|
|
|
|
oldeclimber
Sep 1, 2003, 4:13 PM
Post #1 of 49
(6149 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 17, 2003
Posts: 125
|
I pulled this link and a short segment of a Time Magazine article, posted by Jackflash on Aug 26th. You can read the entire article again at the link below.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030901-477962,00.html
Hueco Tanks State Historic Site, 30 miles northeast of El Paso, Texas, for example, was a popular destination for climbers until graffiti was found in the early '90s on some of the park's ancient rock art, and park officials severely restricted climbing. "Hueco was a wake-up call," says climber Tim Janke, 42. "If we fail to be good stewards, we'll lose what we have."
My opinion.....
I think that the author was fair to the climbing community. I just wanted to add a few comments on the same topic. I live in Texas and our climbing resources are very limited, so I am always looking for a new place to climb. We were climbing at Enchanted Rock, SNA this past weekend and made a side trip to Garner State Park to scope out the area for potential climbing spots. We found a lot of loose, soft rock, mostly unfit for climbing but there may be some potential for a few good sport routes. But that is not the point......
While we were hiking through this park, we saw many plastic bottles, beer cans, trash and lots of graffiti on the rocks. This is very similar to the problems that nearly stopped all of the climbing at Hueco Tanks. When the average person looks up at a 300 foot tall rock face and they see graffiti, they naturally assume that it had to be put up there by a "climber." Who else would go up there?? From the ground, they don't see the trails that make these same rock faces accessible to non-climbers. But who gets the blame? Yep....you guessed it.....the climbers.
So just for future reference, when it comes up, and it will........
The climbers didn't mess up Garner State Park.
|
|
|
|
|
jefffski
Sep 1, 2003, 5:44 PM
Post #2 of 49
(6149 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 10, 2002
Posts: 286
|
very similar situation at burgers and fries in squamish bc. the ground is littered with glass etc. guess how it got.gets there--locals partying at the top throw down beer bottles.
guess who had to fight for access because of all the noise?
|
|
|
|
|
boz84
Sep 1, 2003, 7:16 PM
Post #3 of 49
(6149 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2002
Posts: 473
|
The solution is not to pass off the blame.
Regardless of who did the damage, if we truly love the environment, and want to avoid access issues, then WE need to take care of business, and organize cleanups, etc to keep our wilderness open. The people who left the beer cans and graffiti could care LESS if areas like Garner are closed to the public.
|
|
|
|
|
fanederhand
Sep 1, 2003, 8:02 PM
Post #4 of 49
(6149 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 28, 2002
Posts: 243
|
This is a good subject to bring up because we in the southeast are doing trail days at a lot of the local crags in September 2003. The best way to let the local environmental and land use managers know that the climbing community cares about the environment are these trail days were we; clean up trash, fix climbing areas to eliminate erosion, do trail maintenance and so forth. I am proud to be involved with all the fellow climbers that participate in these trail days and climbing area maintenance efforts. Bottom line is climbers organizing and banding together to do service to the environment around the places they climb at will ensure future use and helps us climbers to appreciate the climbing areas we have. Rock on :)
|
|
|
|
|
oldeclimber
Sep 1, 2003, 9:49 PM
Post #5 of 49
(6149 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 17, 2003
Posts: 125
|
I don't know if any of the local climbing clubs have Trail Days, but I will look into it. Thanks for the input.
Brett
|
|
|
|
|
climbinglemur
Sep 1, 2003, 10:32 PM
Post #6 of 49
(6149 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 3, 2003
Posts: 16
|
Managing our impact to the environment is crucial regardless of the activity. I usually carry a trash bag with me when ever i'm out. But this is small.
By traveling to outdoor destinations we put these areas at risk and jeopardize the very thing we are searching for. Solitude, beauty and a natural enviroment.
Every choice we make has consequences. Actions that result in graffiti, trash, chalk smearing, and trail damage is obviously inexcusable. But problems lie within the other choices we make.
My question to everyone here would be what vehicle to you drives to the craig? Are SUV's absolutely necessary given the distances some of us drive to climb?
|
|
|
|
|
boz84
Sep 1, 2003, 10:57 PM
Post #7 of 49
(6149 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2002
Posts: 473
|
I think what vehicle we drive is a pointless question.
I drive an uigly old 1988 Jeep cherokee with big tires, and yet, I care more for the environment and the wilderness I spend 2 months out of every year in, probably, than people who drive Honda Insights.
Ya, I get crappy mileage, but not that much worse than cars of the same age, and I still pass smog with FLYING colors, and we're not talking about a car thats in tune, and in good mechanical condition. My Jeep is the biggest POS out there, but lets swap emissions, I dont think itll be as big a difference as most people ASSUME.
|
|
|
|
|
gunkiemike
Sep 2, 2003, 12:12 AM
Post #8 of 49
(6149 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2002
Posts: 2266
|
In reply to: I think what vehicle we drive is a pointless question. I drive an uigly old 1988 Jeep cherokee with big tires, and yet, I care more for the environment and the wilderness I spend 2 months out of every year in, probably, than people who drive Honda Insights. Ya, I get crappy mileage, but not that much worse than cars of the same age, and I still pass smog with FLYING colors, and we're not talking about a car thats in tune, and in good mechanical condition. My Jeep is the biggest POS out there, but lets swap emissions, I dont think itll be as big a difference as most people ASSUME.
You pass your smog test with flying colors (um, is that BLUE smoke?) because your vehicle is tested against 1988 emission standards. Probably light duty truck standards at that. It is WAY dirtier than any new car, and was even when it was new, if you know what I mean. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but emission limits for hydrocarbons, to take just one class of pollutant, have come down by something like 90% during that timeframe.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Sep 2, 2003, 8:11 AM
Post #9 of 49
(6149 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: In reply to: I think what vehicle we drive is a pointless question. I drive an uigly old 1988 Jeep cherokee with big tires, and yet, I care more for the environment and the wilderness I spend 2 months out of every year in, probably, than people who drive Honda Insights. Ya, I get crappy mileage, but not that much worse than cars of the same age, and I still pass smog with FLYING colors, and we're not talking about a car thats in tune, and in good mechanical condition. My Jeep is the biggest POS out there, but lets swap emissions, I dont think itll be as big a difference as most people ASSUME. You pass your smog test with flying colors (um, is that BLUE smoke?) because your vehicle is tested against 1988 emission standards. Probably light duty truck standards at that. It is WAY dirtier than any new car, and was even when it was new, if you know what I mean. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but emission limits for hydrocarbons, to take just one class of pollutant, have come down by something like 90% during that timeframe.
So those bast-ards were screwing me when I used to own my 76 Cj-5 with a bored out AMC 401 V-8 (412 cubic inches of pleasure). That thing got 13 on the hiway at 3000rpm (about 60mph) and 9-10 around town. I'd raced corvettes and won doing 0-60 in about 6 seconds and rock crawling and muddin' all with the same vehicle. God I loved that thing but they always failed it on emissions and told me it didn't matter what year it was, that it had to pass current standards. They'd spend an hour on the carb and suddenly it would pass and I'd be $60 poorer (plus the $35 for the inspection). I always knew I was getting screwed.
Anyway, I was 20 and my friends had classic trucks and we went 4 wheeling occasionaly but I look back and think how wasteful that thing was. Will I ever own something like that again? Probably but not for everyday use but perhaps as a third vehicle just for occasional offroading and snowbashing. EB's, CJ's, Scouts, and Land Cruisers make terrible hiway vehicles and are best suited for the occasional off road foray. I have many memories of being in either the CJ or the EB with sleeping bags and Sorels trying to stay warm on winter road trips and almost as many of the floor boards being so hot you could cook and egg during the summer months.
But getting back on topic my favorite line is "the civic is a good car, but doesn't really fit my lifestyle. Sure it gets good gas mileage but I really need a SUV." Bullsh!et as a climber you'd think if nothing else having money to take a road trip would be more important then an image. I've heard people with SUV's complain that they can't afford to take trips anymore because gas is too high. With gas being about $1.80 a gallon I laughed everytime I saw a suburban, expedition, or Hummer cruising down the road this weekend getting 14mpg (tops). To tell you the truth even with my car getting 33mpg it hurts but I honestly hope gas stays above $1.50 a gallon for now on because of the overall benefits of high priced gas outweight the initial expense. Beyond that you'd assume the environment would be important to people buying these gas guzzling monsters as they make there pilgrimages into the wilderness. It's sad to know that image is the most important thing to people but I don't even lecture anymore, I just laugh when I hear "it doesn't fit my lifestyle." Yeah, for cragging in the Gunks (or most other places in the NE) you need a SUV :roll: .
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Sep 2, 2003, 8:25 AM
Post #10 of 49
(6149 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: Managing our impact to the environment is crucial regardless of the activity. I usually carry a trash bag with me when ever i'm out. But this is small. By traveling to outdoor destinations we put these areas at risk and jeopardize the very thing we are searching for. Solitude, beauty and a natural enviroment. Every choice we make has consequences. Actions that result in graffiti, trash, chalk smearing, and trail damage is obviously inexcusable. But problems lie within the other choices we make. My question to everyone here would be what vehicle to you drives to the craig? Are SUV's absolutely necessary given the distances some of us drive to climb?
Sadly SUV's are purely for image. 99% of the SUV public doesn't ever use the 4x4 features, doesn't need the 4x4 features, doesn't need the ground clearance except to go over the curb in the malls to beat someone to a spot, doesn't need the cargo capacity. Do you know how many 40 year old women seemingly with NO children I see driving expeditions. One hit me in a lot last year and told me it wasn't her fault as the truck has blind spots. NO SH!T you are driving a tank by choice. My wifes cousin who is a 40 year old woman with 1 child just got a expedition. She doesn't even tow a boat. How wasteful is that??
In anycase I hope gas prices stay high. Heck I hope they go higher. As long as cheap gas is a possibility SUV sales will continue to grow. I bet you a lot of people in SUV's got a wakeup call this weekend at the pump. I didn't realize just how bad the CJ was till to took my first road trip months after buying it. I know some people need trucks, maybe a lot do but increasingly people that absolutely don't need them are buying them as can be seen by the continued increase in sales.
As far as trash. People are morons. I don't understand why they'd trash a backcountry site but I made a trash collection on the W. Sacandaga River and adjoining lakes after my wife and I were sickened by the amount of trash and broken glass left at the sites. We loaded 3 contractors bags into the canoe. All too often I am joking with my wife about the not so rare toilet paper trees, cigaretis butitis trees, canis aluminus trees, and so on.
|
|
|
|
|
dano
Sep 12, 2003, 2:39 AM
Post #11 of 49
(6149 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 7, 2003
Posts: 86
|
Man I'm cranky... but here goes...
I drive an SUV. It's a 1990 Nissan Pathfinder. Even tuned up it gets about 19 m/g city, maybe 25 highway. Do I need it? NO. On the other hand it sure is CONVENIENT for me, my girlfriend, and my two 70 lb dogs to go on trips in. And unless you're WALKING.. you're still burning gas, you're still emitting, you're still causing traffic, etc. etc. So maybe you drive a civic and feel good about yourself... so you choose to pollute LESS. okay, well i didn't own a car from the time i was 25 to 35.. i rode a bike! i didn't pollute at all! whoopee for me! f-that.
as for getting to crags - let's see - NRG, paved road to parking lots... Gunks... ditto,.... Seneca... ditto... Clark's Canyon....Forest Service Road... Big Chief near Tahoe.. ditto... Dreamers/Bachar/most of the Tablelands... ditto. Now I'm not saying I NEED the 4 wd to get there... I don't... so I don't use it then... but getting through the unplowed roads in winter in the Sierra's? yeah... I need it then. Pulling my ass through a creekbed in Southern Oregon to get to my favorite flyfishing spot? yep - sure makes life easier...
what's my point? Hell I don't know - i'm on a rant - but I THINK it is this:
Lemur's got it right - so let's all admit that cars and trucks blow smoke, use resources, impact the environment and let's not kid ourselves about 'my pissant honda spews less than your butthead ford'. just be aware... and admit it... climbing/driving/pissing in the woods all has an impact. just try to make up for it somehow huh?
- dano
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Sep 18, 2003, 4:45 AM
Post #12 of 49
(6149 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: Man I'm cranky... but here goes... I drive an SUV. It's a 1990 Nissan Pathfinder. Even tuned up it gets about 19 m/g city, maybe 25 highway.
So you are one of the 5% of SUV drivers that actually has taken it off a paved road. In my book thats not sloth it's utility.
I'm interested to know and this isn't directed specifically at you but why do SUV drivers consistently get better mileage then the EPA list?? I mean you get 25 on the highway and 19 around town. But the EPA #'s are 15 and 18 mpg. Don't get offended you have no idea how many Expedition drivers swear they get 20mpg when in reality they probably get 15.
as for how much worse your car is then a 1990 civic:
Well your Pathfinder produced 11.6 tons of greenhouse gases and the civic produced 6.4 tons. This is over 15,000 miles with 50% highway.
The civic isn't a saint but if everyone "that was able to" drove more fuel effecient cars we could slow the increase (yes slow but not stop) in foreign oil dependence and also have our greenhouse gas emmisions. Part of this is the automakers fault but most of it is consumers. As long as you purchase ineffecient cars they will continue to produce them even if technology exist to boost fuel economy.
My wife our 55lb dog and a months worth of gear or a boat fit in/on our car (a focus sedan) and we've consistently gotten over 27mpg on hilly secondary roads and short stretches of dirt roads determined over a 12 gallon span on a 13 gallon tank. Without the boat or the rooftop box we get consistently over 34mpg in mixed driving conditions although 80% of our miles are hiway. If we had a focus wagon and the fuel #'s listed on the car are accurate we could leave the box at home often and increase our efficiency 20% on longer trips. We do contribute to the greenhouse gas emissions and to foreign oil dependence but to a much lesser extent. When hybrids drop another $3000 we'll definitely reduce our consuption even further. Going 700miles on a tank is all too inviting.
Pointing fingers and saying it's not my fault isn't the way to go.
|
|
|
|
|
robmcc
Sep 18, 2003, 4:59 AM
Post #13 of 49
(6149 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2003
Posts: 2176
|
In reply to: Sadly SUV's are purely for image. 99% of the SUV public doesn't ever use the 4x4 features, doesn't need the 4x4 features, doesn't need the ground clearance except to go over the curb in the malls to beat someone to a spot, doesn't need the cargo capacity.
I don't think 4x4 and SUV are necessarily the same. Certainly my SUV was 2wd. Actually, I did need the cargo capacity.
In reply to: In anycase I hope gas prices stay high. Heck I hope they go higher. As long as cheap gas is a possibility SUV sales will continue to grow.
Newsflash. People buying cars costing $30,000, $40,000 and more aren't too put off by spending $2,000 a year on gas rather than $1,000. The hybrids are the same problem in reverse. Pay $6,000 extra to save a few thousand in gas. For most people the economics of it make it a non-starter.
|
|
|
|
|
dano
Sep 18, 2003, 6:10 AM
Post #14 of 49
(6149 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 7, 2003
Posts: 86
|
Is the Pathfinder listed at only 15 and 18 respectively? Man that sucks even worse than what I get. Don't know how I do it then - but I'm pretty sure I'm on target since I'm pretty damn cheap.
And with regards to cheap. I got the the Pathfinder for just 3 grand last year.
But I think my point wasn't just 'we all spew greenhouse emissions' - it was that 'everything we do out there' has an impact. When I feel like I can afford it financially, and/or want to assume a load of consumer debt - I hope I choose to buy something a bit more environmentally friendly.
But it's a choice, just like recycling or not, just like buying fair trade coffee or not, just like picking up other people's trash or not... and so on and so on...
|
|
|
|
|
norskagent
Sep 18, 2003, 11:46 AM
Post #15 of 49
(6149 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 9, 2003
Posts: 409
|
4 people want to go boldering = 1 suv or 2 sedans.
|
|
|
|
|
mega
Sep 18, 2003, 1:29 PM
Post #16 of 49
(6149 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 10, 2003
Posts: 60
|
..... or 1 station wagon, or a sedan with a box on the roof.....
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Sep 18, 2003, 1:34 PM
Post #17 of 49
(6149 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
It's all a matter of priorities. People buy SUVs for status, a higher ride, more room and/or (presumed) safety. SUV owners buy these vehicles because they want them and they can afford them. It's a luxury purchase.
These lame "environmentally conscious" justifications are just so much BS.
On the flip side
People who Civics probably can't afford a Four Runner.
People buy the car they want and can afford. I'd bet less than 1% of car buyers use pollution concerns are a primary criteria, when purchasing a vehicle.
|
|
|
|
|
norskagent
Sep 18, 2003, 1:38 PM
Post #18 of 49
(6149 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 9, 2003
Posts: 409
|
In reply to: ..... or 1 station wagon, or a sedan with a box on the roof.....
try taking a station wagon or a sedan to Moore's wall...and how many crash pads can you fit in a roof box?
|
|
|
|
|
leaverbiner
Sep 18, 2003, 2:06 PM
Post #19 of 49
(6149 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2002
Posts: 482
|
In reply to: Sadly SUV's are purely for image. 99% of the SUV public doesn't ever use the 4x4 features, doesn't need the 4x4 features, doesn't need the ground clearance except to go over the curb in the malls to beat someone to a spot, doesn't need the cargo capacity.
I love the generalizations, it is absolutely beautiful! (read IGNORANT!)
I drive a '99 Grand Cherokee Laredo . . . both my on-board mileage calc. and my own math show that I get 16.5 around town and 20.5 on highway trips. There isn't a thing about my Jeep that is done "solely for image", it's called practicality! With the Jeep we are able to pile 4 people, a 70lb dog and all our gear into the truck for climbing trips thus necessitating only one vehicle rather than two! We car pool to the gym twice a week, and instead of driving 20 miles each way to work I take a train! But I am a bastard for owning an SUV?
Every winter we get hit by at least one major (read 12 inches or more) snow storm . . . who is it that nto only is still able to get to work, but also is out there pulling people's civic's out of the banks and helping to get people to necessary services? oh that's right the guy with the Jeep! Tonight, when Isabel drowns the entire region and there are flood waters raging down what used to be streets, who will still be able to safely navigate their way around the burbs to help those that are stranded? certainly not someone driving a civic or a focus!
I'm an not disagreeing that a large number, maybe even a majority of SUV owners have absolutely no need or use for their oversized vehicles, but don't stereotype . . . the generalizations simply aren't true. You see me in my suit driving an SUV and you think . .. "Bastard increasing our dependence upon foreign oil and increasing our greenhouse emmisions . . he's doing it all for the image, what the hell does he need that for, wasteful, inconsiderate bastard!" Well, you're wrong!
|
|
|
|
|
imnotclever
Sep 18, 2003, 2:37 PM
Post #20 of 49
(6149 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2003
Posts: 10000
|
Not that I have really anything to add here, except my story. I do a lot of wood working as a winter hobby and this Feburary I needed to get rid of my 1990 Pontiac Sunbird. My wife was pregnant at the time and so we needed to get a vehicle that could hold a carseat and I wanted one that I could get plywood into. (I used to have Home depot slice the plywood in half and them I could get it into the hatch of my wife's car with the back end sticking out. There isn't a lot you can do when you are limited to using half sheets of plywood.) I also wanted to get something that would run on E85 gas.
So I ended up getting a used chevy extended cab truck. I didn't get the E85, which bums me out, but I'll live with it. But man I can fit 4 people comfortably and a car seat without having to think about gear space.
Oh as for gas mileage, I get 17 mpg. My old car got 26 mpg.
Here is a picture (if it works)
bbcode link
html link
|
|
|
|
|
imnotclever
Sep 18, 2003, 2:40 PM
Post #21 of 49
(6149 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2003
Posts: 10000
|
It looks like the picture didn't work. If you care here it is http://www.newyankee.com/getyankees3.cgi?mnjeffsegar.jpg
|
|
|
|
|
raindog
Sep 18, 2003, 3:31 PM
Post #22 of 49
(6149 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 22, 2003
Posts: 200
|
In reply to: I drive a '99 Grand Cherokee Laredo . . . both my on-board mileage calc. and my own math show that I get 16.5 around town and 20.5 on highway trips. There isn't a thing about my Jeep that is done "solely for image", it's called practicality!
Why didn't you get the regular Cherokee if you weren't concerned about image, just practicality? They are (were) cheaper, lighter, more efficient, and better off road than the Grand Cherokee. Seems like the "Grand" in front of the "Cherokee" is "solely for image."
-Jeff
just playing devil's advocate
|
|
|
|
|
norskagent
Sep 18, 2003, 3:40 PM
Post #23 of 49
(6149 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 9, 2003
Posts: 409
|
In reply to: In reply to: I drive a '99 Grand Cherokee Laredo . . . both my on-board mileage calc. and my own math show that I get 16.5 around town and 20.5 on highway trips. There isn't a thing about my Jeep that is done "solely for image", it's called practicality! Why didn't you get the regular Cherokee if you weren't concerned about image, just practicality? -Jeff just playing devil's advocate
maybe he got a good $$?
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Sep 18, 2003, 3:52 PM
Post #24 of 49
(6149 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: I pulled this link and a short segment of a Time Magazine article, posted by Jackflash on Aug 26th. You can read the entire article again at the link below. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030901-477962,00.html Hueco Tanks State Historic Site, 30 miles northeast of El Paso, Texas, for example, was a popular destination for climbers until graffiti was found in the early '90s on some of the park's ancient rock art, and park officials severely restricted climbing. "Hueco was a wake-up call," says climber Tim Janke, 42. "If we fail to be good stewards, we'll lose what we have." My opinion..... I think that the author was fair to the climbing community.
In my opinion that article was extremely UNFAIR to the climbing community. The clear implication was that climbers were somehow responsible for the appearance of the graffitti at Hueco. This is of course, nonsense.
Also, all the SUV bashers here can sod off.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
leaverbiner
Sep 18, 2003, 4:05 PM
Post #25 of 49
(6149 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2002
Posts: 482
|
That's funny . . . about the "Grand" being for image! I bought my GRAND Cherokee used . . . got it for $9,000 when book value was $15,600 . . .
But now that you bring it up, does that mean that every luxury item in a vehicle is "for image"? So buying a civic EX is different from buying an LX? the person buying the EX instead of the LX did so for image right? no they did it because they liked the extras . . . power seats, more comfortable interior, better stereo, etc . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
