wow. aaron, you're out there. characterizing that crew as part of american climbing's intellectual core -- that is to say, the best writers, the most incisive thinkers, the most influential characters -- is so absurd it just cracks you up?

Roughster,

The noobie attitude comment was directed towards your stance on this issue only.

I get irritated by newbie attitudes such as why can’t we bolt a crack and what is wrong with retrobolting runout routes, and why can’t you just skip the bolts if you want to lead trad?

The whole newbie attitude that you have to have a guide to climb at an area is along these lines.

As far as kennedy, if you really believe that his motivation for writing a guide to CT is wanting to do a public service. Right. Has he spent any significant time there, apparently not.

Producing a guidebook for a given area shouldn’t be a based on ulterior motives and most of the financially inspired guidebooks fall way short of being worthwhile.

As far as Priest Draw, I have spent a fair amount of time there, I have never once seen anybody walking around with a guide. The locals don’t use grades as a local policy. The last time I was there with a crew from Hueco and about thirty of the locals came out and gave us a tour and beta on any and every problem we wanted to get on. That was a sweet day and a guidebook would have been totally besides the point.

I like using guidebooks as a tick list, but I almost always get an in person locals tour for my first trip to an area. It is just way more fun that way. This is a tradition that I would like to see passed along instead of a over reliance on guidebooks.

There are a lot of tendencies that come along with the “modernization” degradation of climbing ethics and habits influenced by sport and gym climbing that are totally contrary to many of the ideals inherent in the origins of the thing we call climbing. Things like respect for your predecessors and respect for traditional concepts and ethics such as self reliance, adventure and not feeling the need to be spoonfed every bit of info out there.

As far as I am concerned fighting against a guidebook for Canon Tajo is the “good fight” for tangible and meaningful reasons.

So because I simply disagree with you concerning a guidebook for Canon Tajo I am a noobie or have a noobie attitude? Your entitled to your opinion, but I see nothing "newbie" about it.

Not sure if this is a diversion tactic, but I see nowhere in this thread that supports this stance. Yes I know you are saying that people thinking they need a guidebook is along those same lines, but I am saying it is not that people think they need a guide, but rather that they [want one. In my mind, those are two seperate and distinct issues. I would say you have misrepresented those who are pro guide by summarizing that we think we need a guide. DOH! I forgot he CT comments. All previous "guide" comments were meant to say Canon Tajo guide :lol:

I know I don't need a guide to go to CT, I want a guide because it will maximize my limited time I will have at the area. Understand?

And where is it that this is shown? I have heard nothing that shows Dave hasn't spent time in the area. Maybe he wasn't one of the "1st wave crew" but does that mean now that only 1st wavers get to write guides? So tell me, do you own and Rockfax Bishop guides? vegas Limestone? Red Rocks Swain Guide? Neither of the guides authors were 1st waivers either.

Ahh but thats my ploint. There ARE two guides available to Preist draw. Whether or not you chose or knew about their existance is ilrelevant. The bottom is you went and had fun at an area that has a guidebook out for it and still had adventure by instead of looking for the guide, sought out locals who knew. Thats gREAT! I have alos been on the locals tour. Sometimes there is nothing better. However, I have also been at "secret areas" and had to figure things out for myself when I would have much prefered a guide due to my limited time there (Asylum @ Jack's Canyon for example). Is it a newbie attitude to realize you most likely will not be back to a certain crag for several years and want to hit a few good routes?

You liking it and others releasing a guidebook are two totally different issues. When guidebooks are released, locals w/the beta don't magically dissappear. That option is still open as well as will continue for newer developments. The fact that a guidebook is available for those that chose to use it, doesn't mean that people will no longer be allowed to get local tours. maybe it isn't the only option anymore, but who are you to take away that option from people just as your fears are saying pro-guidebook people are taking away your option? I see one side saying both can co-exist and one side saying that their way is the only way.

Simply put, that is your definition, it is not the inherent definition fo climbing. It may have been the "standard issue" in 1973, but it certainly isn't at present. Many people would call the change in definition inevitable change, not a "degradation" as you put it. Its all in your prospective. Let me repeat that, your perspective.

You’re a noob in this respect because you don’t seem to have any conception of the possible validity of a no guidebook rule for CT.

Also because you seem to support an “out of towner” coming in and alienating all the effective locals and publishing a guide book against their wishes. I am sorry but a guidebook author that can’t get the people that put up the routes to support his efforts and then decides to go ahead anyway, is a jerk.

What do you think suddenly wanting to publish a guidebook to a long established area with a 30 year history of being guidebook free is based on?

I wouldn’t argue that a guidebook wouldn’t make it easier to climb there, but how does that justify changing an established tradition?

The unwritten or oral delivery of information, opinions,
doctrines, practices, rites, and customs, from father to
son, or from ancestors to posterity; the transmission of
any knowledge, opinions, or practice, from forefathers to
descendants by oral communication, without written
memorials.

I would say that the majority of the people who have responded to this thread in a pro guide fashion think they need a guidebook to climb there.

Why can’t they climb there in the same fashion that people have been climbing there for the last thirty years?

Do you think people have been approaching kennedy and telling him he should write a guide to CT? Hell no, he saw a potential market and decided to exploit it, and the only reason that market is there is because of the no guide tradition. Capitalism at it’s best. (sarcasm)

(as far as my reaction to your labeling me as being “anti-guidebook”, I don’t like to be labeled. And as a matter of fact if the majority of the FA people supported it I would be fine with it.)

If he had spent a significant amount of time down there he would be part of the crew. There have been a number of respondents to this thread that have been climbing down there for a long time. John say’s he has been there twice that he knows of, everyone that I know that spends time down there has met John. Based on this thread he is relatively unknown down there.

99% percent of all areas are suited for that what is wrong with one that isn’t?

This goes to the question of whether there is a justification for changing an established 30 year tradition.

My definition? I haven't been around that long.

You have a lot lower opinion of the climbing community then I do, and it seems to be based on newbie sport gumbies that won't last.

So every area should be treated as a sport climbing crag? Are you familiar with the concept of route finding? This used to be a huge part of rock climbing. The loss of this skill has led to many otherwise preventable deaths. So yes, I would consider that a degradation.

Do you think every route should be PG?

Changes? You mean like chiseling, littering, grid bolting, cutting down trees to make a sport climb possible, tearing up plants in a desert environment for a campfire, retrobolting, convenience anchors, etc. Yes, I am confident in calling that degradation and I sure as hell don’t think it is inevitable.

Climbing is only meaningful on the basis of established rules and constraints on what is considered appropriate. Without them climbing would quickly lose it’s appeal. Without risk, adventure, and the impossible, it would soon be a meaningless game.

If that is your ideal, I would suggest keeping to a gym where you belong.

The pro-guidebook comments and bickering by a moderator are beyond tedious. Being new to rc.com, I'm wondering if this is what to expect from a moderator?

Please keep to the issues.

And if you would like to add to your knowledge of CT issues, perhaps ask a few questions from some of the experienced CT climbers/FA'ists such as, jv, bvb, or relative newcomers pbjosh, and crotch.

Btw, I will reiterate that Dave Kennedy has been to CT twice that I am aware of.

The first time approx. 2 years ago when a CT old-timer regretfully showed him around (didn't climb) and once this past summer when he was researching for his book.

Kennedy has done nothing to develop routes or to protect CT.

He stated his intention to profit in excess of $50k on the guidebook. Further, he wants to make a career as a guidebook publisher (read "ego" and future profiteering).

Out of the 40+ CT first ascensionists and core CT climbers polled, one is neutral on the subject with a mixed opinion, and one is pro-guide. The others are strongly opposed to a guidebook, citing the high probability of environmental impact and restriction to access, among other things. All of the Mexican CT climbers with whom I am in contact are opposed. Dozens of other one time/few times visitors have communicated their concern as well.

Shouldn't we all be concerned about the loss of wilderness and adventure?

Once a guide is published, the deed cannot be undone. CT as the wild place adventure climbers have known for 30 years will be extinct within a few short years, forever.

Does anyone here really value a premeditated extinction (okay, except virologists ;)?
-John Smallwood

The pro-guidebook comments and bickering by a moderator are beyond tedious. Being new to rc.com, I'm wondering if this is what to expect from a moderator?

Yup. Great climbers I agree with, great intellectuals beyond the scope of climbing, nope. It is a pretty simple concept.

Climbing traditions are fleeting and effectively meaningless.

The wishes of the first ascent people are unwarranted, elitist and should not be afforded any respect.

The people who developed the area are not locals.

DK is going to offer insight on the history of an area that he doesn’t climb at and hasn’t helped develop, and doesn’t get along with the developers.

One persons opinion is more valid then the opinion of a group.

If someone wants to chisel, litter, cut down trees, retrobolt, bolt cracks, etc. it is perfectly fine because it is their decision and nothing should impinge on their freedom of choice.

Now please show me how the hell you know about anyone, let alone the majority of pro-guide people?? Dear God could you make a wider generalization based on zero fact?

LOL, you are so far stretched its funny. You don't think people have asked for a CT guide before? Are you really that delusional?

I can’t believe that someone that has been climbing for as long as you have could be so friggin ignorant.

Godamn right moderators shouldn't participate in any debate they moderate! Where you come from boye?! Just because some of the hayseed yahoo moderators on this site gleefully dispense slander and insults like a condom machine at the Mustang Ranch doesn't make it right.

and here we have a classic roughsterism...either inventing quotes from thin air, taking quotes out of context, or twisting the meaning..."great intellectuals beyond the scope of climbing"...gosh aaron, did i say that? or did you?

[quote="bvb']and here we have a classic roughsterism...either inventing quotes from thin air, taking quotes out of context, or twisting the meaning..."great intellectuals beyond the scope of climbing"...gosh aaron, did i say that? or did you?

Climbing traditions are fleeting and effectively meaningless.

The wishes of the first ascent people are unwarranted, elitist and should not be afforded any respect.

The people who developed the area are not locals.

DK is going to offer insight on the history of an area that he doesn’t climb at and hasn’t helped develop, and doesn’t get along with the developers.

One persons opinion is more valid then the opinion of a group.

If someone wants to chisel, litter, cut down trees, retrobolt, bolt cracks, etc. it is perfectly fine because it is their decision and nothing should impinge on their freedom of choice.

Lets see, we have a group of people who say they want to climb at an area that they haven’t climbed at and on that basis they support a guide. I am sorry, but the generalization that most people won’t make the effort to find information on an area where they actually have to do some research as opposed to going to a bookstore and buying it is completely accurate and goes to the basic principles of the effects of a guidebook.

Who delusional? Why would anyone approach someone that doesn’t climb at an area to write a guidebook on that given area? They wouldn’t.

There is significant evidence that he hasn’t spent a lot of time there. There isn’t anything except supposition to say that he has even climbed there more than once.

I can’t believe that someone that has been climbing for as long as you have could be so friggin ignorant.

Hey guys, ("roughster" and others), would be willing to move the endless banter to PM or e-mail? Maybe you guys can wear yourselves out there and reserve this thread for the CT issues. Pleeease?
-J.S.

Roughster -

Why don't you bring to the table the number of people you've talked to who want a guidebook? You've dismissed the numbers of folks against the guidebook, insisting on a silent majority of folks who want it. Why are they so silent?

It almost seems like you were picked on a lot as a child. You don't wanna ask for beta on CT. Those big, bad locals might not tell you about the routes. I've seen no less than four beta offers in this thread. I'll assume the offerers sincerity, and conclude that information about CT is available pretty much to anyone, even a nobody like me.

You can go on protesting, shrilly quoting other's posts. The fact remains that you are arguing concept of a guidebook to a conceptual place. In this place, at this time, the majority on this thread, and the majority from the climbers most involved are against a guidebook. Why isn't that enough for you?

If you are so hardcore pro guidebook, why isn't your M-ville topo still available online? You keep pointing to that as an example of the guidebook that should be published. No balls when it comes down to brass tacks? Why not publish that guidebook yourself?

I read you posts and all I hear is child screaming things like:

"cause i wanna"
"nobody is gonna tell me i can't"
"everyone must agree with me cause i'm right"
"i know i'm right cause i have a hilti"

Grow up.

Oh yeah STFU n00b

Murf

Hey guys, ("roughster" and others), would be willing to move the endless banter to PM or e-mail? Maybe you guys can wear yourselves out there and reserve this thread for the CT issues. Pleeease?
-J.S.

Hola Arian (mister_mestizo),
Thanks for your questions which are directed to the issues.
Yes, the main camp is near El Gran Trono Blanco. The area for miles around is controlled by a farming/ranching cooperative (ejido), including the 20 miles of dirt roads shortly after leaving the highway. The ejido concept is an interesting piece of post-revolution Mexican history, land was distributed to the peasant farmers. The land at the main area belongs to a family, as parceled out by the ejido. A few miles to the south (maps are sketchy in Baja) is the Parque Nacional de Constitucion 1857.

A grave danger to the CT experience is that when profit potential is recognized in Mexico, as elsewhere, it tends to be exploited to the fullest.

The worst thing would be for climbers to go "above the radar", in significantly larger numbers, impacting the land, etc. The owners would see the opportunity to make money. That's not so unacceptable to me; it's their land. However, if you have visited a campground or "natural park" in Mexico, you know that trees with the lower limbs hacked off, trunks painted white, steel oil drums painted blue and overflowing with trash, etc. is not particularly aesthetic. Fences, gates, advertising, bulldozing "improving" access roads, the resulting campers and offroaders, camping fees and eventually graffiti, trash and increased crime are not things I look forward to.

Some months ago, I organized a few USA climbers to assist climbing clubs from Mexicali and Tijuana in a cleanup of a nearby canyon. View in Espanol: http://www.geocities.com/limpiaxbaja/
The access is controlled privately through one of these natural park/campgrounds. We retreived over 30 large trash bags full of trash. A couple dozen of us scrubbed graffiti with tools and chemicals. After several hours, we had maybe made a 10% difference. The permanent damage and desecration to pristine wilderness was discouraging. Fortunately, CT has been spared most of that, thanks to our efforts. There is a lot at stake, and a guidebook threatens to be the beginning of an irreversible environmental calamity.

An even worse scenario for climbers (but better for CT as a wilderness) would be that the owners could deny access to climbers, putting up barbed wire fences and no trespassing signs. It would be a simple task to restrict and control access. There are only two approach roads (high-clearance vehicles only) to a final basecamp, and natural barriers would prevent driving around gates.

Hope this answers you questions and provides a bit of background info.
-John Smallwood