|
bvb
Oct 17, 2003, 11:26 PM
Post #26 of 267
(17324 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2003
Posts: 954
|
In reply to: Territorialism does exist but maybe it does not have a place among the majority of people and in contemporary society.
i've noted that throughout this dialogue, the folks who are excited at the prospect of a guide keep referring to "territorialism" and so on. why is that? this isn't surfing. it's not like you get vibed out if your're not a "local" (whatever that means).
why do you need to keep falling back on rhetoric and demagoguery in order to support your argument for a guide?
best to address the issues that come with a guide and how they'll affect canon tajo in a rational manner. there has never been territorialism or localism at canon tajo. but there has been a wonderful experience to be had -- primarily, as i've said before, due to the self-control of the people who took the time took seek the place out, and not turn a buck or create a "rep" by publishing.
|
|
|
|
|
mike_hunt
Oct 17, 2003, 11:33 PM
Post #27 of 267
(17324 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2003
Posts: 42
|
In reply to: While i'm sure people will call me a hypocrite, but what is the burning need for a CT guide? My vote is no.
Please explain the burning need for another J-Tree guide, aside from your hunger to burn some dinero, that is.
I am not calling you a hypocrite, just an self-promoting opportunist with a set of situational ethics that are truly admirable.... :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
stizrizzo
Oct 17, 2003, 11:38 PM
Post #28 of 267
(17324 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2002
Posts: 72
|
Though I have never been to Canyon Tajo, I have many friends and climbing partners who have.
I am thoroughly opposed to a Canyon Tajo guidebook. The area is very appealing to me, and I am very anxious to go there. I do not want to go there to rattle off a slew of heavily travelled routes, however.
I want to go to Canyon Tajo to go to a place where there is still some sense of mandatory adventure. From navigating nameless dirt roads in the dark, to finding a climb, not knowing if it is within my skill level, and doing it. Camping far from city lights. Merely being a long way from people and all the inevitable BS found in heavily populated areas.
This, to me, is adventure. THis is worth preserving. If people want to be able to show up at a climbing area and beeline to all the classic climbs, topo in hand, can go to J-Tree or Tahquitz.
Not every place has to be documented and advertised. If people want to find special places (and special climbs), they will, and they will be rewarded.
Those who lack the interest or ambition to find these places should not be there. A guidebook only makes the place more accessible to those who do not hold such places in high regard.
In my humble opinion
|
|
|
|
|
esoteric1
Oct 18, 2003, 12:47 AM
Post #29 of 267
(17324 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2002
Posts: 705
|
OK!,
I see the truth, when i first saw this post, I have wanted to go down there for some time, the only people that i knew of that had any idea about the area were a group of climbers that were not letting go of their "copies" of route descriptions, I thought this was kind of screwed...
whatever though, ive heard things about the area being next to private land, and route finding in the car being epic, I think i was being childish about wanting beta about the area, having not been there and wanting to go, was the base of my :( ...
now that i hear how it is down there, and knowing about areas being trashed, boom boxes and crash pads. drunkards, and no bleep bleep parking, I have changed my possition about this.
I hear kennedy has been down there this summer...and im guessing he is drawing some topos...hopefully to be handed out underground.
making money off the destruction of a beautiful pristine area, sounds to me to be an offence that will likely get you ridiculed and maybee worse if the rumors are true....
ive heard someone offered him $10000 not to publish this book. and if he does, immagine what that will get you in mexico :shock:
thanks for setting me straight about this issue people.
|
|
|
|
|
jv
Oct 18, 2003, 2:01 AM
Post #30 of 267
(17324 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 26, 2003
Posts: 363
|
In reply to: OK!, ive heard things about the area being next to private land,
Not next to, it is private land. This is an issue that hasn't been mentioned, and that I think Kennedy has sidestepped. He does not have permission of the Ejido, the cooperative of landowners, to publish a guide that will bring more traffic, and impact, to their private land. He has said that he is looking into this, i.e., seeking permission, and he has also said that as a 'journalist' he is merely reporting information that the public has a right to know, and therefore needs no permission.
I don't buy the journalist argument, and I think Randy's opinion carries much weight. In Josh, the need for the guide is obvious. The negative effects of climbing were already there and growing. A guide could only improve conditions by orienting newcomers to the rules, and spreading climbers out over a wider area, thereby lessening impact to high traffic areas like HVC, etc.
There is no such problem at Canon Tajo because climbers are introduced to the area and to new routes by other climbers. The area is so concentrated that it can only suffer from more traffic. There is no problem for the guide to solve. The only reason for a guide is to make it more accessible to a greater number of people, and to put bread on Kennedy's table. Kennedy makes no apologies for these motivations, and he downplays the impact a guide will have on the fragile environment.
So why not keep it the way it is? Relatively pristine, and there for anyone to discover the way that those of us who use it and love it did, one weekend at a time. Unfortunately, Kennedy is unmoved by the unanimous opposition to the guide by the climbers who regularly use the area. And there's not much we can do to stop him except to refuse to cooperate.
JV
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Oct 18, 2003, 2:50 AM
Post #31 of 267
(17324 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: roughster, your index of "filters", and your apparent belief that these "filters" will keep crowds at bay.....well, whatever....
Ok thanks for the point surrendered.
In reply to: if a guidebook to an area like canon tajo gets published, the use will increase exponentially.
Ahh yes, when your talking about regular usage of say 5 people per weekday, it very well could increase exponentially. However, I do not believe it will ever reach "horde" state.
In reply to: particularly when you look at this in a regional context....if you live in san diego, CT is actually closer than josh, and the driving time is the same, or less. add to this the no hassle/o ranger environment, the fact that you'll ALWAYS fiind a place to pitch your tent, even at 11:30pm on a friday night...well, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out what will happen over time.
I disagree. Josh is in the US. You do not have to deal with crossing an International Border, Mexican Car Insurance, the Peso, Corrupt Cops, Banditos, Federales disguised as Banditos, Banditos disguised as Federales, Toll Charges on the highways, or death highways for those who don't want to pay, remoteness, no services, no chance for rescue, no chance for Auto Repair, etc...
Rangers problems in Josh?? Funny I have climbed at Josh hundreds of times and my few encounters with them were pleasant "Hellos, How you doing today, Have a good one" variety.
Oh wait I think I see what you mean. You mean you like the ability to go down there and camp all over the place because "you can"; most likely destroying fragile desert plants/environ in the process. Having a bonfire because Hell, theres no rangers there right? Sure lets pure white gas on the rock, its fun AND cool right!?!?! Smoking out in plain sight. Ok got ya, I see where your coming from now /sarchasm off.
In reply to: LEAVE IT LIKE IT IS. you claim to be "calling b.s.," but it's plain to see you are talking out your ass from a position of near-total ignorance of what's at stake or the issues involved.
Your right, I didn't live in SoCal for over 10 years and climbed there several times. I haven't seen this EXACT argument (except for the Mexico issue) play out at Margheritaville. Where are the HORDES that Charles predicted when I released my online topos? They never appeared and for good reasons...in fact many of the same reasons CT wouldn't be on the receiving ends of "hordes".
Lets face it, CT has seen exposure in Magazines, Books, Videos (EXCUSE me who here didn't see Masters of Stone 2?), etc... A guidebook written with local knowledge and cooperation can and will help protect the area. It is ignorance that causes access issues 99% of the time.
But let the locals have "their" play ground is really the message many of you are sending. I mean surely since 99% of them live across the border on THIS side it means that THEY and ONLY THEY know what is good for the area and it's people. Hypocrisy knows no end when it comes to "Secret Areas". Because of this very attitude, I hope DK DOES release the guidebook if only to spite the hypocritically "locals" *scoff* that just want to keep it "their crag" and in reality are just hiding behind the "we care" facade.
|
|
|
|
|
jv
Oct 18, 2003, 3:16 AM
Post #32 of 267
(17324 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 26, 2003
Posts: 363
|
In reply to: But let the locals have "their" play ground is really the message many of you are sending. I mean surely since 99% of them live across the border on THIS side it means that THEY and ONLY THEY know what is good for the area and it's people. Hypocrisy knows no end when it comes to "Secret Areas". Because of this very attitude, I hope DK DOES release the guidebook if only to spite the hypocritically "locals" *scoff* that just want to keep it "their crag" and in reality are just hiding behind the "we care" facade.
I actually climb at Canon Tajo several times a year and have since 1974, so I am not talking out of my ass. No one who comes down here is ever turned away, or made to feel unwelcome (except Kennedy), and route information is shared freely by word of mouth. Every Mexican climber I have talked to is opposed to the guide, so this isn't a bunch of Americans trying to protect their little climbing hacienda.
The place is there for all to find and use. It's not that hard, even you found it. Some topos are circulated but only with the understanding that they not be published. That is one way to manage the impact. John Smallwood has devoted thousands of hours over the past 25 years to cleaning up trash, emptying firepits of ash, trimming brush back from use trails, and route development, more by far than everyone else put together. It works: the place is still beautiful. He has escorted dozens of people down there on weekends, and developed some routes under 5.10 to make the place more fun for everyone.
Nothing elitist about it. But then, how would you know?
JV
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Oct 18, 2003, 3:34 AM
Post #33 of 267
(17324 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: I actually climb at Canon Tajo several times a year and have since 1974, so I am not talking out of my ass.
The talking out of ass quote is attributed to BVB, not I. I am not presumptious (like BVB) to pretend to know who has climbed where.
In reply to: No one who comes down here is ever turned away, or made to feel unwelcome (except Kennedy), and route information is shared freely by word of mouth.
I personally can attest to this as well. However, that doesn't mean that a guidebook will change that.
In reply to: Every Mexican climber I have talked to is opposed to the guide, so this isn't a bunch of Americans trying to protect their little climbing hacienda.
Ok, that is the 1st mention of "true locals" I have seen yet in this argument. If that is the case, then that is an issue DK should try to address prior to printing the guide. However, every Mexican climber you have talked to does not (I would think at least) cover all Mexican locals. It has been almost 5 years since I was in SoCal and even longer since being in Baja, so I cannot say to know what is the current state of the locals, but surely the word will get out about the guide if Dave is serious and hopefully he will weigh every Mexican climber's opinion about 3X what he does of the "Stateside Locals".
In reply to: The place is there for all to find and use. It's not that hard, even you found it.
Yes even I. That surely must have been a miracle right? I mean how would I ever find a new area w/o a guidebook eh? (laughs at the irony of the statement)
In reply to: Some topos are circulated but only with the understanding that they not be published.
I have seen them, and this is not DKs doing. This reminds me of the Jailhouse fiasco. I released topos for a short period of time with NO instructions, in fact it didn't even say it was Jailhouse. The locals had a fit, but then when i showed up to the crag with a few extra copies, people were literally FIGHTING over them.
In reply to: That is one way to manage the impact. John Smallwood has devoted thousands of hours over the past 25 years to cleaning up trash, emptying firepits of ash, trimming brush back from use trails, and route development, more by far than everyone else put together. It works: the place is still beautiful. He has escorted dozens of people down there on weekends, and developed some routes under 5.10 to make the place more fun for everyone.
All of which could be recognized in the guide as well as used to establish the "norm" for care of CT. In addition, I would hope that Dave would contribute some of the proceeds of the guide to preservation and upkeep of the area as well as possibly helping establish new routes or gear for FAists.
In reply to: Nothing elitist about it. But then, how would you know? JV
Nothing elitist? So how the hell can you type that last statement with a straight face coming from a completely ignorant background as to what I do and do not know?
|
|
|
|
|
jv
Oct 18, 2003, 4:57 AM
Post #34 of 267
(17324 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 26, 2003
Posts: 363
|
[quote="roughster"]In reply to: I actually climb at Canon Tajo several times a year and have since 1974, so I am not talking out of my ass.
In reply to: The talking out of ass quote is attributed to BVB, not I. I am not presumptious (like BVB) to pretend to know who has climbed where.
No. I was talking to you. You have climbed there 'several times,' or so you said, yet you presume to know all about the people who oppose the guide.
In reply to: No one who comes down here is ever turned away, or made to feel unwelcome (except Kennedy), and route information is shared freely by word of mouth.
In reply to: I personally can attest to this as well. However, that doesn't mean that a guidebook will change that.
No one is saying that a guide will make the locals less helpful. It is unnecessary and may have a permanent negative effect. There is no need for it from an environmental standpoint, and not enough demand to make it desirable from a user standpoint.
In reply to: Every Mexican climber I have talked to is opposed to the guide, so this isn't a bunch of Americans trying to protect their little climbing hacienda.
In reply to: Ok, that is the 1st mention of "true locals" I have seen yet in this argument. If that is the case, then that is an issue DK should try to address prior to printing the guide. However, every Mexican climber you have talked to does not (I would think at least) cover all Mexican locals. It has been almost 5 years since I was in SoCal and even longer since being in Baja, so I cannot say to know what is the current state of the locals, but surely the word will get out about the guide if Dave is serious and hopefully he will weigh every Mexican climber's opinion about 3X what he does of the "Stateside Locals".
If Kennedy gave a rat's ass what anyone thought, he would have dropped the idea a long time ago.
In reply to: Nothing elitist about it. But then, how would you know?
In reply to: Nothing elitist? So how the hell can you type that last statement with a straight face coming from a completely ignorant background as to what I do and do not know?
You said it yourself, you're not a local, you have climbed there only 'several' times, you haven't been there for five years. Sheesh! You're entitled to your opinion, of course, ill informed as it may be, but like I said, you're talking out of your ass.
JV
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Oct 18, 2003, 5:41 AM
Post #35 of 267
(17324 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: No. I was talking to you. You have climbed there 'several times,' or so you said, yet you presume to know all about the people who oppose the guide.
Huh? I never said anything that would constitute I presume to know everyone who climbs there? Care to elaborate?
In reply to: No one is saying that a guide will make the locals less helpful. It is unnecessary and may have a permanent negative effect. There is no need for it from an environmental standpoint, and not enough demand to make it desirable from a user standpoint.
Wait a sec. So if there is not enough demand to make it desirable then why would the concern be that "hordes" will descend? Umm I think the word is contradiction...
In reply to: If Kennedy gave a rat's ass what anyone thought, he would have dropped the idea a long time ago.
LOL, so because he doesn't share your opinion, he doesn't give a rat's ass. I'll have to start using that logic as well. I personally feel like you don't give a rat's ass. Hey! That really works!
In reply to: You said it yourself, you're not a local, you have climbed there only 'several' times, you haven't been there for five years. Sheesh! You're entitled to your opinion, of course, ill informed as it may be, but like I said, you're talking out of your ass. JV
I don't think climbing several times a year, whether it be from 1990-2000 or 1974-present means your local. I am not the one pretending to be a local here. I am giving my opinion on it. However you are exactly the type of person I describe as a "Stateside-local" which truley means (in case you couldn't figure it out on your own) not a local at all. Get off your high horse, everyone's opinions counts as much as yours.
You fail to provide anything IMO that would be a stopper for coming out with a guide. DK should do the ground work with LOCALS (of which you are not). Provided he does that and considers their opinion, I say go for the guide. If anything than to lay low the egos that are obviously runing rampant from those who feel the area is "theirs".
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Oct 18, 2003, 5:44 AM
Post #36 of 267
(17324 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
One other thing I forgot to mention:
I love people who spray all over about a secret area than throw tissies when others start going, and or talking about the area. Don't you think thats funny JV?
|
|
|
|
|
apolobamba
Oct 18, 2003, 5:50 AM
Post #37 of 267
(17324 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 22, 2003
Posts: 337
|
I think it is funny how there is another thread about j-tree running concurrently to this tread. That thread is worried about (rumour?) new campsite fees. Remember the regulations fixed protection. Now they are looking at the impact of bouldering.
There are guidebooks to Courtright, the Church Dome, the Obelisk and Hermit Spire. And still there are not any crowds at these places. Maybe the crowds will never come to CT. But why f with it.
|
|
|
|
|
esoteric1
Oct 18, 2003, 1:51 PM
Post #38 of 267
(17324 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2002
Posts: 705
|
I started that thread because, when I heard it, it obviously pissed me off, how are ya gona live in josh now? thats besides the point. having a guide im sure will attract the people that throw their gatorade bottles on the ground...
like i said before, ive never been there but, when i finaly do show up...i want it to be the way it is now.
why change something beautiful, im sure if i go there enough, topos will pop up sooner or later.
peace out
mark
|
|
|
|
|
potreroed
Oct 18, 2003, 6:41 PM
Post #39 of 267
(17324 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 30, 2001
Posts: 1454
|
Was down there once (12 years ago), had a great time, was lost most of the time, had my bike stolen from the campground at Guadalupe Canyon and sure could have used a guidebook to the routes. We're talking a huge area down there with plenty of room for those who want isolation and peace and quiet, especially if you have four-wheel-drive. Port-a-potties and rangers will never be a problem there. I'm all for a good guidebook.
|
|
|
|
|
jv
Oct 18, 2003, 10:33 PM
Post #40 of 267
(17324 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 26, 2003
Posts: 363
|
[quote="roughster"]In reply to: No. I was talking to you. You have climbed there 'several times,' or so you said, yet you presume to know all about the people who oppose the guide.
In reply to: Huh? I never said anything that would constitute I presume to know everyone who climbs there? Care to elaborate?
Precisely. Yet you presume to know that we're all hypocrites, that our only motivation is to keep our 'little playground' all to ourselves, and that no one who considers himself a local really cares about the place, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. The word is presumptuous.
In reply to: No one is saying that a guide will make the locals less helpful. It is unnecessary and may have a permanent negative effect. There is no need for it from an environmental standpoint, and not enough demand to make it desirable from a user standpoint.
In reply to: Wait a sec. So if there is not enough demand to make it desirable then why would the concern be that "hordes" will descend? Umm I think the word is contradiction...
This isn't that difficult a concept. Read slower this time. I was referring to Randy's post about the need for a guidebook. There is none. In Josh there were problems with use management already, and a previously published guide. Here there are no problems, except the minor inconvenience of not having instant route information at your disposal. But the guide poses a considerable danger to the confined and fragile environment if, and this is all I will concede, if it increases climber traffic by much. We don't know how a guide will affect the place. But if it's bad, there is no turning back. If it ain't broke . . .
In reply to: If Kennedy gave a rat's ass what anyone thought, he would have dropped the idea a long time ago.
In reply to: LOL, so because he doesn't share your opinion, he doesn't give a rat's ass. I'll have to start using that logic as well. I personally feel like you don't give a rat's ass. Hey! That really works!
That's quite a leap. I base my assessment of Kennedy on a series of emails he and I traded a few weeks ago, and his clearly stated intentions in public emails. He knows that virtually everyone who climbs there regularly opposes the guidebook. He feels it is his right to publish a guidebook anyway.
In reply to: You said it yourself, you're not a local, you have climbed there only 'several' times, you haven't been there for five years. Sheesh! You're entitled to your opinion, of course, ill informed as it may be, but like I said, you're talking out of your ass. JV
In reply to: I don't think climbing several times a year, whether it be from 1990-2000 or 1974-present means your local. I am not the one pretending to be a local here. I am giving my opinion on it. However you are exactly the type of person I describe as a "Stateside-local" which truley means (in case you couldn't figure it out on your own) not a local at all. Get off your high horse, everyone's opinions counts as much as yours.
Hey, you started it with your inflammatory remarks. You're a moderator here? They should change your title.
In reply to: You fail to provide anything IMO that would be a stopper for coming out with a guide. DK should do the ground work with LOCALS (of which you are not). Provided he does that and considers their opinion, I say go for the guide.
Kennedy is getting no cooperation from the locals, with one exception that I am aware of. So the first edition, if there is one, won't be very accurate or complete. Knowing this, Kennedy is going ahead anyway. Does that change your mind? I didn't think so.
In reply to: If anything than to lay low the egos that are obviously runing rampant from those who feel the area is "theirs".
There you go again projecting your own hurt feelings about some choss pile in the high desert on a completely different situation. No one feels the area is theirs. This isn't about new route potential being squandered on the masses. There isn't much new route activity down there now anyway. This is about preservation.
JV
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Oct 18, 2003, 10:58 PM
Post #41 of 267
(17324 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: Precisely. Yet you presume to know that we're all hypocrites, that our only motivation is to keep our 'little playground' all to ourselves, and that no one who considers himself a local really cares about the place, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. The word is presumptuous.
I don't presume to know "all" are hypocrites, just the ones that have made it pretty clear on this thread.
In reply to: This isn't that difficult a concept. Read slower this time. I was referring to Randy's post about the need for a guidebook.
Nice try at a cover up though it is weak at best. You specifically say demand from the user, and yet it is these same users that you are claiming will come in such a number as to damage the area. So which is it? Not enough users or too many?
In reply to: There is none. In Josh there were problems with use management already, and a previously published guide. Here there are no problems, except the minor inconvenience of not having instant route information at your disposal.
Thats funny since we already have several series of topos being circulated. I guess that doesn't constitute a "guide" in your mind, but it does to others.
In reply to: But the guide poses a considerable danger to the confined and fragile environment if, and this is all I will concede, if it increases climber traffic by much. We don't know how a guide will affect the place. But if it's bad, there is no turning back. If it ain't broke . . .
Well you got one thing right, we don't know how a fully public guide will affect the place. Based upon that admission right there, it all comes down to each individuals opinion, hence my comments above about all counting equal.
In reply to: That's quite a leap. I base my assessment of Kennedy on a series of emails he and I traded a few weeks ago, and his clearly stated intentions in public emails. He knows that virtually everyone who climbs there regularly opposes the guidebook. He feels it is his right to publish a guidebook anyway.
Don't you love weasel words like "virtually"?? You can make your weak stance seem so much stronger :lol: I can virtaully guarentee you that not Virtually everyone opposes the guide. In fact, your virtually everyone is shown to be not true just from this thread alone.
In reply to: Hey, you started it with your inflammatory remarks. You're a moderator here? They should change your title.
Your right, everyone who dissagrees with you now not only doesn't give a rats ass, but they should be stripped from being a mod based upon the fact that I disagree with you. Ok there...keep on, keeping on.
In reply to: Kennedy is getting no cooperation from the locals, with one exception that I am aware of. So the first edition, if there is one, won't be very accurate or complete. Knowing this, Kennedy is going ahead anyway. Does that change your mind? I didn't think so.
Your right it doesn't change my mind. I see that he does have the co-op of one "local" at least and my guess would be more. But of course, you qualified it with "that I am aware of" knowing it could be more.
In reply to: There you go again projecting your own hurt feelings about some choss pile in the high desert on a completely different situation.
Hurt feelings??? Try vindicated feelings. The Margheritaville incident is a perfect analogy. Charles claimed the hordes would descend, they never did. In fact, you can go out there and be the only person probably 6 out of 7 days. CT will prove to be the same. Will traffic increase, I have already said yes it will, but it will never reach "horde" status as some of the Chicken Littles are claiming. CT is more of a pain in the ass to get to than Margheritaville.
In reply to: No one feels the area is theirs. This isn't about new route potential being squandered on the masses. There isn't much new route activity down there now anyway. This is about preservation. JV
Yep, preservation of your assumed right to dictate to others what they can and can not do in relation to CT. Hate to break it to you, but to steal a quote from Blazing Saddles,
"Mongo just pawn in game of life".
Just like Mongo, the world will go on with or without you, and people will make up their own minds. Its a hard lesson to learn, but others don't always agree, and in most cases you will find there is little you can do about it.
|
|
|
|
|
jv
Oct 18, 2003, 11:24 PM
Post #42 of 267
(17324 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 26, 2003
Posts: 363
|
In reply to: One other thing I forgot to mention: I love people who spray all over about a secret area than throw tissies when others start going, and or talking about the area. Don't you think thats funny JV?
Aaron: Get a grip. No one is throwing a tissie about those who are going to or talking about the area. Like I said, no one is turned away. We seem to have hit your raw nerve. Something about the paramount rights of the individual. Ayn Rand. I hear you. Kennedy must publish and put all of us in our place. We've got some nerve opposing his guidebook. Thanks for your contribution. But it's not your fight.
JV
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Oct 18, 2003, 11:38 PM
Post #43 of 267
(17324 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: In reply to: One other thing I forgot to mention: I love people who spray all over about a secret area than throw tissies when others start going, and or talking about the area. Don't you think thats funny JV? Aaron: Get a grip. No one is throwing a tissie about those who are going to or talking about the area. Like I said, no one is turned away. We seem to have hit your raw nerve. Something about the paramount rights of the individual. Ayn Rand. I hear you. Kennedy must publish and put all of us in our place. We've got some nerve opposing his guidebook. Thanks for your contribution. But it's not your fight. JV
The fact is the more info that is out there, the more people see it, the more people will want to go, and the more people will start asking/thinking about a guide. Whether you want to admit it or not, all publicity to a climbing area brings the area one step closer to be "outed". This thread alone has probably doubled the recognition of CT in the SoCal community than anything prior. If people truly want to keep an area secret, they should do just that, keep it secret. That way when the info does get out, you will have the luxury of knowing that it was a matter of time, not a matter of "control".
A raw nerve....hmmm... I wouldn't necessarily disagree with this. I have always had a bone to pick with "secret area" developers. Every area out there that pulls people away from other more popular areas is a good thing. It lessons the impact on all areas across the board except perhaps the area that is seeing very little traffic. My personal feelings is while the fear of a guide isn't necessarily unexpected, in this case I would say the manner by which it has been presented: hordes flocking to it, are seriously misguided. It is my opinion, but I do think that many things point to this as listed in my above arguments.
The above comments (about Dave should publish to spite) were mostly meant toungue in cheek. I don't feel that DK needs to publish. In fact, I said there are some legitmate concerns IMO that he should address before he publishes (true locals opinions, etc..) however, I don't think trying to strong arm or villify an individual about a guide is the way to approach the issue. All your going to do is cause him to dig in his heels including on concerns where he probably shouldn't.
Guidebooks are not inherently bad for a climbing area. I think that many make the premature and automatic assumption that they are, but it has been shown in past several times over that it simply isn't true. Instead of fighting Dave, why not try to work with him and come to some sort of consensus on how to approach it to respect the character of an area, and perserves it's uniqueness, while still getting the info out?
As it stands now, you (and I refer to you as in people against the guide) are sitting this one out while Dave does what he will. Did you not read the SD guide? If you don't give him beta he'll just make up the names. If he doesn't know the grade he'll climb it or someone he knows will and he'll assign it what they feel is the grade.
IMO the area would be better served by a comprehensive and accurate guide rather than a guide that still gets people there but is full of errors and ommisions.
|
|
|
|
|
bvb
Oct 20, 2003, 5:11 PM
Post #44 of 267
(17324 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2003
Posts: 954
|
roughtster, i'm not going to get into a tit-for-tat with you as john did, because it's obvious that it'll turn into an eternal ping pong match.
but i will reiterate one point: as i mentioned very early on in this thread, the folks who feel this proposed guidebook is a good thing, when defending the idea of the guidebook, never fail to fall back on the flawed notion that those oppposed to the guidebook are "greedy little locals" who want to keep the "secret" area for themselves.
ad hominem attacks on individuals -- or, in the case, whole groups -- are the perennial tool of choice of those who cannot build a logical case on merit or fact.
and if the reader takes time to go back thorugh this thread, you attack jv, and those who agree with jv, in almost every post as selfish so -called "locals" whose sole interest in in keeping the area "secret" for themselves and their chosen buddies.
nothing could be further from the truth. there are many people concerned about the imapct of a guidebook from experience and resource perspectives. that's about the long and the short of it.
your constant attacks based of jv and others, based on your belief in a non-existant localism, speaks volumes. i'll freely discuss this toic with anyone who cares to engage in an actual dialogue, but it's clear that any additional time spent debating the issue with you is time poorly spent.
|
|
|
|
|
murf
Oct 20, 2003, 6:08 PM
Post #45 of 267
(17324 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 15, 2002
Posts: 1150
|
From a definate non-local ( although I have climbed there ) my vote, in the vain hope it will somehow matter, is emphatically no.
Someone tells me he just did a route on the Throne? I know the guy was dedicated enough to go down, scope the approach, deal with the meager beta, and send. That's very cool.
Want to climb some routes? Go down there on a weekend, there'll be someone to point out a few goodies too you. Or get the specs out and look around.
There's no shortage of documented climbing in the SoCal area, so what is the true reason for a guidebook? What about the mystery? Isn't it fun to do a little adventure climbing?
As for the M-ville strawman arguement, the area did have at least one encounter with a poor user group AFAIK. Also, there is no *published* guidebook! To discuss the effect a guidebook would have on the area, there would actually have to be a guidebook.
So the local folks don't want it, most folks who have gone there don't seem to want it, and I've never heard of anyone saying that they've just *got* to have a guide to CT. Why make one?
Murf
|
|
|
|
|
fredbob
Oct 20, 2003, 6:16 PM
Post #46 of 267
(17324 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2003
Posts: 455
|
In reply to: Please explain the burning need for another J-Tree guide, aside from your hunger to burn some dinero, that is.
That's pretty funny. But, lets see: 1) A 58% increase in documented routes; 2) complete change in road names and road systems; 3) All new rules about climbing [an entire new Climbing Management Plan], including bolting regulations in both Wilderness and Non-Wilderness; 4) A demand (and yes people have been buggin me for years for a new guide) for better information, descents, approaches, parking/driving, First Ascent info, gear recommendations, route descriptions, topos and more photos; and 5) Correcting a lot of errors in the last edition.
These are just a few reasons. But, then again, maybe there is no need for a new guide to any area. Maybe we should try to turn Yosemite and Tuolumne into pure word of mouth areas.
In reply to: I am not calling you a hypocrite, just an self-promoting opportunist with a set of situational ethics that are truly admirable.... :wink:
Sure you are calling me a hypocrite, which I anticipated someone like you doing. But if you actually read my prior post carefully, I suggested there are a lot of factors to be considered before publishing a guide and think Mr. Kennedy should think about these.
And, if it weren't quite obvious enough, I'll spell it out for you:
Writing a new guide for an area that has had at least 20 different specific guides (not considering the 6 or so other guides that also cover routes there) such as Josh is very different that putting out the first guide for a remote climbing area in northern Baja California.
But, you're entitled to your opinion. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
pbjosh
Oct 20, 2003, 6:43 PM
Post #47 of 267
(17324 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2002
Posts: 1518
|
In reply to: This is about twentyfive years overdue. Can't imagine what the fuss is all about - general beta has been published on a number of occasions in the mags over the years. I can't imagine the San Diego crew from my generation pulling this "Locals Only" B.S. (other than in jest). Climbing there is only "adventurous" insofar as it involves a visit to our third-world neighbor, getting lost on bad roads, and running the border checkpoint on the way home. It ought to be documented, if only for historical sake. Hat's off to whoever is willing to tackle the chore - I'll buy a copy as soon as it is available.
It's not locals only, it's just no-guidebook adventure. I or many other people will happily give tours. I really object to a guidebook to the area, I've gotten around and been given all the beta I've asked for and have enjoyed the pristineness and secludedness of the area. People who really want to go there do, a guidebook is a coddles those who lack a sense of adventure.
|
|
|
|
|
murf
Oct 20, 2003, 6:47 PM
Post #48 of 267
(17324 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 15, 2002
Posts: 1150
|
In reply to: self-promoting opportunist with a set of situational ethics that are truly admirable.... :wink:
You own a Josh guide?
|
|
|
|
|
mister_mestizo
Oct 20, 2003, 7:35 PM
Post #49 of 267
(17324 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2003
Posts: 30
|
Sorry to cut in, but I'd like to go back to the point concerning land ownership.... is this area on private land (a message mentioned the Ejido), or is it a national park, as mentioned in another message?
I appreciate the fact that it may seem that the land is under no control at all, but I have a feeling that this will change over the years as traffic increases... someone is bound to step in and exercise control, do you know who it is most likely to be?
|
|
|
|
|
johnkitt
Oct 20, 2003, 7:36 PM
Post #50 of 267
(17324 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 9, 2003
Posts: 20
|
I originally started this thread to see what type of responses I would get from the climbing community. I left my original post as neutral as possible because my own opinion was still being formed and I wanted to see what people's untainted responses would be.
However, after reading the posts on this thread, talking with other people in the community, and thinking about what I know of the area, I have formed my own opinion that I would like to voice. Hopefully my comments won’t piss off anyone out there (I’m a firm believer that a man can never have too many belayers :wink: ), but I can’t help that – this is how I feel.
I am firmly against the guidebook. I will never purchase this guidebook (assuming it ever becomes published). I will ask friends of mine to not purchase this guidebook. I would even go so far as to asking local retailers to not carry it.
I came to this conclusion based on my experiences in Canon Tajo. While there I saw a pristine, isolated area in a foreign, hospitable region. I would like to see it stay this way. Of course, people should enjoy it. But in order for it to remain as it is, only small numbers of people can do so at a time. If more people start climbing there, it will loose more than it’s romance. The area is fragile and cannot support (or survive) the intrusion of the many climbers like you see in many other areas. I have voiced my concerns to Dave and he assures me that he would work to mitigate this impact by providing funds and manpower. Personally, I doubt that he would be able to deliver either in quantities sufficient enough to offset the impact that would come as a direct result of his guidebook.
There is also another reason for this decision. By and large, Dave does not have the support of the majority of first Canon Tajo ascentionists or its custodians such as John Smallwood. These people have their own reasons for not supporting Dave – I don’t want to touch on that here, they can and should voice their own reasoning. But I will point out that it is impossible to write a complete and, more importantly, a safe guide without the support of these people. We’ve all heard the stories on how in past guidebooks authored by Dave, routes were named and rated incorrectly – whether this was done intentially or not I also won’t discuss here. However, it is in the very least unethical to knowingly publish false and misleading information.
There, I’ve said my peace. I’m quite sure that I wasn’t able to persuade Dave to not write his guidebook. It’s very possible that I didn’t even succeed in persuading anyone else that reads this for that matter. However, I’ve convinced myself, so maybe that’s not so bad…
-john kitt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Canon Tajo Guidebook???
[
