As the online guide book develops, there's been a lot of back and forth about including or excluding various 'unpublished' crags. Ad hominem attacks, threats against the family dog, etc. (Woo Hoo! Flame on!) These are entertaining, but don't seem to be getting anywhere. I would like to ask some questions and, I hope stimulate some (non-flame) discussion:
Do owners/managers fear 'publication' in and of itself, or do they fear that 'publication' will attract thundering hordes?
Doesn't word of mouth do more to spread info about crags than the online guide?
Are there specific instances of an owner/manager doing something bad because of 'publication'? Are there clearly specific consequences to 'publication' of certain crags? Are there any ongoing negotiations where 'publication' is a specific part of the terms of the negotiation?
Am I crazy to think that private land owners will react differently to 'publication' than FS Managers. There was some sort of 'promise' made to the FS about 'publication', but no such promise has been made to private land owners (right?)
Has the nature and availability of the intenet fundamentally changed the situation in which anyone could make a promise to anyone that semi-public information (like the location/names of routes on non-posted land) would be kept 'unpublished'? (in the age of printed books, you could promise not to spend thousands of dollars to publish a book, today everyone can find/spread info for free globally. "information wants to be free")
In the FS agreement, was 'publication' defined? (Is it the case that the online guide is somewhere between word of mouth and expensive print publication?)
To include or not
Re: To include or not
tomdarch wrote: Do owners/managers fear 'publication' in and of itself, or do they fear that 'publication' will attract thundering hordes?
Managers, Forest Service, aren't keen on publication because it violates the Rock Climbing Management Guide.
tomdarch wrote: Doesn't word of mouth do more to spread info about crags than the online guide?
Maybe, but an on-line guide puts that information out to the world. Many climbers come to the Gorge, climb, camp and or go home. They don't hang at Miguel's or socialize at the over crowded popular crags (not that there is anything wrong with that). These climbers might not have the 'advantage' of word of mouth, part of that might be by their own doing. So an on-line guide (published) guide puts route information out there for everyone and their uncle to read.
tomdarch wrote: Are there specific instances of an owner/manager doing something bad because of 'publication'? Are there clearly specific consequences to 'publication' of certain crags? Are there any ongoing negotiations where 'publication' is a specific part of the terms of the negotiation?
Not real sure about some of these questions, but the first one is pretty obvious. Managers, Forest Service, gets real excited when new routes are published and it can add tension to the ongoing relations between FS and climbers.
tomdarch wrote: Am I crazy to think that private land owners will react differently to 'publication' than FS Managers. There was some sort of 'promise' made to the FS about 'publication', but no such promise has been made to private land owners (right?)
No, you're not crazy. Private land owners might react differently, they might shoot you. More likely they will close climbing on their land if they are not ok with the situation. That is why asking permission to climb FIRST is a good idea. It also might be a good idea to let the land owner know that information about their property is about to put out there on the world wide web for all to see.
tomdarch wrote: Has the nature and availability of the intenet fundamentally changed the situation in which anyone could make a promise to anyone that semi-public information (like the location/names of routes on non-posted land) would be kept 'unpublished'? (in the age of printed books, you could promise not to spend thousands of dollars to publish a book, today everyone can find/spread info for free globally. "information wants to be free")
Uhhhhhh to deep to even ponder. But in my humble opinion posting information to the world wide web is the same thing a publishing, all be it a cheaper, less labor intesive (although SCIN might argue that statement) process.
There was never an agreement with the Forest Service concering publication. In 1996 they put out a Rock Climbing Management Guide and it became the law of the land so to speak. No climber involvement or consideration.tomdarch wrote: In the FS agreement, was 'publication' defined? (Is it the case that the online guide is somewhere between word of mouth and expensive print publication?)
I see they are still lopping off mountains in Eastern Kentucky. Electricity isn't cheap.
I'll give it a shot...
1. Do owners/managers fear 'publication' in and of itself, or do they fear that 'publication' will attract thundering hordes?
A: Publication issues arise from the FS climbing management plan. They feel that as custodians of the resources, they need to know what's going on, what the impacts are/will be, and how to manage/control them. Publication invites climbers in a way they can't control after the fact. If they already know of an area and have cleared it, then publication isn't a problem. If they don't know the area, and there are sensitive resources there that could be damaged by climbers/users, then publication would be detrimental.
2. Doesn't word of mouth do more to spread info about crags than the online guide?
A: Maybe, maybe not. It's hard to control disorganized publication, but easier and more effective to try to control organized/systematic publication like guidebooks or magazine articles. Keep in mind that routes that are already published in my last guide were grandfathered in. It's only new routes on NF that have a potential problem.
3. Are there specific instances of an owner/manager doing something bad because of 'publication'?
A: Pocket Wall publication caused no tresspassing signs to go up and probably contributed to the area being purchased and chopped by the state park. Hominy Hole debacle almost shut down climbing entirely in the Red.
4. Are there clearly specific consequences to 'publication' of certain crags? On FS land, I don't know of any specific immediate consequences although they could probably confiscate your gear and bring some kind of criminal charges against you if they really wanted to. That's doubtful, but the more important issue is the goal of building trust between climbers and land managers/owners. Until climbers own property outright, we must always climb with land manager/owner permission, otherwise we are "tresspassing" and jeopardize our privelege to climb. Publication of crags/routes on FS land erodes this trust and relationship. In the future, the FS will be less willing to work with us or accomodate our requests. It's hard to measure good will, but it certainly exists and is critical in a relationship like we have with the FS.
5. Are there any ongoing negotiations where 'publication' is a specific part of the terms of the negotiation?
A: We argued this point forever about 8 years ago. The bottom line is that constitutionally the FS couldn't stop anyone from publicizing a route (free speech), but as a way to build the relationship, it was a concession that really wasn't that important. Once you accept these facts the decision isn't that hard:
a. the FS is required by law to manage resources on FS land and HAS to have information to properly do that job
b. climbing has impacts and potential impacts on sensitive resources
c. climbers want to climb, but not harm sensitive resources
d. if the FS can be assured there are no sensitive resources then we'll push to climb there since our presence would cause no significant harm
e. activities that make the FS more difficult are not desirable
f. publication of routes makes the FS job more difficult
6. Am I crazy to think that private land owners will react differently to 'publication' than FS Managers. There was some sort of 'promise' made to the FS about 'publication', but no such promise has been made to private land owners (right?)
A: Your right. There is no agreement with any private land owner about "publication" per se. But in reality, unless you personally have identified the private land owner and have asked permission to climb on their land, you are tresspassing. By history, we have been allowed to climb at Roadside, for example, but only because nobody has ever stepped forward to kick us off. Now you have to think, what would cause a land owner to want to kick us off? Perhaps hoardes of climbers on their land? Who knows? If you own property, you can imagine how you might feel if climbers/hunters/ORV users came on it and acted like they had a right to?
The answer is to build open relationships with land owners and let them know what we want and address what concerns they have about climbers on their land. The RRGCC is working on this, but it is a slow process (it's very difficult to determine who owns certain land).
7. Has the nature and availability of the intenet fundamentally changed the situation in which anyone could make a promise to anyone that semi-public information (like the location/names of routes on non-posted land) would be kept 'unpublished'? (in the age of printed books, you could promise not to spend thousands of dollars to publish a book, today everyone can find/spread info for free globally. "information wants to be free")
In the FS agreement, was 'publication' defined? (Is it the case that the online guide is somewhere between word of mouth and expensive print publication?)
A: In an agreement, every term cannot be defined (since you would have to define the terms used in the definitions too), so at some point you have to resort to a "reasonable" interpretation that fits the spirit of the agreement. The prudent thing to do is to contact the FS and ask them if what you want to publicize and how you choose to publicize it would cause them a problem. They are the only that would have a problem with it, so why not address concerns before a problem arises? Put yourself in their shoes and imagine you have an agreement with a group of climbers and they try to do something to circumvent the terms of the agreement through a hypertechnical definition of the term "publication". I'd be irked. But if a climber came to you and asked first, I'd see that as a responsible approach to a potential problem and would feel that the climber is trying to respect an agreement and relationship.
Amen
1. Do owners/managers fear 'publication' in and of itself, or do they fear that 'publication' will attract thundering hordes?
A: Publication issues arise from the FS climbing management plan. They feel that as custodians of the resources, they need to know what's going on, what the impacts are/will be, and how to manage/control them. Publication invites climbers in a way they can't control after the fact. If they already know of an area and have cleared it, then publication isn't a problem. If they don't know the area, and there are sensitive resources there that could be damaged by climbers/users, then publication would be detrimental.
2. Doesn't word of mouth do more to spread info about crags than the online guide?
A: Maybe, maybe not. It's hard to control disorganized publication, but easier and more effective to try to control organized/systematic publication like guidebooks or magazine articles. Keep in mind that routes that are already published in my last guide were grandfathered in. It's only new routes on NF that have a potential problem.
3. Are there specific instances of an owner/manager doing something bad because of 'publication'?
A: Pocket Wall publication caused no tresspassing signs to go up and probably contributed to the area being purchased and chopped by the state park. Hominy Hole debacle almost shut down climbing entirely in the Red.
4. Are there clearly specific consequences to 'publication' of certain crags? On FS land, I don't know of any specific immediate consequences although they could probably confiscate your gear and bring some kind of criminal charges against you if they really wanted to. That's doubtful, but the more important issue is the goal of building trust between climbers and land managers/owners. Until climbers own property outright, we must always climb with land manager/owner permission, otherwise we are "tresspassing" and jeopardize our privelege to climb. Publication of crags/routes on FS land erodes this trust and relationship. In the future, the FS will be less willing to work with us or accomodate our requests. It's hard to measure good will, but it certainly exists and is critical in a relationship like we have with the FS.
5. Are there any ongoing negotiations where 'publication' is a specific part of the terms of the negotiation?
A: We argued this point forever about 8 years ago. The bottom line is that constitutionally the FS couldn't stop anyone from publicizing a route (free speech), but as a way to build the relationship, it was a concession that really wasn't that important. Once you accept these facts the decision isn't that hard:
a. the FS is required by law to manage resources on FS land and HAS to have information to properly do that job
b. climbing has impacts and potential impacts on sensitive resources
c. climbers want to climb, but not harm sensitive resources
d. if the FS can be assured there are no sensitive resources then we'll push to climb there since our presence would cause no significant harm
e. activities that make the FS more difficult are not desirable
f. publication of routes makes the FS job more difficult
6. Am I crazy to think that private land owners will react differently to 'publication' than FS Managers. There was some sort of 'promise' made to the FS about 'publication', but no such promise has been made to private land owners (right?)
A: Your right. There is no agreement with any private land owner about "publication" per se. But in reality, unless you personally have identified the private land owner and have asked permission to climb on their land, you are tresspassing. By history, we have been allowed to climb at Roadside, for example, but only because nobody has ever stepped forward to kick us off. Now you have to think, what would cause a land owner to want to kick us off? Perhaps hoardes of climbers on their land? Who knows? If you own property, you can imagine how you might feel if climbers/hunters/ORV users came on it and acted like they had a right to?
The answer is to build open relationships with land owners and let them know what we want and address what concerns they have about climbers on their land. The RRGCC is working on this, but it is a slow process (it's very difficult to determine who owns certain land).
7. Has the nature and availability of the intenet fundamentally changed the situation in which anyone could make a promise to anyone that semi-public information (like the location/names of routes on non-posted land) would be kept 'unpublished'? (in the age of printed books, you could promise not to spend thousands of dollars to publish a book, today everyone can find/spread info for free globally. "information wants to be free")
In the FS agreement, was 'publication' defined? (Is it the case that the online guide is somewhere between word of mouth and expensive print publication?)
A: In an agreement, every term cannot be defined (since you would have to define the terms used in the definitions too), so at some point you have to resort to a "reasonable" interpretation that fits the spirit of the agreement. The prudent thing to do is to contact the FS and ask them if what you want to publicize and how you choose to publicize it would cause them a problem. They are the only that would have a problem with it, so why not address concerns before a problem arises? Put yourself in their shoes and imagine you have an agreement with a group of climbers and they try to do something to circumvent the terms of the agreement through a hypertechnical definition of the term "publication". I'd be irked. But if a climber came to you and asked first, I'd see that as a responsible approach to a potential problem and would feel that the climber is trying to respect an agreement and relationship.
Amen
This is the Forest Service's response to my question 2 years ago:
"Is it illegal to publish route information on the internet?"
<snip>
I reread the rock climbing guide to make sure I was giving you the correct information. Page 3, section B. says: "Climbers who follow the natural curvature of the rock, without using fixed protection or otherwise developing a route, do not have to contact the Forest Service prior to climbing." Sounds good so far, but here's the crux: "Development of a climbing route involves doing something that attracts other climbers to a certain section of cliff..."
</snip>
So, according to this, if you climb a crack then tell someone about it at Miguel's then you are just as guilty as me. You are "doing something that attracts other climbers to a certain section of the cliff".
Pretty vague huh? Sue me.
"Is it illegal to publish route information on the internet?"
<snip>
I reread the rock climbing guide to make sure I was giving you the correct information. Page 3, section B. says: "Climbers who follow the natural curvature of the rock, without using fixed protection or otherwise developing a route, do not have to contact the Forest Service prior to climbing." Sounds good so far, but here's the crux: "Development of a climbing route involves doing something that attracts other climbers to a certain section of cliff..."
</snip>
So, according to this, if you climb a crack then tell someone about it at Miguel's then you are just as guilty as me. You are "doing something that attracts other climbers to a certain section of the cliff".
Pretty vague huh? Sue me.
-
captain static
- Posts: 2438
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 6:05 pm
"Climb but don't tell." Sounds like a certain military policy? Where would the roof crack OW just sent fall in relation to the GMG? I am assuming that it was first attempted before the GMG and that it's existence has been known by word of mouth for some time.
"Be responsible for your actions and sensitive to the concerns of other visitors and land managers. ... Your reward is the opportunity to climb in one of the most beautiful areas in this part of the country." John H. Bronaugh
