|
rwaltermyer
Aug 19, 2002, 2:51 AM
Post #1 of 36
(11009 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2001
Posts: 1059
|
Its closed. Its sick to climb there if you ask me. Worth keeping on the Dbase?
|
|
|
|
|
marcel
Aug 19, 2002, 3:10 AM
Post #2 of 36
(11012 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 30, 2002
Posts: 523
|
Good question. I just read about the Devil's Den and to me it would be like climbing on tombstones. Not good at all.
|
|
|
|
|
gisu
Aug 19, 2002, 3:18 AM
Post #3 of 36
(11010 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2002
Posts: 18
|
i went to school in town and did a lot of bouldering at devils den. park rangers don;t like most climbers because they use chalk. but a lot of climbers don;t. i refrained for the most part and was never kicked out by a ranger although i know people who were fined. the rangers say they will kick out anyone who is participating in "technical" rock climbing. that includes shoes and pads. yet there are tourist from all over running and climbing on the same rocks with a total disregard for safety. that was my biggest problem with the rangers. devils den is not that big and would not be a good place to make a point of visiting. i am sure that this is part of the reason that the den is officially closed to climbing. i am grateful however that it was so close to campus and provided such a good study break.
|
|
|
|
|
timm1083
Mar 31, 2004, 11:10 PM
Post #4 of 36
(11011 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 36
|
I am from gettysburg and its tough to get out and go on long trips to climb all the time, gettysburg is an awesome place to boulder, a lot more there if you look around, and a lot of fun problems, and rangers dont mind if you use chalk on the boulders that dont include the main group of boulders known as devils den, and besides who cares screw the rangers, its fun, and i know i have at least a half dozen projects i want to send this summer
|
|
|
|
|
rokshoxbkr19
Mar 31, 2004, 11:13 PM
Post #5 of 36
(11008 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2002
Posts: 767
|
As soon as I saw this title, I knew it who posted it..... Geeeze, I know it is an old post, but look at the ones he has just put up, not much different in 3 years, lol
|
|
|
|
|
timm1083
Apr 1, 2004, 12:57 PM
Post #6 of 36
(11008 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 24, 2002
Posts: 36
|
hey this forum is for people who think devils den should be open or closed for people to climb, not to bash people who want to voice their opinions on the subject, if you don't have anything helpful or insightful to say, stay out
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Apr 1, 2004, 1:17 PM
Post #7 of 36
(11008 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
Yes it should be posted... All should be posted, and if it is access sensitive, then info regarding climbing local coalitions, land managers, etc... Should be included so people can get involved with trying to reestablish access.
|
|
|
|
|
roclimb
Apr 1, 2004, 6:09 PM
Post #8 of 36
(11008 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 27, 2001
Posts: 452
|
Lonnie W was working to get climbing allowed there. I think he was unsuccessfull. True the rock there is good, I think there are bigger things in life than climbing however, and that should be respected. It was in fact the bloodiest battle in the civil war!
~Rob H
|
|
|
|
|
the_pirate
Apr 1, 2004, 6:33 PM
Post #9 of 36
(11008 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 3984
|
http://www.oldgloryprints.com/Devils_Den.jpg
Just because an area contains rock outcrops, doesn't mean you should be allowed to climb there. Devil's Den is part of a National Military Monument; land set aside in rememberance of the thousands killed and wounded there. Anyone who would climb there or advocate access to that area is a selfish, self absorbed asshole. People like that give all climbers a bad rap.
Even on a beautiful sunny day, the monument has a somber feel to it. As it should. The presence of chalked up holds and climbers would totally ruin that. Show some respect and find some place else to climb.
|
|
|
|
|
boss
Apr 1, 2004, 6:49 PM
Post #10 of 36
(11008 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 29, 2002
Posts: 235
|
I'll agree with the_pirate on this one. I've been there. The place gave me a feeling that I can't describe in words, and there is no reason to partake in "technical" climbing there. If you are touring and want to get a feel for how things looked from around the rock, then that's a different story. My opinion, visit it, respect it, walk through it, imagine what it was like, and remember the many lives that were lost.
|
|
|
|
|
vertical_reality
Apr 1, 2004, 6:52 PM
Post #11 of 36
(11008 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2002
Posts: 2073
|
In reply to: i refrained for the most part and was never kicked out by a ranger although i know people who were fined.
How excatly does a park ranger fine you? Do people actually give them their real names?
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Apr 1, 2004, 7:01 PM
Post #12 of 36
(11008 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
Agreed that climbing on this area should be restricted, hence the reason why it should be included in the RDB with the explanation that it is restricted and why, but only if there are established climbs there that have historical value to climbers.
If it is closed to climbing, has always been closed to climbing, and there are no established routes, then it has no business being in the RDB in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
rwaltermyer
Apr 2, 2004, 11:25 AM
Post #13 of 36
(11008 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 10, 2001
Posts: 1059
|
hmmm...looks like I'm not as radical as rox was making me out to be.
I'm just trying to ask the question, where do we draw the line?
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Apr 2, 2004, 12:45 PM
Post #14 of 36
(11008 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
Instead of looking for a hardfast set in stone rule regarding every single nuance, wouldn't it be a fair statement to expect that each situation might require individual consideration in some cases ???
|
|
|
|
|
dredsovrn
Apr 2, 2004, 1:04 PM
Post #15 of 36
(11008 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2003
Posts: 1226
|
I understand people's sentimental attachment to such places, but disagree with the idea that it should be closed to any non-destructive activity. I am sure there would be some who would argue that because people died there, you shouldn't go there at all. You would likely disagree with them.
Is it disrespectful to have fun at a place where people died? That is largely a personal and cultural decision. Many people see it as a celebration of the lives of those who died. By deciding that your view is the one everyone should follow you suggest that you know the only correct way to remember the past. Would you suggest the same for religion? Many would. That view is narrow minded and counter to the great tradition of the United States.
You will find someone everywhere you climb, ride a bike, walk, swim, skip, jump or crawl that has an issue with your activity because they feel it is inappropriate. Someone may have died on the street you are driving down, in the pool or ocean in which you swim, or in the woods you choose to hike in. You can find many examples where mass slaughter has occured due to war. People with a different view enjoy the celebration of life in these areas, and reject the thinking that lead to massive destruction and loss of life.
You should be allowed to not climb there, just as others should be allowed to follow their belief and do otherwise. Your desire to close an area, in this case Devils Den, to climbing or any other activity which you see as "inappropriate" forces your opinion and view on others. This type of thinking and behavior shows a disregard for the beliefs of others and is contrary to what this nation is all about at its core. Freedom.
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Apr 2, 2004, 1:08 PM
Post #16 of 36
(11008 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
Hell, if you use that logic then we should be able to builder the Statue of Liberty, right ??? Or climb the dead guys at Mt Rushmoore, as there is much climbing around it, but not on the formation they are on.
Many times "Access issues" are about compromise... If we are not willing to compromise and want it all our way, then why should non-climbers compromise with us ??? Another way to think about this is, if we cannot govern ourselves and show respect to others who have just as much right to the land as we do, and do as we wish, then we have shown that we need to be governed, and that would suck.
Example... There is a "voluntary" climbing ban in effect in June at Devil's Tower. This is a compromise that was brokered with Native Americans, and many respect that climbing ban for that month. Imagine if assholes on a roadtrip said "screw it", they were in the area and wanted to climb it, then we ended up being governed and access became an issue there again.
|
|
|
|
|
jkarns
Apr 2, 2004, 1:43 PM
Post #17 of 36
(11008 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 542
|
In reply to: Many times "Access issues" are about compromise... If we are not willing to compromise and want it all our way, then why should non-climbers compromise with us ???
rrrADAM--
This time I couldn't agree with you more! While Devil's Den is a cool little boulderfield, it's just that, a very minor blip on the climber's radar that happens to have a lot more cultural significance. It's not even nearly the best diabase area. Plus, if I recall correctly there are other boulders near Devils Den proper that do not have the same significance and are a little more off the beaten path.
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
dredsovrn
Apr 2, 2004, 1:45 PM
Post #18 of 36
(11008 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2003
Posts: 1226
|
In reply to: Hell, if you use that logic then we should be able to builder the Statue of Liberty, right ??? Or climb the dead guys at Mt Rushmoore, as there is much climbing around it, but not on the formation they are on. Many times "Access issues" are about compromise...
Theoretically yes. There would be many to argue that is exactly the case and appropriate. I could easily argue that if it is public property any restriction of non-destructive use is incorrect.
You and I could argue the fine points of conflict, free will, personal freedom, and private property (and that would be fun) until this forum is 500 pages long and we would be unlikely to reach consensus as long as we continue to hold opposing views. I am sure we could both cite examples from around the world where either restriction or freedom has had negative or positive results.
That being said, you certainly seem to get the point. Permanent closure (as suggested for Devils Den), however, is not "compormise" as you astutely point out.
|
|
|
|
|
dredsovrn
Apr 2, 2004, 1:48 PM
Post #19 of 36
(11008 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2003
Posts: 1226
|
In reply to: In reply to: Many times "Access issues" are about compromise... If we are not willing to compromise and want it all our way, then why should non-climbers compromise with us ??? rrrADAM-- This time I couldn't agree with you more! While Devil's Den is a cool little boulderfield, it's just that, a very minor blip on the climber's radar that happens to have a lot more cultural significance. It's not even nearly the best diabase area. Plus, if I recall correctly there are other boulders near Devils Den proper that do not have the same significance and are a little more off the beaten path. Josh
Josh you suggest a perfect example of making personal decision that doesn't restrict the freedom of others.
By the way, this is one of the best discussions I have seen on this site in some time. Looking forward to more people's views on the subject.
|
|
|
|
|
jkarns
Apr 2, 2004, 1:59 PM
Post #20 of 36
(11008 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 542
|
Dredsovrn--
I was thinking compromise in the bigger picture than at a single area. As climbers we need to come to terms with the fact that we will not be permitted to climb on every piece of exposed rock out there. If the general public views us as a group that will fight to the teeth for access anywhere, then I think that our efforts will become less productive. Rather, if the public sees us agreeing that some areas should be left free from climbers they may be more willing to compromise on others.
Devil's Den is rather insignificant as a climbing site, but very significant in Civil War history. I see it as a perfect candidate for the type of compromise I discussed. Do I personally feel that it is disrespectful to climb there? If done in an appropriate way, no. Does this mean that I am willing to go to bat to get this place open? Definately not! There are so many places that are closed to climbing for illegitmate reasons, why mess with one that is closed for a fairly legitmate one?
Josh
|
|
|
|
|
dredsovrn
Apr 2, 2004, 2:13 PM
Post #21 of 36
(11008 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2003
Posts: 1226
|
In reply to: Dredsovrn-- I was thinking compromise in the bigger picture than at a single area. As climbers we need to come to terms with the fact that we will not be permitted to climb on every piece of exposed rock out there. If the general public views us as a group that will fight to the teeth for access anywhere, then I think that our efforts will become less productive. Rather, if the public sees us agreeing that some areas should be left free from climbers they may be more willing to compromise on others. Devil's Den is rather insignificant as a climbing site, but very significant in Civil War history. I see it as a perfect candidate for the type of compromise I discussed. Do I personally feel that it is disrespectful to climb there? If done in an appropriate way, no. Does this mean that I am willing to go to bat to get this place open? Definately not! There are so many places that are closed to climbing for illegitmate reasons, why mess with one that is closed for a fairly legitmate one? Josh
I don't disagree with the ideas you forward above. It is not particularly important to me to climb at Devils Den. However, the original idea forwarded was that it should not be in the data base and that it should be closed out of respect. That is not compromise, and it suggest that one persons form of respect is better than others. It is easy to find examples where there is broad and diverse thinking on mourning and rememberance. Additionally, such a closure would need to be linked to access elsewhere to make it a compromise. At best, that is unlikely.
I don't plan on joining a rally to gain unrestricted access to Devils Den, but that is not the point. Many would, and they would be right to do so if they were so inclined, and I would support that decision. Just as it would be right for you to determine that access in other areas is more important based on your system of beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
arrettinator
Apr 2, 2004, 3:16 PM
Post #22 of 36
(11008 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2002
Posts: 8522
|
In reply to: Yes it should be posted... All should be posted, and if it is access sensitive, then info regarding climbing local coalitions, land managers, etc... Should be included so people can get involved with trying to reestablish access. |
|
|
|
|
the_pirate
Apr 2, 2004, 5:54 PM
Post #23 of 36
(11008 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2003
Posts: 3984
|
In reply to: If we are not willing to compromise and want it all our way, then why should non-climbers compromise with us ??? Another way to think about this is, if we cannot govern ourselves and show respect to others who have just as much right to the land as we do, and do as we wish, then we have shown that we need to be governed, and that would suck.
Exactly.
jkarns gets the picture as well.
In reply to: Your desire to close an area, in this case Devils Den, to climbing or any other activity which you see as "inappropriate" forces your opinion and view on others. This type of thinking and behavior shows a disregard for the beliefs of others and is contrary to what this nation is all about at its core. Freedom.
Totally backward. Forcing the issue that you should be allowed to climb there, or posting routes there in the database shows disregard for the beliefs of others. That land was set aside as a memorial long before anyone decided that it was a good place for the sport of bouldering. By your logic, next time I'm in DC I should work the hand traverse across the top of the Vietnam Veterans Wall..... Why not, it's made of stone, I should have the right to climb on it. Certain things should be preserved as is.
Would you like to see power boats on Walden Pond? Personal freedom, right?
It's not about the fact that people died at Devil's Den. It's about the fact that the land was previously set aside as a memorial. Next time I pass through Gettysburg, I'll stop and take a stroll around the fields. It's good to have places like that preserved so as to put a little perspective on the world. Even as a climber, I would feel the mood spoiled to see groups of people bouldering there.
Delete the routes listed there. They were added by a person of limited vision.
|
|
|
|
|
dredsovrn
Apr 2, 2004, 6:37 PM
Post #24 of 36
(11008 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 24, 2003
Posts: 1226
|
In reply to: In reply to: If we are not willing to compromise and want it all our way, then why should non-climbers compromise with us ??? Another way to think about this is, if we cannot govern ourselves and show respect to others who have just as much right to the land as we do, and do as we wish, then we have shown that we need to be governed, and that would suck. Exactly. jkarns gets the picture as well. In reply to: Your desire to close an area, in this case Devils Den, to climbing or any other activity which you see as "inappropriate" forces your opinion and view on others. This type of thinking and behavior shows a disregard for the beliefs of others and is contrary to what this nation is all about at its core. Freedom. Totally backward. Forcing the issue that you should be allowed to climb there, or posting routes there in the database shows disregard for the beliefs of others. That land was set aside as a memorial long before anyone decided that it was a good place for the sport of bouldering. By your logic, next time I'm in DC I should work the hand traverse across the top of the Vietnam Veterans Wall..... Why not, it's made of stone, I should have the right to climb on it. Certain things should be preserved as is. Would you like to see power boats on Walden Pond? Personal freedom, right? It's not about the fact that people died at Devil's Den. It's about the fact that the land was previously set aside as a memorial. Next time I pass through Gettysburg, I'll stop and take a stroll around the fields. It's good to have places like that preserved so as to put a little perspective on the world. Even as a climber, I would feel the mood spoiled to see groups of people bouldering there. Delete the routes listed there. They were added by a person of limited vision.
Sorry Pirate. I understand what you are saying, but you missed the point.
I won't go over it again as it is spelled out in a previous post above.
|
|
|
|
|
redpointron
Apr 2, 2004, 7:03 PM
Post #25 of 36
(11008 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2003
Posts: 1170
|
In reply to: Looking forward to more people's views on the subject.
alright, i will chime in, albeit briefly. this discussion is too cerebral for me. :? :?
i was in the military for 9 years and went out to pick up a new fire truck in lancaster last fall. i had the opportunity one morning to head down to gettysburg, having done a fair amount of study of the battle.
you cannot love climbing like we do and not see that beautiful patch of boulders and smile. but it is fleeting. it's like seeing a hot girl at your wedding...it's just not right anymore... :wink: :wink:
the ground is hallowed. i mean the trail through the woods on little round top repeatedly posts, don't pee in the woodline (out of respect).
as far as the database, leave it in... it's a record of our history and evolution as climbers, just as gettyburg itself is a record of our history and evolution as human beings....
thanks for bring good discussion to the table...
r.r.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
