Don't know what year it was, and they didn't just give permission, they got paid A LOT of money for it!

I agree! If it gets closed, lets return it too it's pre-climber state:

- Piles of trash everywhere
- Old tires
- Human Crap (as in feces)
- No nice flagstone paths (going to have to pull them all up)
- Weeds and thistles. (we'll have to retransplant some of these back into the area)
- Loosely glue on a ton of rubble and death blocks climbers knocked off. Mind you, they need to be precariously perched and ready to fall at any time.

I mean, we climbers are ruining their "spritual" experience! Lets give it back to them. Oh, and everytime a climber is in the Tahoe area, feel free to "drop a load" on by.

The same tired arguements.

People endlessly try to superimpose their own version of what constitutes the spiritual "defilement " of a sacred area over that of the people that hold the site sacred.

I've seen the same attitude in many places, from the arctic to South America. We dig up the dead of a tribe for anthropological study, yet would be outraged if someone dug up our own revered dead to measure their bones..

just the same, we look at a sacred site and decide that, since there is garbage there, it will be o.k. to clean the old stuff out and replace it with our own..

hell, it can't actually be sacred can it? Just look at those beer bottles! Its hard to step away and consider that trash on the ground might not equal steel in the stone, or that a highway through the stone might not be the same as climbers on the rock itself. Hard to consider when we wear our special set of cultural blinders anyway.

Laws aren't necessarily the answer. Respect for other human beings might just be. If a group asks us not to climb at an area of spiritual importance to them, then each climber has to ask themselves if they will honor that request or not. But, whatever you do, at least throw the old, tired rationalizations away. If we choose to climb there, then lets admit to ourselves that its because our own personal desire for recreation outweighs our respect for those peoples spiritual beliefs.

Make as many excuses for our actions as we will, there is no other reason. That reason is no longer good enough for me..I will not support continued access to Cave Rock, or violate that area again myself.

One group's religious beliefs do not take precendent over anothers. Bleeding hearts may have a hard time swallowing it, but thats just the way it goes :)

Thank you roughster for your response.

As I read through it, your words serve as a perfect example of exactly the type of thinking that changed my own opinion from supporting access to the Cave Rock site to one of opposition.

My own words couldn't have illuminated the situation any better.

Enjoy your day.

I don't think "Separation of the Church from State" is the right wording for this argument. The phrase "Separation of the Church from State" doesn't exist in the constitution or declaration of independence. The actual amendment reads,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." (Emphasis mine)

I know saying this will likely result in a lot of juvenile bashing by Roughster...

but has anyone concerned with this issue wondered why, if the place has no value apart from climbing, the Washoe even bothered to gain it back? I mean, it's highly unlikely a casino will ever fit there (not that they could build one; they are only asking for access to it without unnecessary infringements). And I truly doubt they are just being "greedy"; although it's pretty obvious we climbers can be that way--even though we go to great lengths to build justifications for our actions. I COULD be wrong, and maybe the Washoe DO have some secret agenda for the use of Cave Rock. But I'm not a skilled investigator, and I think I'm willing to accept the Washoe's claim for the spot, even risk being a pushover. Better that than risk giving climbers a worse name than they already have.

I once listened to a climber tell his story of being "scalped" (actually just had his hair cut off) in a violent confrontation with a Native American. He had been seen, at some earlier time, climbing in a canyon on Indian land. His attacker very obviously had problems with his climbing in a place believed to be sacred, and took his trespassing very personally.

The men who built this country up also pushed this land's original inhabitants into some of the least hospitable places, forcing them to make a life for themselves with few resources. I think I might take it personally too if, as a Native American, the ancestors of these men felt justified in trespassing on the land of my people. I don't care for WHAT reason.

For some it might be easy to justify climbing at Cave Rock because of the already present road and because of the way the place has been trashed in the past. It does seem kind of crazy to ban climbing while the road remains so near a supposedly sacred site. Maybe the Washoe have simply decided to take what they can get, knowing that any attempts to remove the road will be futile (there aren't really any other ways to route the road, from what I understand and have seen). If that's the case (and it seems the most likely possibility), I'm more than willing, as a climber, to let the place go without resentment.

Roughster,

I KNOW it is federal land, that is why I added the note in parentheses next to my casino comment which clarified that they are asking for "access without infringements"

why, if the place has no value apart from climbing, the Washoe even bothered to gain it back?

Considering the very small size of Cave Rock, I'm guessing it would be pretty difficult to have any kind of religious experience there with climbers above and around you. Even the Access Fund understands this to SOME extent, which is why their preferred alternative would not have allowed new routes, and I think it would have even erased a few.

You seem to look at this as being a very black and white issue. This isn't the first time climbers have been excluded from supposedly public lands. I strongly believe climbers should stand up for themselves when it seems they are being unfairly discriminated against. But I think we should also be ready and willing to compromise. As climbers, most of us accept the fact that climbing on or near pictographs isn't fair to those who hold these things sacred, or historically important. WE COMPROMISE, both to respect other users and to help ensure our own continued access to climbing areas. Mountain bikers must accept the fact that their presence on certain trails is not appropriate, even on public land; hunters must limit their sport to designated areas; and I've yet to see someone with a jet ski on Tenaya lake. If an activity can only be practiced in an area while greatly undermining that area's availability for some other use, then logic says that activity should stop. Fortunately, there are few instances where rock climbing becomes an overwhelming presence.

I wouldn't want to see dirt bikers screaming up Lyell Canyon in Yosemite. I think that would be a use of a public land that undermines the canyon's value to other users. I can't see Cave Rock through the eyes of a Washoe Indian, but I'm guessing the chains, bolts and dozens of quickdraws they see hanging about the cliff along with the chalk stains (not to mention the crowds and frequently blaring stereos) at Cave Rock are pretty hard to ignore. Just like jet skis on Tenaya Lake would be pretty hard for US to ignore while climbing nearby. Maybe if we had been more discrete in OUR use of the place our presence wouldn't have been deemed so incompatible with other users.

However, I am thinking of forming a church, Milktoast Nation and installing myself as the spirtual and financial leader, the Reverend Dingus.

Our founding belief will be in God's wish that we climb unfettered of government interference and environmental extremism. EQUAL ACCESS FOR ALL!

Our religion will be practiced at cliffs, instantly rendering every crag in the country a site of spiritual significance, a church.

Hey, I think I'm on to something here. Non tax status. Long flowing robes. A HALO!

Sorry, but quick draw theft is grounds for excommunication. I have a panel of religious scholars looking into the whole bolt chopping thing. We have to be careful we don't repeat Salem you know.