|
crotch
Oct 20, 2003, 7:48 PM
Post #51 of 267
(17624 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 1277
|
In reply to: 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?
CT is not in the National Park. The Park is further South.
|
|
|
|
|
jv
Oct 21, 2003, 2:31 AM
Post #52 of 267
(17624 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 26, 2003
Posts: 363
|
In reply to: 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".
I never disagreed that a guide is inevitable, and no one is trying to keep the area a secret. The information that is out there now came from the people who are opposed to the guide. What I question is the timing of this publication. The information is out there for those who want to dig. What happens if there is guidebook on the bookshelf at every outdoor shop in the southwestern United States? That makes the place much more accessible to a much larger number of climbers who were otherwise not inclined do the work of finding it on their own. Most of the people who come now were introduced to it by a 'regular' who appreciates the place, and who tells them to burn their TP and pick up their trash. More people means more yahoos.
In reply to: 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.
Agreed, except that the area isn't secret. The no-guide policy adopted by the majority of climbers is not a "don't tell" policy. That reminds me, a little background on how I know who is for and who is against. John Smallwood has been keeping notes on new routes since the 70's. He has shown more people how to get there than anyone else, and he has done more to maintain the place (picking up trash, shoveling out firepits, trimming brush on use trails, replacing 1/4" bolts . . .) than everyone else put together. No one goes there more than John. When Kennedy asked him for help with the guidebook, he didn't refuse out of hand, he emailed the 100+ on his list, those who use the place regularly, and asked us if we were for or against. With two exceptions, one for the guidebook, and one neutral, the answer was 'against.'
In reply to: 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.
Since there appears to be nothing we can do to stop it, I sincerely hope you are right.
In reply to: 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.
Agreed. And if it sounds like I am vilifying him, I don't mean to. I'm frustrated with Kennedy like everyone else down here, because he seems deaf to our concerns and unwilling to compromise in any way.
In reply to: 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?
John says he and Kennedy discussed the whole thing, and John made a number of counter-proposals, the details of which I am not familiar with. John is a professional counselor, very patient, with excellent interpersonal skills. I trust him. He came away feeling that he was butting his head against a brick wall. No give, no empathy, and no understanding of the cares and concerns of the opposing group. I have the same impression of Kennedy, as does one other climber I know who has had dealings with Kennedy in the past. Just opinions.
In reply to: 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.
I guess the theory is that if the guide is inaccurate and full of errors and omissions, the word will get out, and the new traffic (if . . .) will decrease. Anyone who gets there and loves the place, will keep coming back regardless of the quality of the guide, and they will be welcomed. There will always be someone willing to share beta.
JV
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Oct 21, 2003, 3:02 AM
Post #53 of 267
(17624 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
First off, if the majority of the FA’ers do not support the publication of a guidebook then their wishes should be respected. Come on now, that is so basic that I find it disturbing that anyone would question it. The fact that there hasn’t been a guidebook published in thirty some odd years seems to support the contention that the FA’ers do not want a guide published. Does the fact that some information has been published open the gate to a free for all on what happens in respect to said area? I don’t buy that rationalization at all.
Adventure, are we forgetting what climbing is supposed to be all about? Do we really need to be spoonfed information on every possible climbing area? If you were going to pick an area for adventure climbing wouldn’t Canon Tajo be about ideal?
Do we know who the probable publisher would be for the proposed guidebook?
How about a letter writing campaign in opposition to the guidebook?
targets: potential publishers, climbing rags, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
jv
Oct 21, 2003, 3:48 AM
Post #54 of 267
(17624 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 26, 2003
Posts: 363
|
In reply to: Do we know who the probable publisher would be for the proposed guidebook? How about a letter writing campaign in opposition to the guidebook? targets: potential publishers, climbing rags, etc.
Worth a try.
Deadpoint Press
12642 Poway Road
Poway, CA 92064
dpoint@utm.net
That's from the San Diego County Climbing Guide and may be outdated.
JV
|
|
|
|
|
alpnclmbr1
Oct 21, 2003, 4:08 AM
Post #55 of 267
(17624 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 3060
|
In reply to: In reply to: Do we know who the probable publisher would be for the proposed guidebook? How about a letter writing campaign in opposition to the guidebook? targets: potential publishers, climbing rags, etc. Worth a try. Deadpoint Press 12642 Poway Road Poway, CA 92064 dpoint@utm.net That's from the San Diego County Climbing Guide and may be outdated. JV
Apparently kennedy self publishes since the only books out by that publisher are written by him.
Well if anyone wants to send him hate mail I guess that is one avenue, but I don’t see much point in petitioning the publisher since the author is one and the same. Bummer.
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Oct 21, 2003, 7:12 AM
Post #56 of 267
(17624 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: 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.
It is funny you would use that choice of words since it was you first who said Dave was motivated by greed for publishing the guide. Sounds like there may be a little of it on both sides of this issue if you ask me.
In reply to: 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.
LOL I about spit my beer out when i read that one. Perhaps you need to go back and reread your own replies to the area if you want to talk about ad hominem. You set the stage with post #1 by attacking Dave. You don't like them?? Don't use them.
In reply to: 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.
And you attack those who support a guidebook by saying we want to "ruin" CT. A little hypocritical in your logic Bob.
In reply to: 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.
No problems there, feel free to ignore my posts from now on. Theres a little button right under my name that allows you to do just that. However, I find hypocrites most amusing and it would suck to lose such an easy target :(
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Oct 21, 2003, 7:31 AM
Post #57 of 267
(17624 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
Sounds like you and I are at least getting somwehere, I agree with many of your points and I don't think dave should release no matter what. There are legitimate concerns which should be addressed. It sounds like dave has been making an effort to get local input etc.. Until he either does or does not come out with the guide, it will all be speculation on what he thought of the received input.
In reply to: I guess the theory is that if the guide is inaccurate and full of errors and omissions, the word will get out, and the new traffic (if . . .) will decrease. Anyone who gets there and loves the place, will keep coming back regardless of the quality of the guide, and they will be welcomed. There will always be someone willing to share beta. JV
Actually I would say a poorly released guide will just set the stage for a "better" more comprehensive and accurate guide. Thats just my guess though. If anything I think it will be very interesting to see how this plays out.
My predictions:
- Dave releases a reasonably accurate (more accurate then you guys would expect) guide.
- Dave does to try to do the area justice. Many end up thinking, "Hmm maybe the guide wasn't a bad idea after all."
- The predicted hordes do not show up. Usage will increase, however, it will remain an "adventure area" by the sheer nature and location of the area.
- Every single person reading/writing to this thread will either actually buy the guide and not admit it, or they will read it cover to cover in the store, then claim they don't support it.
Thats my story and I'm sticking to it :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
tdoughty
Oct 21, 2003, 3:44 PM
Post #58 of 267
(17624 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 21, 2003
Posts: 26
|
A fellow climber asked me for my thoughts on the issue. I've climbed for over 30 years in CT and even have a few 1st ascents there. I have found myself placed right in the middle on this issue and have discussed this fact on the phone with both Dave K. and John S., as well as some of the climbers I used to hang with back in the day. There's a lot of history behind this issue, more than I can susinctly put down here. I personnally need to follow through on commitments made long ago and not contribute to a guide by providing beta, etc. Yet I also believe in individual freedom, such as freedom of speech, and even in a bit of anarchy.
But overall my thoughts can be summed up rather quickly:
1st: No one is going to stop Dave Kennedy from publishing (Unless John Smallwood or his connections follow through on his not so veiled threats of violence).
2nd: I have to ask myself, " Since a guidebook is going to be published, what would cause the most impact, a poorly written guide, or a well written one?"
I have seen how climbers unfamiliar with an area can turn a previously climbed route into a "Sport" route and the answer seems obvious to me.
I'd rather see a good guide published than some piece of shit, full of holes and misinformation.
|
|
|
|
|
pbjosh
Oct 21, 2003, 4:34 PM
Post #59 of 267
(17624 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 22, 2002
Posts: 1518
|
On the subject of Dave Kennedy's contributions to Canon Tajo, they are 0 so far AFAIK. I've climbed there maybe a half dozen to a dozen times, and have spent several days cutting trails, building cairns, replacing bolts, and showing others around the (very limited) number of routes I know. I've also given money to John for his efforts in replacing bolts on other routes. This winter I will go down there again for a weekend - not to climb but solely to rappel the Pan Am wall and replace the sorely out-of-date anchors.
For most who climb at Canon Tajo it's more than just a collection or routes, it's a pristine desert setting and it's a place to meet new folks, show people around and focus more on fun than on hard routes. I've made a lot of great friends down there. None of us were kept out by some "secret society" of San Diego locals, instead we were all invited down, fed and watered (or rather margarita'd), shown tons of climbs, offered all the beta we could ask for, given copies of topos, etc, and invited to bring other people to Canon Tajo so long as we do the same and preserve the traditional ethic of the place and not publish a ton of info. Doesn't seem like too much to ask and doesn't seem like the system was in any way faulty or in need of a guidebook.
|
|
|
|
|
crotch
Oct 21, 2003, 5:07 PM
Post #60 of 267
(17624 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 1277
|
In reply to: Do we know who the probable publisher would be for the proposed guidebook? How about a letter writing campaign in opposition to the guidebook? targets: potential publishers, climbing rags, etc.
A letter writing campaign to possible retailers of the book might be more succesful. Get A-16, Nomad, REI and local gyms to pledge not to carry the guide.
|
|
|
|
|
freda
Oct 21, 2003, 5:29 PM
Post #61 of 267
(17624 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 21, 2003
Posts: 1
|
almost 10 years climbing at CT. Found it myself first time before meeting JS and CB. I have taken my 4 year old there once so far and plan to take her again later this year. 1 of the few places where we can really get away. Lets all try and keep it that way. Not in favor of guide book.
|
|
|
|
|
bvb
Oct 21, 2003, 5:44 PM
Post #62 of 267
(17624 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2003
Posts: 954
|
In reply to: In reply to: 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. And you attack those who support a guidebook by saying we want to "ruin" CT. A little hypocritical in your logic Bob.
aaron, although i had made my mind up not to waste any more of my time with you, some things truly demand a response.
so, in reference to the above: please cite for us all the post in which i declared "those who support a guidebook are motivaed by a desire to ruin canon tajo." truth to tell, this would be the first occasion i've ever heard of in 30 years of climbing where someone deliberatly published a guidebook for the purpose of ruining the area.
please elaborate.
or not.
|
|
|
|
|
hasbeen
Oct 21, 2003, 5:54 PM
Post #63 of 267
(17624 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 17, 2003
Posts: 543
|
In reply to: hunger to burn some dinero
if money is your aim, writing a climbing guidebook is probably the least effective way to reach your goal. I'll bet randy makes a buck an hour, if that, for his time investment. my guess is that he makes a tad more than that using his law degree.
which makes me wonder just why kennedy is so keen on this project. if he isn't a local, and doesn't establish first ascents, and most people are opposed to his idea, particuarly the first ascentionists themselves, then what gives?
some areas benefit from published info and some do not. i do not think this is one that will. josh does, mainly due to its sensitive access situation. ct would not. i mean, what's to gain? it's not like there are thousands of routes down there to sift through. it's kind of fun to have an area where you roll your own dice. you may see a bolt or two, but are never quite sure if you'll find more. it's fun and always a bit scary. plus, you're in the middle of nowhere should you get hurt, and you just might get robbed. while i agree that "hordes" won't descend on the place with publication of a guide, i'd rather see it stay the way it is.
seems like most folks that frequent the place agree. it's never going to be a major destination. it's too remote and the climbing ain't all that great--at least in my opinion. but it is beautiful, and it is pristine.
and, really, what kind of guide would it be? without fa info it is going to suck. then people will be getting lost, more will get robbed, more injured, more issues will arise with private land, etc, etc. i just don't see the upside. how much money is kennedy going to make on the thing, a few hundred bucks a year? and for that he's willing to piss off the current ct climbing community. doesn't seem like a smart move to me.
now, i think a book documenting the history of ct would be cool. one with stories and photos. this is in need because it is a known area to anyone that's followed climbing history over the last few decades. i think if this was done then people would realize the areas need to stay the way it is, and how publication of a guide is likely to do more harm than good. and i think this is far more likely to give those interested the information they'd like to see, and keep those not interested in some risk and adventure spending their weekends climbing within sight of hidden valley campground.
someone should cut and paste this thread and send it to kennedy.
|
|
|
|
|
muckraker
Oct 21, 2003, 7:55 PM
Post #64 of 267
(17624 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 21, 2003
Posts: 2
|
http://www.alpinistas.org/ceilidh/index.htm
E-mails sent from John Smallwood and Dave Kennedy to the Alpinistas listserv.
John Smallwood doesn't represent himself very well in e-mail communication.
|
|
|
|
|
hasbeen
Oct 21, 2003, 8:36 PM
Post #65 of 267
(17624 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 17, 2003
Posts: 543
|
This is from that same thread, posted by tuck:
I am truly grateful for the efforts of the "SoCal Locals" and Mexican climbers in developing and maintaining this place, but they don't control it. The debate over whether the Mexican climbers and SoCal Locals should have greater input than others regarding the publication of a guidebook, and whether or not Dave Kennedy is profiteering, is a red herring to me: The place is privately owned, and it is the views of the owners that matter the most. I'd REALLY like to see their views on one of these forums. THEN we can argue the rest in that context. Does any legitimate representative speak for the cooperative that owns the place?
This is a very important piece of information. Based on the history of climbing on private land, a guidebook being published means that there is a much greater chance the area will be closed to climbing. Unless the land owners have voiced an okay with the publication of a guide, the climbing community--and probably the Access Fund as well--should do everything it can to dissuade Kennedy from publishing that book.
|
|
|
|
|
mister_mestizo
Oct 21, 2003, 8:40 PM
Post #66 of 267
(17624 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 29, 2003
Posts: 30
|
Thanks for that last link, one message there confirms that the land is privately owned by a cooperative and asks, why is no one coordinating with the owners? It seems to me that these owners might well be interested in managing camping, access, trash, etc. in exchange for a modest visitor's fee.
All of this talk about who should control route information should simply be blown away by the simple posting of free route info here on this website, or on another. And shouldn't y'all be trying to work with the landowners to help them capture this opportunity to create clean, simple ecotourism?
|
|
|
|
|
bvb
Oct 21, 2003, 8:49 PM
Post #67 of 267
(17624 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2003
Posts: 954
|
In reply to: http://www.alpinistas.org/ceilidh/index.htm E-mails sent from John Smallwood and Dave Kennedy to the Alpinistas listserv. John Smallwood doesn't represent himself very well in e-mail communication.
ha, i luv these posts by people who are posting to rc.com for the first time. welcome to the forum, guys and gals. if nothing else, it's a testimony to the deep attachments people have to the wilderness experience at canon tajo.
muckracker, btw, i thought john smallwood's post was lucid, readable, and very much to the point. in exactly what way do you not think he was not well represented? and would you care to let us know who you are? in this particular topic, the cloak of anonymity does nothing but undermine your position. most of the major players, pro and con, seem to know one another. who are you, pray tell?
|
|
|
|
|
jv
Oct 21, 2003, 9:39 PM
Post #68 of 267
(17624 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 26, 2003
Posts: 363
|
In reply to: Thanks for that last link, one message there confirms that the land is privately owned by a cooperative and asks, why is no one coordinating with the owners? It seems to me that these owners might well be interested in managing camping, access, trash, etc. in exchange for a modest visitor's fee.
Kennedy has only paid lip service to the fact that the land is private. I personally think he considers it a non-issue, and is so determined to publish that he doesn't care what the landowners think, or what action they might take in response. In this regard he trots out the 'journalistic freedom' argument: he's just publishing information that 'the public has a right to know.'
In reply to: All of this talk about who should control route information should simply be blown away by the simple posting of free route info here on this website, or on another.
Problem is that online guides tend not to significantly impact sales of bound guides. The likely result would be that Kennedy would incorporate the online information into his book.
In reply to: And shouldn't y'all be trying to work with the landowners to help them capture this opportunity to create clean, simple ecotourism?
I agree in principle, but some of the campgrounds along the road down make me shudder. They put a fence up, and clear the brush, creating a well defined, open but dusty little 'park.' Some also favor painting the tree trunks white. This would be far worse for the environment than more climbers. Pure speculation though.
JV
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Oct 21, 2003, 11:05 PM
Post #69 of 267
(17624 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: In reply to: 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. LOL I about spit my beer out when i read that one. Perhaps you need to go back and reread your own replies to the area if you want to talk about ad hominem. You set the stage with post #1 by attacking Dave. You don't like them?? Don't use them.
Strangely went unanswered????
In reply to: so, in reference to the above: please cite for us all the post in which i declared "those who support a guidebook are motivaed by a desire to ruin canon tajo."
Ok lets look at some of your statements. I think it is a reasonable inference to substitute "Dave" or any variation for "anyone who supports a guidebook" judging from your posts.
In reply to: the thought that some bonehead is going to publish a guidebook to the area is incredibly demoralizing. it seems that these days, people become so locked into their perspective that they totally lose sight of the big picture. the "magic" of canon tajo -- the very thing that makes the place so special -- will be irrevocably lost once the guidebook is published.
In reply to: dave kennedy is motivated by either greed-- he thinks he'll make money off the book -- or the burning desire to enhance his "reputation" as player in all matters canon tajo --
In reply to: a beautiful, remote area that does not suffer the ill effects of a guide is a rare and precious thing. why ruin it? it's like that last buffalo hunt -- we're slowly killing off the undocumented "adventure" areas, one at at time.
In reply to: his effort to publish is as transparently self-serving as they come.
In reply to: Dave Kennedy has unilaterally chosen to rip off future generations
In reply to: is Dave Kennedy actually so self-centered that he will ignore all of the incredibly good reasons not to publish?
In reply to: In reply to: 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. Ironic considering that even the mighty bvb thought it was in a national park when it isn't. How funny :lol:
Ok so we see we have a nice collection of personal attacks on Dave from the "humble" bvb who thinks using ad hominem attacks are "weak". Very funny :lol:
People who support a guidebook are:
Boneheads
Totally locked into their own perspective they can't see the big picture (or you could have just said, "They don't agree with me") which ultimately will ruin CT.
Motivated by greed
Desiring to enhance their reputation
Specifically you say a guidebook will ruin it in the 3rd point down. Therefore if you support it, you support "ruining" CT.
Self Serving
Riping off future generations
Ignoring good reasons not to publish
Nope you never lead people to believe that people who support the guidebook just support "ruining" CT., but also proceeded to call them greedy, boneheads, self serving, desiring to improve their reputations, etc...
I love your attempt at "logic" talk then you fall right into, if not preceded the accusations, with doing the very same thing yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
bvb
Oct 21, 2003, 11:28 PM
Post #70 of 267
(17624 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2003
Posts: 954
|
that was a valiant attempt, aaron. but all you've done here is "interpret" what i've written to suit your purposes.
as i have made clear: i do not believe dave's motivation is to "ruin" canon tajo. and no matter how lengthy your posts become, nothing will change that.
and although i must say i admire your persistence in trying to make your case that i have declared kennedy's motive is to "ruin" ct, your rhetorical technique could use a bit of honing.
nobody is out to deliberately and maliciously "ruin" a beautiful area -- not even kennedy. but i do believe he has blinded himself to the notion that this could very well become the legacy of his guidebook should he choose to follow through with the project.
as for you? i haven't the foggiest idea what your stake in this is, aside for an apparent pathological need to "win" a "debate". good luck to you.
my only point is this: publishing a guidebook to canon tajo is, put simply, a breathtakingly bad idea.
|
|
|
|
|
ronamick
Oct 22, 2003, 12:23 AM
Post #71 of 267
(17624 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 28, 2002
Posts: 476
|
This Kennedy character knows little to nothing about Canon Tajo, yet he decides to write a guidebook for it. Why would he do something like that? Purvey knowledge about an area, from the position of having no knowledge about that area. Sounds like a “go” to me! Fool. Motivation has to be; a) make a little easy cash. No existing guide means that any crap he throws together will do just fine b) Further his reputation as guidebook maven of an ever expanding turfdom c) Grab the only notoriety he can, however flimsy and cheap it may be, by keeping that sterling name in front of John Q. climbing public d) all of these.
So Kennidity, man of knowledge, famis guidebook author and expert decides a guide is needed, and he’s the clown to write it. But he knows little or less about the area (which hasn’t stopped him yet), so he’ll have to get it second hand, as usual. But when he tries to beg info on the routes from the miserable locals, they tell him to take a hike! Of all the nerve! Purposely withholding info as if they have that prerogative! Do they think they own this area? Whoa. If you were climbing and hit one of the locals up for route info, you’d get all you need. But why should they help a Clown who blows in out of the blue, write a guidebook to benefit the Clown and the clown alone?
If MK doesn’t have the scoop, he needs to move along. But he won’t. He will put out a sack of dogdoo, direct anyone and everyone to a pristine wilderness area, and facilitate the trampling and degradation of an area he has no connection to. But why should he care? He won’t be climbing there! If people want to climb there, they can find it, but it may take a little effort, and that’s ok. They may have to GOD FORBID just go, and explore the climbing on their own. Why do people think they need a frigging guide book or they can’t climb there? Scared you might get on something too hairy? Need to put a number on everything so you don’t get scared?
Welcome to climbing McWeenis. Many skills are required to actually be a climber. An eye for difficulty, ability to make good decisions as to when to bail and when to go for it. Capacity to work out of a jam on the lead, read the rock etc. A bit of boldness and confidence in the face of the unknown…. That’s climbing, kids. Weather, loose rock, plants, dirt, no guide…. DEAL WITH IT.
It is not in the interest of the surroundings to publicize this area. It is not our Real Estate. It belongs to Mexico, so let’s just give them some respect, and not turn their beautiful place into our high traffic playground. The access roads cross private ranchlands, and pastures. Some of it is Parkland. Small villages along the way should’nt have to deal with a stream of foreigners barreling through so they can climb on rocks. Kennedy is totally out of line, and if he does write a guide, he is an ass, and the guide will be poor.
Are we really supposed to feel sorry for this moron because the locals won’t help him out? A real class act, this Kennedy. Lotta class. After seeing the halfass, poorly researched junk he has printed on San Diego’s areas, where public knowledge abounds (if one cares to access it), one shudders to imagine what this Misguided Fountain of Misinformation would give us for a Tajo guide. He needs to get real, and realize the possible consequences of his actions.
Guide King Kinnedy also happens to be a plagiarist, which I can attest to as an aggrieved party. Much of the information he has used for his San Diego guides is taken directly from previously published material written by myself and others, without acknowledgement, thanks, or recognition of the work done by his predecessors that made his guides possible. He never called me, or anyone I know to ask if he could use material, ask for new information, corrections, updates, etc. It doesn’t bother me, but it does say something about the character and professionalism of this person, or lack thereof. If he can’t get his information then he’s on his own, and has no call to go whining about it. I guess he doesn’t do “on his own”.
|
|
|
|
|
bvb
Oct 22, 2003, 12:34 AM
Post #72 of 267
(17624 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2003
Posts: 954
|
amen, ron. thank you for articulating so well what i could not.
and aaron...jesus, why don't you just whistle dave kennedy, and put us all out of your misery?
|
|
|
|
|
ronamick
Oct 22, 2003, 2:05 AM
Post #73 of 267
(17624 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 28, 2002
Posts: 476
|
Ironic considering that even the mighty bvb thought it was in a national park when it isn't. How funny :lol:
If you are going to slam someone for name calling, it will carry a bit more punch if you avoid the same "nah-nah-nah-mister-poopy-pants" rancor in your message. Just a thought.
Are you quite sure about the Parque Nacional's borders? Even if the Grand Trono Blanco isn't situated within the park, park land is definately traversed on the approach, so why split hairs? The park is impacted on the approach, and that's the real point. Maps of Baja are vague at best, and often unobtainable, and I suspect that your smug certainty as to where the park boundaries lie could be a bit hasty. But a line on a map changes naught. Human traffic is a hammer on the surroundings akin to wind and water. It inexorably wears the entire environment down in a gradual but irrevocable march of destruction.
We are doing that to more and more of our own country. So much that we have become enured to it, and have accepted it as the natural progression of things. The Mexicans have not committed to this "wear it out and move on" mentality, and I don't think it's our place to visit our destructive ways upon them. Let them wear their own stuff out, if they will. Isn't climbing a mighty frivolous justification for bringing any negative impact to their country? It's not our right.
Do we really want to delude ourselves into believing that publicity will have absolutely no detrimental affects on the environment for the sake of our convenience in the pursuit our leisure time?
God knows, I'm as bad as the next lazy American, but we should at least try to confine our antics to our own country.
|
|
|
|
|
bvb
Oct 22, 2003, 4:44 AM
Post #74 of 267
(17624 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 3, 2003
Posts: 954
|
In reply to: Ironic considering that even the mighty bvb thought it was in a national park when it isn't. How funny :lol:
hmmm...aaron, had not noticed this remark of yours before. but then, there is no point in reading your posts to carefully...it's obvious that you're typing with one hand while you "massage" yourself with the other.
allow me to explain: the climbing areas that are broadly referred to by long-term visitors as "canon tajo" extend many miles south and north along the escarpment, as well as inland, from the main canon. when the old-timers say "we're heading down to tajo this weekend", they can be referring to anything from the big dome just east of the giant sandy wash, about 6 mile into the approach drive, to areas far south of the main canon. a significant portion of this territory is included in, or directly adjacent to, the park. anyone who is curious can consult the baja quads, as i did, back in '77 -- UCSD had a full set of quads for the entire penninsula in the flat files.
so aaron...did kennedy enjoy the highly personal service you performed for him? wipe that mayo off your chin now, boyo....you frikkin polesmoker.
|
|
|
|
|
jv
Oct 22, 2003, 5:22 AM
Post #75 of 267
(17624 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 26, 2003
Posts: 363
|
By my count from this thread we have 5 in favor, 17 opposed, and 4 neutral. I checked the link to the Alpinistas' web site and see three opinions opposing the guide, and I know that at least one, John Lohr, favors it. Among my friends and acquaintances who have climbed there, there is only one who favors the guide, and he is one of the five who already posted on this thread. That's another dozen opposed. Where are the rest of those in favor?
I am beginning to think that the widespread support of the climbing community that Kennedy often claims, is fiction. Who are these people and why have they not rallied around Kennedy? Why hasn't Kennedy himself weighed in here? If he has the support of the majority of climbers, why don't more of them get involved in the debate?
JV
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Canon Tajo Guidebook???
[
