|
|
|
|
sierramike
Apr 27, 2004, 11:56 PM
Post #76 of 89
(8325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 4, 2002
Posts: 158
|
Some great discussion here. Thanks.
Randy is correct in pointing out that climbers have for YEARS tried to work out an agreement with the Washoe, ie., voluntary closure during certain months, times of day, etc. However, the Washoe are adamant about having ALL NON-WASHOE excluded from the Cave, for any reason.
The USFS (aka Marybeth Gustufson, Forest Supervisor) says that the Washoe beliefs are of no concern in her decision to close Cave. She says it is strictly a Historical Site preservation stance. What was that Historical Site status based upon if not the Washoe's religion??? So, I believe that God does enter into this problem. Whose God? Well, that may be another can of worms. What was it you said about power Bob, something to the effect those in office wield all of it. Yep, Marybeth is doing just that.
People seem to think that climbers are wholly insensitive to the wants of the Washoe. Not true. We understand and accept their wants, evidenced by numerous attempts to work some compromise with them.
It seems to me that God has been taken out of many aspects of our "public" lives, but that's for another forum. Sorry to get off subject.
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Apr 28, 2004, 12:13 AM
Post #77 of 89
(8325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: I respectfully disagree. Judges role (concerning the Constitution) has been, since Marbury v. Madison, to interpret the Constitution and to act as the check on the Executive and Legislative branches (who often try to erode these basic rights).
How did they interpret the last election (2000) in Fla. Funny how it was done (the vote by the judges) by party lines. Also funny how the Constitution do not protect voter rights in that election. Basic rights have eroded and will continue to do so. That is why I bought the patriot act in the debate. Do you believe that the Constitution is the opinions of our founding Fathers of what they thought was right and needs to be amended ...or just right? Don't you find it somewhat strange that judges intepret the laws by party lines and who appointed them.
I understand the Constitution and our rights as Americans. Maybe that why I feel somewhat scared with our present leadership!
As for Cave Rock, I believe (just an opinion) that small parcel of land should be return to the Native American. Is that wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Apr 28, 2004, 12:17 AM
Post #78 of 89
(8325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: Some great discussion here. Thanks.
I agree Mike and I know I am getting in deep debating with a lawyer (Randy).
|
|
|
|
|
fredbob
Apr 28, 2004, 4:49 AM
Post #79 of 89
(8325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2003
Posts: 455
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: Cave Rock isn't just a climbing area, but a sport climbing area .....What the AF ends up defending isn't just climbing in the area, but our "right" as route developers to pound holes in the rock and fill them with steel. ..... ...... It is irrelevant whether it is a sport area or a "trad" area .... The Access Fund didn't pick Cave Rock as some "test case" because it is a poster child for good stewardship by climbers. It is what it is. ..... I disagree. In reading the AFs own literature concerning the issue they make it quite clear that any alternative that arbitrarily and unfairly singles out climbers for exclusion from Cave Rock is unacceptable to them..
Exactly; and why shouldn't this be the litmus test?
In reply to: A proposed alternative that allowed climbing, but not the retention of the bolts, was not acceptable to the Fund. If the unconstitutionality of the decision was purely the issue, then any resolution allowing for equal access should have been acceptable.
Since the area is a sport climbing area, allowing climbing, sans bolts, is a defacto prohibition of climbing. And using the religious beliefs of the Washoe as the basis for closing public property to public access is an defacto illegal accomidation of religion (no matter how otherwise laudable the sentiment may be).
In reply to: How did they interpret the last election (2000) in Fla. Funny how it was done (the vote by the judges) by party lines. Also funny how the Constitution do not protect voter rights in that election. Basic rights have eroded and will continue to do so. That is why I bought the patriot act in the debate.
Bob, I think we share the same opinion about the politicalization of the judiciary and why the extremism of the current administration is so dangerous to personal liberty. But, this is really not the point.
No matter how disgusted I am about the Rhenquist Court, a broader historical perspective of how the Courts have applied the Constitution to events, ideas and developments that the founding fathers could not have imagined, I am encouraged. It is a lurching forward and backward process. In my lifetime, the idea that separate is not equal and that there is a Constitutionally protected right of personal privacy (upon which the remedy of many great injustices has been based) is remarkable to behold. The ultimate measure of the success of these changes is, to a large extent, that we have so quickly taken them for granted.
In reply to: Do you believe that the Constitution is the opinions of our founding Fathers of what they thought was right and needs to be amended ...or just right? Don't you find it somewhat strange that judges intepret the laws by party lines and who appointed them. I understand the Constitution and our rights as Americans. Maybe that why I feel somewhat scared with our present leadership!
The Constitution was broadly drafted and fortunately so. Many things its drafters never considered or would probably not agree with today have found a place in its interpretation. It is a living, growing and changing document, yet fixed enough that it has provided stability. Without the power of the Courts to interpret it, it would long ago ceased to be relevant. Yes, politics has grown ever more mean spirited and nasty and the Courts (vis a vis Congress and the White House) have become even more embroiled in the process. Don’t get me started....
But, we have strayed, no matter how intriguingly, from the subject.
In reply to: As for Cave Rock, I believe (just an opinion) that small parcel of land should be return to the Native American. Is that wrong?
That is not what anyone is proposing, is it? If the Washoe assert some claim to the land and it is determined that it should be returned to them, then it is theirs to manage as they see fit. But that hasn’t happened and is not likely either, so it is mere conjecture.
|
|
|
|
|
chitlinsconcarne
Apr 28, 2004, 3:39 PM
Post #80 of 89
(8325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2003
Posts: 199
|
In reply to: In reply to: I disagree. In reading the AFs own literature concerning the issue they make it quite clear that any alternative that arbitrarily and unfairly singles out climbers for exclusion from Cave Rock is unacceptable to them.. In reply to: Exactly; and why shouldn't this be the litmus test? Because a alternative that allows climbing but no bolts satifies the constitutional requirements for fair treatment based on seperation of church and state. In this particular case the AF has put itself in the position of not only defending a constitutional issue of seperation, but also insisting that climbers be allowed certain permanent impacts on the area that accomodate their prefered use. In reply to: A proposed alternative that allowed climbing, but not the retention of the bolts, was not acceptable to the Fund. If the unconstitutionality of the decision was purely the issue, then any resolution allowing for equal access should have been acceptable. Since the area is a sport climbing area, allowing climbing, sans bolts, is a defacto prohibition of climbing.
Incorrect. In the Access Funds own rationale they stated that climbing had been occuring at the Cave Rock site since the late 1970s. The area wasn't bolted up for sport climbing until years later. If the area has such a long climbing history, how can the removal of bolts that weren't in place throughout much of that history be a defacto prohibition on climbing?
|
|
|
|
|
fredbob
Apr 28, 2004, 3:58 PM
Post #81 of 89
(8325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2003
Posts: 455
|
In reply to: In reading the AFs own literature concerning the issue they make it quite clear that any alternative that arbitrarily and unfairly singles out climbers for exclusion from Cave Rock is unacceptable to them..
In reply to: Exactly; and why shouldn't this be the litmus test?
In reply to: Because a alternative that allows climbing but no bolts satifies the constitutional requirements for fair treatment based on seperation of church and state. In this particular case the AF has put itself in the position of not only defending a constitutional issue of seperation, but also insisting that climbers be allowed certain permanent impacts on the area that accomodate their prefered use.?
I will take a last shot at this. But I will observe that it appears that your main beef has to do with bolts (sport climbing) and perceived impacts that they caused.
In reply to: Since the area is a sport climbing area, allowing climbing, sans bolts, is a defacto prohibition of climbing.
In reply to: Incorrect. In the Access Funds own rationale they stated that climbing had been occuring at the Cave Rock site since the late 1970s. The area wasn't bolted up for sport climbing until years later. If the area has such a long climbing history, how can the removal of bolts that weren't in place throughout much of that history be a defacto prohibition on climbing?
I think any rational mind can answer that (and I think Mike did address this earlier). Many popular sport areas have had an earlier history of climbing (e.g.: Williamson Rock, Clear Creek, Owens River Gorge, etc., etc.), but lets face it, as trad crags, they sucked and the number and quality of routes were limited to say the least. Their true potential was only realized as sport areas. Cave Rock is no different.
My statement is absolutely correct. Again, it seems that your objections lie more with the fact that it is a sport area than the principals involved. And, as was observed earlier, such conditional application of Constitutional rights means that we have none:
In reply to: In case you have never noticed, nearly every Constitutional issue arises out of the abuse of the rights of the few. And of these, most concern people (criminals in fact) that we might all agree are repugnant, or people whose ideas we would denounce for the rest of lives (nazis [not the plant variety], white supremacists and other hate mongerers). Yet, when these cases involve Constitutional issues, we all benefit from their rights being vigorously defended.
If you can't understand that, well....
|
|
|
|
|
dkennedy
Apr 28, 2004, 4:13 PM
Post #82 of 89
(8325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 11, 2003
Posts: 27
|
In reply to: Incorrect. In the Access Funds own rationale they stated that climbing had been occuring at the Cave Rock site since the late 1970s. The area wasn't bolted up for sport climbing until years later. If the area has such a long climbing history, how can the removal of bolts that weren't in place throughout much of that history be a defacto prohibition on climbing?
I think that statement refers to someone who stated that he had bouldered in the cave during the 1970s. While a few gear routes do exist on the Kona Wall, the routes in the main Cave (the area of most concern) are in no way climbable without fixed gear. The Washoe side by now are fully aware that bolting is an emotionally charged issue in the climbing community, such that it would be foolish for them to not use bolting to argue their case of noncompatible use.
And while it makes no difference in this argument, the majority of the routes in the Cave were put up on lead adhering to the then strong ground-up ethics held by South Shore climbers. Cave rock has a place in history as one of the first steep crags in the US. Maybe not prolific, but still not trivial.
|
|
|
|
|
cedk
Apr 28, 2004, 4:47 PM
Post #83 of 89
(8325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2001
Posts: 516
|
FredBob is KICKING ASS!
The issue is not bolt vs. trad or native rights. It's about the first amendment and our right to live in a society that is free of state sponsored religion.
|
|
|
|
|
chitlinsconcarne
Apr 28, 2004, 9:37 PM
Post #84 of 89
(8325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 16, 2003
Posts: 199
|
And my own interest in the issue has never been focused on whether it was a constitutional issue- I've already stated that I thought that restricting access based on religion was unconstitutional. Neither am I making a case for traditional vs. sport climbing. I've climbed at Cave Rock and am aware of what type of climbing it is and how it got there. Rather, my concerns lie firstly with the question of using an area as a test case for access when that area represents such a poor example of responsible development and, secondly, whether the AF is being perfectly honest in its representation of the area as a mainstream, historically important climbing area.
Since people here can't seem to address those concerns any more than representatives of the Fund could, I'll leave it at that for now and continue to pursue answers and action via other paths.
Thank you for the discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
bobd1953
Apr 28, 2004, 9:46 PM
Post #85 of 89
(8325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 3941
|
In reply to: FredBob is KICKING ASS! The issue is not bolt vs. trad or native rights. It's about the first amendment and our right to live in a society that is free of state sponsored religion.
I agree that Randy has presented his case very well and in turn, very informative. My lack of knowledge on the ownership of the land and the original reason for banning climbing was a little weak. With that said: If you somehow think that the first amendment biggest threat is this case, I think we are all in trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
cedk
Apr 29, 2004, 4:18 PM
Post #86 of 89
(8325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2001
Posts: 516
|
In reply to: If you somehow think that the first amendment biggest threat is this case, I think we are all in trouble.
Bob: please concede that I did not say this case was the "biggest" threat to the first ammendment. I recognize that the first ammendment is coming under attack in many ways every day in this country and I support the work of groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Seperation of Church and State in deffending it.
With THAT said I recognize that this case is significant and could set a precident that I don't want land managers to follow. If the Cave Rock ban is sustained would requests for a total ban at Devils Tower come next? What if a group of Catholics came forward to claim that Penitente Canyon was sacred to them because of the painting? Maybe you only want your hangers back but I haven't climbed Bullet the Blue Sky yet and want a chance to do so. (AMAZING line by the way. Good job on that one. If nothing else maybe we can at least agree on that.)
|
|
|
|
|
jpdreamer
Nov 29, 2004, 10:43 PM
Post #87 of 89
(8325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2000
Posts: 232
|
Just for reference reguarding a couple misconceptions stated in the posts of this thread:
Japanese gained land, notably Hokaido the northernmost main island, by forcing out the native Ainu population. And actually we didn't give all the land they claimed as theirs before the was back, Russia kept a bunch of smaller northern islands which they had no prior claim to, and we took a many acres of land on Okinawa for military instalations. This is in response to the post including a line about how at the end of WWII we gave the Japanese back their land.
The idea that native americans at the time of the english collonization had no concept of private property ownership is wrong, most if not all tribes which had permanant villages definately did. Of course there was a lot of public property too, but private property existed as well. That said, the collonizing europeans did do things like "buy" tribe A's land from tribe B then tell tribe A to move. Big surprise to tribe A. Of course they stole a bunch too.
|
|
|
|
|
straightedge
Nov 30, 2004, 1:17 AM
Post #88 of 89
(8325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 16, 2003
Posts: 34
|
Here's a quote from David Robert's piece in Smithsonian (March 2003) titled 'Whose Rock Is It Anyway?' which addressed the Washoe-Climber-US Forest Service conflict over Cave Rock:
"...Brian Wallace and other Washoe cling to the belief they will someday repossess not only Cave Rock but all of Lake Tahoe."
The implications of allowing the Washoe and US Forest Service to close Cave Rock to climbing are obvious and are expansive. It does not matter, per se, that it is Cave Rock. The issue of public access to a public resource is worth defending, and I support the Access Fund as it fights the proposed (unconstitutional) closure.
There are others ways to deal with this issue, such as has been adopted at Devil's Tower, but these require mutual respect and willingness to compromise. The Washoe are not willing to take this route at present.
The issue of establishing a precedent through this case is incredibly important. If you dig deep enough, you will not find many, if any, climbing areas that are not sacred to a Native American earth-based religion. If the Cave Rock closure is allowed to stand, we (or our kids as it will take awhile) will all be saving for trips to Europe, Asia, etc., in order to go climbing.
I endorse the right of the Navajo to close areas they own to climbers (and others) for whatever reasons they wish to cite - it is their land. Cave Rock is public land. The public, including climbers and Washoe medicine men, are entitled to use it.
|
|
|
|
|
jebel_andi
Nov 30, 2004, 3:05 AM
Post #89 of 89
(8325 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 122
|
For all we know neon coloured spandex will come back into fashion in the climbing comunity. I wouldn't want spandex clad crazies running all over my sacred sites, In my opinion we should respect the native peoples wishes and find a new crag.
People that wear prana can be just as disrespectfull.
|
|
|
|
|
|
