Climbers Spray-painting trees at Oil Crack, Arena, etc.
gretchen..I agree with you..sometimes those doing the most work take the most heat..it is much easier for us to sit on our duff and criticize the RRGCC than to be proactive ourselves....can you answer my query about what constitutes good stewardship with that particular landowner.....? I am assuming that trails, bolts, cut trees, and dogs were OK'd by them, but orange spray paint was not? If they do say spray painting white markers on the trees is OK, will the RRGCC support this landowners right to do just that?
Positive vibes brah...positive vibes.
The color of the spray paint is not the issue. It is the action of spray painting that is the problem and how it was done. The indivudal may have thought that this was a beneficial act and if done properly, it might have been. We are trying to correct bad behavior that started many years ago. Instead of feeling entitled to go and bolt whatever, chop trees down to clear the way, we are trying to come up with a better land managment system that will be respectful to the landowners, safe to the enviroment, is aesthetic and protect what needs to be protected. The bottome line with this particular piece of property is that it will be sold. They have been very tolerant of the climbing community but if we don't buy it, someone else will. We have the best shot right now.
Just genuinely disengenuous.
I am not a local, so fill me in....what exactly is the land being currently used for? you say someone else will buy it...any idea what it might be used for then? I was under the impression that much of the land in the southern region was good for oil drilling, pot growing, tobacco growing, rock climbing and not much more...
also, when we say "aesthetic", who is deciding this? is there a consensus taken beforehand? for example, is the current opinion that whenever trad gear can be placed, then no bolt should be installed? or are mixed routes considered bad form?
I am just thinking back to the "old days" of the 80's when you would not find 1 in ten that would support the plethora of bolts we now have at the crag...to them, today's bolting would not be aesthetic....so can I assume that in 15 more years the consensus may change...maybe grid bolting will be the norm, as well as bolted on holds....
also, when we say "aesthetic", who is deciding this? is there a consensus taken beforehand? for example, is the current opinion that whenever trad gear can be placed, then no bolt should be installed? or are mixed routes considered bad form?
I am just thinking back to the "old days" of the 80's when you would not find 1 in ten that would support the plethora of bolts we now have at the crag...to them, today's bolting would not be aesthetic....so can I assume that in 15 more years the consensus may change...maybe grid bolting will be the norm, as well as bolted on holds....
Positive vibes brah...positive vibes.
First, in response to Spraqwe, "There are things that the RRGCC does that I agree with and things that I don't…Frankly I believe that in many ways they fail to communicate with the climbing community and that this has led to a lot of misinformation and hard feelings."
There really is no, "they." There is no, "RRGCC." There is no "staff," no leaders, no organization, really. Just a bunch of climbers. Just me. And John, and Hugh, and Gretchen, and Wes, and JB, and Lee, and Ray, and Sandy, and all the rest of the volunteers, and you. There is no one, and everyone. WE are the RRGCC.
If there is failure to communicate to the climbing community, then I failed to communicate. Hugh failed to communicate. John failed to communicate. All your friends are "the" RRGCC. WE failed to communicate among ourselves, with one another. You are the RRGCC.
All of us, any one who volunteers and does the work that gets done, is the RRGCC.
We say there is an RRGCC to the Forest Service. We say it to ourselves. But organizations are just legal fiction. Organization don't really exist, except as a legal construct, people do. There is no climbing community, there are only people who climb.
It is true that I have not always told Hugh everything I have done in the name of the RRGCC, Hugh has not told me everything that he has done in the name of the RRGCC, John has not always told Hugh and me everything he has done in the name of the RRGCC, you have not told me everything that you have done in the name of the RRGCC which leads to a lot of misunderstandings, duplication, errors, mistakes, etc., etc., etc. Nor do the rest of the climbers know what we all have done. We are all doing the work of the RRGCC and we don’t all know what is going on. I certainly don’t. We are all trying to do the best we can in the name of the RRGCC. We “try,” as Gretchen, says. But there is no one to blame but ourselves. If you want someone to blame, blame me.
Second, in response to Horatio, “i do keep wondering why the RRGCC thinks they have the right to "enforce" their ethics on every climber in the gorge?”
The spray painted trees posed a threat to everyone’s climbing, is was not about enforcing the RRGCC’s ethics on every climber in the gorge. A memo was sent to every Climbing Advisory Council member, every RRGCC board member, posted to this web site, to the RRGCC web site, and the RRGCC kiosk, BEFORE I did. No one objected. There was complete agreement among all.
The spray painted trees is not in the best interest of climbing at the Red. Consistent with everything I have ever done in the name of the RRGCC, I acted in the best interest of climbing at the Red to protect “responsible climbing.” Spray painting, on trees bright, bold letters to direct climbers to crags is not consistent with “responsible climbing” or within the current climbing community standard of “outdoor climbing experience” at the Red, or anywhere else I am familiar with. Responsible climbing means, being respectful of the environment and other people, which includes the private landowner and other climber’s, and their climbing experience.
Current climbing community standards of “outdoor climbing experience,” or climbing ethics, is an arbitrary line that is, drawn and re-drawn, through usage. Someday brightly painted trees may become the norm, but today it is not. While we all have the luxury of time to debate where that line is on this forum we did not have the time to let a single individual’s act (however, well-intended) pose a threat to everyone else’s climbing.
So, Lee Smith and I, took it upon ourselves, to act as “the RRGCC” to protect everyone's climbing by painting over the trees.
Third, in answer to pigsteak, “I am assuming that trails, bolts, cut trees, and dogs were OK'd by them, but orange spray paint was not? If they do say spray painting white markers on the trees is OK, will the RRGCC support this landowners right to do just that?”
Yes, the owners approved of bolts, and climbing, but is Gretchen is right the issue is a bit larger than what was approved versus not approved. It is about climbers and their behavior. We want to climb but then we act entitled and disrespectful, then complain if we don’t get to climb instead of change our behavior. Acting respectful is the best way to ensure climbing.
When we have more time we can decide as a group what the “appropriate” means is to give climbers more directions to the crags within the meaning of “responsible climbing.” I believe the CAC is the best place to have that discussion.
Sorry for the long post. I am a little tried and cranky, right now, from painting trees. Taking time to explain things, and keeping everyone informed, actually keeps serious things from getting done, like preparing for tonight’s meeting to help raise money to buy the land that we can all blame “the RRGCC” about
Shannon
There really is no, "they." There is no, "RRGCC." There is no "staff," no leaders, no organization, really. Just a bunch of climbers. Just me. And John, and Hugh, and Gretchen, and Wes, and JB, and Lee, and Ray, and Sandy, and all the rest of the volunteers, and you. There is no one, and everyone. WE are the RRGCC.
If there is failure to communicate to the climbing community, then I failed to communicate. Hugh failed to communicate. John failed to communicate. All your friends are "the" RRGCC. WE failed to communicate among ourselves, with one another. You are the RRGCC.
All of us, any one who volunteers and does the work that gets done, is the RRGCC.
We say there is an RRGCC to the Forest Service. We say it to ourselves. But organizations are just legal fiction. Organization don't really exist, except as a legal construct, people do. There is no climbing community, there are only people who climb.
It is true that I have not always told Hugh everything I have done in the name of the RRGCC, Hugh has not told me everything that he has done in the name of the RRGCC, John has not always told Hugh and me everything he has done in the name of the RRGCC, you have not told me everything that you have done in the name of the RRGCC which leads to a lot of misunderstandings, duplication, errors, mistakes, etc., etc., etc. Nor do the rest of the climbers know what we all have done. We are all doing the work of the RRGCC and we don’t all know what is going on. I certainly don’t. We are all trying to do the best we can in the name of the RRGCC. We “try,” as Gretchen, says. But there is no one to blame but ourselves. If you want someone to blame, blame me.
Second, in response to Horatio, “i do keep wondering why the RRGCC thinks they have the right to "enforce" their ethics on every climber in the gorge?”
The spray painted trees posed a threat to everyone’s climbing, is was not about enforcing the RRGCC’s ethics on every climber in the gorge. A memo was sent to every Climbing Advisory Council member, every RRGCC board member, posted to this web site, to the RRGCC web site, and the RRGCC kiosk, BEFORE I did. No one objected. There was complete agreement among all.
The spray painted trees is not in the best interest of climbing at the Red. Consistent with everything I have ever done in the name of the RRGCC, I acted in the best interest of climbing at the Red to protect “responsible climbing.” Spray painting, on trees bright, bold letters to direct climbers to crags is not consistent with “responsible climbing” or within the current climbing community standard of “outdoor climbing experience” at the Red, or anywhere else I am familiar with. Responsible climbing means, being respectful of the environment and other people, which includes the private landowner and other climber’s, and their climbing experience.
Current climbing community standards of “outdoor climbing experience,” or climbing ethics, is an arbitrary line that is, drawn and re-drawn, through usage. Someday brightly painted trees may become the norm, but today it is not. While we all have the luxury of time to debate where that line is on this forum we did not have the time to let a single individual’s act (however, well-intended) pose a threat to everyone else’s climbing.
So, Lee Smith and I, took it upon ourselves, to act as “the RRGCC” to protect everyone's climbing by painting over the trees.
Third, in answer to pigsteak, “I am assuming that trails, bolts, cut trees, and dogs were OK'd by them, but orange spray paint was not? If they do say spray painting white markers on the trees is OK, will the RRGCC support this landowners right to do just that?”
Yes, the owners approved of bolts, and climbing, but is Gretchen is right the issue is a bit larger than what was approved versus not approved. It is about climbers and their behavior. We want to climb but then we act entitled and disrespectful, then complain if we don’t get to climb instead of change our behavior. Acting respectful is the best way to ensure climbing.
When we have more time we can decide as a group what the “appropriate” means is to give climbers more directions to the crags within the meaning of “responsible climbing.” I believe the CAC is the best place to have that discussion.
Sorry for the long post. I am a little tried and cranky, right now, from painting trees. Taking time to explain things, and keeping everyone informed, actually keeps serious things from getting done, like preparing for tonight’s meeting to help raise money to buy the land that we can all blame “the RRGCC” about
Shannon
-
littlefeller
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2003 11:26 pm
hey mayor how about a user friendly method of getting my foot out of your ass you moron. for the rest of you those are great ideas i would love a paved road and some strip mall on the way to the crag (NOT) man a simple little indescreet sign is not what you are all making it out to be. one would think we were talking about the wind river range in wyoming one of the most pristine areas in the west not the trash filled ravines of the red. i dont really care if there is a sign at the crags or not ive probably been climbing at the red longer than some of you and ive found all the crags ,so back to the mayor how about a sign next to your ass that says insert foot, you moron.
THERE WILL ALWAYS BE.
I was just thinking about how much Brittish (particularly English) climbers used to sit around whining about how awful the French and Spanish were for bolting up their easy-access crags: "Shocking", "Repulsive", "Alien to the spirit of climbing", "destroying the Rock and the Sport!" But once airlines started offering us$100 round trip tickets from London to Spain and France, guess who rushed in and discovered the joys of sunny, 'user friendly' sport crags? Yeah, those smiling, sunburnt guys at the beachfront crag, yelling up to their friend as he struggles to clip the bolt, "Go on, mate!" - they're the same, whining English 'traddies' enjoying themselves.
Bacon is meat candy.
