rock. But I'm not a skilled investigator, and I think I'm willing to accept the Washoe's claim for the spot, even risk being a pushover. Better that than risk giving climbers a worse name than they already have.

I once listened to a climber tell his story of being "scalped" (actually just had his hair cut off) in a violent confrontation with a Native American. He had been seen, at some earlier time, climbing in a canyon on Indian land. His attacker very obviously had problems with his climbing in a place believed to be sacred, and took his trespassing very personally.

The men who built this country up also pushed this land's original inhabitants into some of the least hospitable places, forcing them to make a life for themselves with few resources. I think I might take it personally too if, as a Native American, the ancestors of these men felt justified in trespassing on the land of my people. I don't care for WHAT reason.

For some it might be easy to justify climbing at Cave Rock because of the already present road and because of the way the place has been trashed in the past. It does seem kind of crazy to ban climbing while the road remains so near a supposedly sacred site. Maybe the Washoe have simply decided to take what they can get, knowing that any attempts to remove the road will be futile (there aren't really any other ways to route the road, from what I understand and have seen). If that's the case (and it seems the most likely possibility), I'm more than willing, as a climber, to let the place go without resentment.

Roughster,

I KNOW it is federal land, that is why I added the note in parentheses next to my casino comment which clarified that they are asking for "access without infringements"

why, if the place has no value apart from climbing, the Washoe even bothered to gain it back?

Considering the very small size of Cave Rock, I'm guessing it would be pretty difficult to have any kind of religious experience there with climbers above and around you. Even the Access Fund understands this to SOME extent, which is why their preferred alternative would not have allowed new routes, and I think it would have even erased a few.

You seem to look at this as being a very black and white issue. This isn't the first time climbers have been excluded from supposedly public lands. I strongly believe climbers should stand up for themselves when it seems they are being unfairly discriminated against. But I think we should also be ready and willing to compromise. As climbers, most of us accept the fact that climbing on or near pictographs isn't fair to those who hold these things sacred, or historically important. WE COMPROMISE, both to respect other users and to help ensure our own continued access to climbing areas. Mountain bikers must accept the fact that their presence on certain trails is not appropriate, even on public land; hunters must limit their sport to designated areas; and I've yet to see someone with a jet ski on Tenaya lake. If an activity can only be practiced in an area while greatly undermining that area's availability for some other use, then logic says that activity should stop. Fortunately, there are few instances where rock climbing becomes an overwhelming presence.

I wouldn't want to see dirt bikers screaming up Lyell Canyon in Yosemite. I think that would be a use of a public land that undermines the canyon's value to other users. I can't see Cave Rock through the eyes of a Washoe Indian, but I'm guessing the chains, bolts and dozens of quickdraws they see hanging about the cliff along with the chalk stains (not to mention the crowds and frequently blaring stereos) at Cave Rock are pretty hard to ignore. Just like jet skis on Tenaya Lake would be pretty hard for US to ignore while climbing nearby. Maybe if we had been more discrete in OUR use of the place our presence wouldn't have been deemed so incompatible with other users.

However, I am thinking of forming a church, Milktoast Nation and installing myself as the spirtual and financial leader, the Reverend Dingus.

Our founding belief will be in God's wish that we climb unfettered of government interference and environmental extremism. EQUAL ACCESS FOR ALL!

Our religion will be practiced at cliffs, instantly rendering every crag in the country a site of spiritual significance, a church.

Hey, I think I'm on to something here. Non tax status. Long flowing robes. A HALO!

Sorry, but quick draw theft is grounds for excommunication. I have a panel of religious scholars looking into the whole bolt chopping thing. We have to be careful we don't repeat Salem you know.

I know I am ressurrecting an old old thread but I just wanted to comment to drector's post.

It is absolutely rediculous that they are using the word "cultural" instead of "religion". Just because a religion is associated with a certain culture, doesn't mean you can suddenly make this a cultural issue.

I see a similiar argument in the whole "intelligent design" bullshit. Just because you call it a different name doesn't mean it's not religion and thereby unconstitutional......

The decoupling of culture and religion is a recent artifact of western Christian practices. Religion and culture aren't easily separable.

[quote "roughster"]I agree! If it gets closed, lets return it too it's pre-climber state:

- Piles of trash everywhere
- Old tires
- Human Crap (as in feces)
- No nice flagstone paths (going to have to pull them all up)
- Weeds and thistles. (we'll have to retransplant some of these back into the area)
- Loosely glue on a ton of rubble and death blocks climbers knocked off. Mind you, they need to be precariously perched and ready to fall at any time.

I mean, we climbers are ruining their "spritual" experience! Lets give it back to them. Oh, and everytime a climber is in the Tahoe area, feel free to "drop a load" on by.[/quote]

+1

LOL, did I dredge up any of your other posts? I was just looking for this one specifically because of Devil's Tower and how much it bothers me on a fundamental level.....

Couldn't agree with the issues at Devils Tower more.

The original "marketing strategy" behind the Devils Tower CMP was two-fold:

1. Cross-Cultural education.
2. Mutual Respect.

All one has to do today to see the ultimate result is to step inside the Visitors Center. As a climber, you immediately feel like a second rate citizen... even though compliance is consistently at 80%.

All this with not ONE shred of archaeological evidence that "Native Americans" ever assembled at the Tower.

Except for that one... that's locked in a vault... at Mt. Rushmore... that the NPS won't show anyone...

What's this vault stuff?

And I can dig mutual respect. I can give them the area once in a while if I know they're going to be there before hand and can plan accordingly. However under no circomstances should the goverment be stepping in and saying "thou shalt not climb here because XYZ group wants to practice whatever hokey religion they happen to believe in"

A few questions from the ignorant:

=> how does one "close" a rock?
=> what is the penalty for climbing there? Hiking there?

[quote "roughster"]I agree! If it gets closed, lets return it too it's pre-climber state:

- Piles of trash everywhere
- Old tires
- Human Crap (as in feces)
- No nice flagstone paths (going to have to pull them all up)
- Weeds and thistles. (we'll have to retransplant some of these back into the area)
- Loosely glue on a ton of rubble and death blocks climbers knocked off. Mind you, they need to be precariously perched and ready to fall at any time.

I mean, we climbers are ruining their "spritual" experience! Lets give it back to them. Oh, and everytime a climber is in the Tahoe area, feel free to "drop a load" on by.[/quote]

+1

From what I understand, they weren't even using the area till climbers cleaned it up.....

What's this vault stuff?

And I can dig mutual respect. I can give them the area once in a while if I know they're going to be there before hand and can plan accordingly. However under no circomstances should the goverment be stepping in and saying "thou shalt not climb here because XYZ group wants to practice whatever hokey religion they happen to believe in"

A few questions from the ignorant:

=> how does one "close" a rock?
=> what is the penalty for climbing there? Hiking there?

What's this vault stuff?

I don't have a problem at all with the volunteer thing at Devils Tower. Not one bit. Course I don't climb there haha
DMT

Some people get offended when one compares life-and-death situations (Nazis) with recreation (rock climbing access)--but some people get offended about anything.

I must tell you - climbers come off as terribly petty and selfish over this issue. I've done it. You're doing it. You're making big noise about the legality of it all when at the root you are only interested in climber access.

Are you kidding me?

You're either a terrible troll or else determined to really earn the abuse folks here heap upon you.

Sorry you don't get it. Not everyone does. You can think a little longer/harder if you'd like to learn something, or just move along. Doesn't matter to me.
I'll spell it out if you'd like, but it would be better for you to try learn yourself, just like a climber benefits from having to learn a sequence rather than always have someone point out the beta. But if you're really stuck, I'll try to help.

Please teach me about the use of historical analogies, you illiterate tool. As a professional historian, I am accustomed to [pompous rant continues]

[T]he comparison is not of the DT situation to Nazi Germany, if is of the relationships of the various actors (i.e., Dingus's I don't care about DT closure because I don't climb there is in fact analogous to the actors in the cited poem). . . . If you don't like the analogy, great.

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then... they came for me... And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

"First they came…" is a poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

Some people get offended when one compares life-and-death situations (Nazis) with recreation (rock climbing access)--but some people get offended about anything. The point is the same--if you really care promoting climbing access (I do as do many other climbers, many climbers don't), get involved and do what you can.
That doesn't mean all climbing access everywhere all the time, just as if you care about 2nd Amendment rights that doesn't mean you think everyone should be able to own/possess any type of weapon everywhere, or if you care about abortion rights that you think every pregnant woman should allowed to have an abortion up to 1 minute before giving birth, with no restrictions.
Truth is that climbing access is under attack for largely the same reasons in many places (it causes "psychic damage" to (some) Indians or would-be "pioneers" (City of Rocks) or whomever).
If you think that's wrong, do what you can to make your voice heard.

Godwin!

I think anyone that took the use of this analogy to mean that rock climbing closures are tantamount to nazi genocide are trying to find a problem, which is nothing new around here. An extreme analogy, no doubt, but I see what pfwein was trying to express.

The way you phrase this suggests you have no direct personal knowledge of this issue, at all. When you say ' climbers' you surely mean a handful of self-appointed locals who sorta moved in there and did what they wanted, like paving the floor, etc.

Personally I think the fucking paving stones were the camel that broke the straw's back. What you basically had - whether these locals care to admit it or not - was a small group practically seizing control of a public and cultural resource, for their own amusement and none other.

Now we climbers do that, don't get me wrong. I do that.

All I am saying is there are two sides to this story and you will rarely get the full scoop from a Tahoe local, no offence to them.

The rock is so insignificant in any meaningful terms that this is and will remain a local thing. The Washoe were here long before spandex clad sport climbers decided Cave Rock was their playground.

All that said I agree with you that allowing an indian group to exert control over public land resources on religious grounds is the same as allowing a christian group to erect a cross on public lands - with all the attendant precedence in law concerning 'come one, come all.'

The only way to reclaim Cave Rock now is

1. Constitutional challenge - who has the money for THAT?

2. Form a Cult of Climbing, fix it with enough trappings to get recognized as a cult, then claim access on cultural grounds using the 'if you let them you have to let us.'

But the bolts are being pulled or have been pulled. I think the biggest reason for this is - 'they' (someone in the government) know that the Washoe access is tenuous at best and built on very shakey constitutional grounds.

But I think they also know that if the bolts come out, they will not likely go back in - ever. The end result to a constitutional challenge now would be - FINE! Climbers can come back. But no fixed pro.

That would be a very.... 'hollow' (haha) victory indeed.

Smart fuckers, to pull the bolts. The locals know what it means. Put a fork in Cave Rock - it is one and truly OVER.

RIP Slayer.

DMT

Your first and second sentences conflict. Your claim that the only folks likely to criticize pfwein's use of Niemoeller here are simply typical flamers "trying to find a problem" is at odds with your own description of the analogy as "extreme." But "extreme" is on the money: The notion that Niemoeller's reference isn't Nazism is simply absurd.

I am willing accept pfwein's explanation that he didn't mean for one of the most famous quotations associated with the Holocaust to actually reference Nazism. All of us can be clumsy with quotation and analogy down in the tubez.

For all the lurkers, there are two problems with using Niemoeller in this context. First, the analogy likens climbers to Jews and other vicitims of Nazism whil identifying the feds, native Americans, and any other folks pursuing closures of climbing land to Nazis. Pfwein may not have "intended" that meaning, but it is there. Second, the thrust of Niemoeller's statement* is a quintessentially modern Protestant faith in the oneness of humankind: Jews, Communists, gypsies, etc. All are equal and all deserve the same support and sympathy.

In this context, the analogy would mean that all access issues are exactly the same: Big mining corporations subverting national monuments, state parks banning climbing while allowing sport rappelling, private landowners prohibiting poaching, NPS banning power drills on El Cap, Auburn Quarry getting filled in, Native American groups asking for voluntary seasonal closures on Devil's Tower, all represent the exact same kind and quantity of evil, and all should be opposed equally.

Some of you may join apeman in finding that part of the analogy insightful. To me, that level of the analogy is also so wrongheaded that I find apeman's enthusiasm difficult to understand. What strikes me most forcefully about the many access issues confronting the climbing community is how very different most of them are. I don't see the Washo's claims to Cave Rock as morally equivalent to Acme Mining Cos. claims to a national monument. But go ahead, party like it's 1999.

*Niemoeller's quote is not easy to pin down. See Herbert Marcuse's essay in source criticism here:

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/...lty/marcuse/niem.htm

Edit for typo.

But you're right in that it's not worth the fight. But it is certainly worth the gripe space to complain about the First Amendment being violated! This is much more of an anti-religion kick than a climbing kick.