chalk ban
I find it amazing that out of over 30 responses that only 2 actually contain any thought. This thread seems like more of a pre-pubescent teenage chat room than a forum for discussing issues relevant to the Red River Gorge climbing community.
I would not only wonder what kind of message this would send to the FS, but what kind of message does this send to climbers across the nation who review this site. Not to mention the fact that WWW stands for world-wide web, and I inevitably run into climbers from another part of the globe each time I go to the gorge. As though Kentucky doesn't already have enough perception problems as a backwards, hillbilly state where the general population doesn't know what to do with shoes or toothbrushes.
There should be a place for anyone who wants to rant to go to and have a good time laughing at each other's expense. I don't think this should be the place for it though.
As far as the actual opinion poll...
I agree that the Forest Service is probably more interested in the approaches and bases of the crags, and how they impact the overall forest, than they are the aesthetic issues of the rock. Should the rock itself become a meca for tourists touting its natural beauty, chalk would no doubt become an issue. As it is, the crags seem to be frequented primarily by the climbers; and the tourists, naturalists, hikers and those just looking for a little peace seem to be using the rest of the forest.
Personally, I use chalk. And in an event where chalk may be banned I would hope that there would be an opportunity for compromise with the FS. As previously mentioned, colored chalk could be the aesthetic solution. I just hope we never have to make a choice.
I would not only wonder what kind of message this would send to the FS, but what kind of message does this send to climbers across the nation who review this site. Not to mention the fact that WWW stands for world-wide web, and I inevitably run into climbers from another part of the globe each time I go to the gorge. As though Kentucky doesn't already have enough perception problems as a backwards, hillbilly state where the general population doesn't know what to do with shoes or toothbrushes.
There should be a place for anyone who wants to rant to go to and have a good time laughing at each other's expense. I don't think this should be the place for it though.
As far as the actual opinion poll...
I agree that the Forest Service is probably more interested in the approaches and bases of the crags, and how they impact the overall forest, than they are the aesthetic issues of the rock. Should the rock itself become a meca for tourists touting its natural beauty, chalk would no doubt become an issue. As it is, the crags seem to be frequented primarily by the climbers; and the tourists, naturalists, hikers and those just looking for a little peace seem to be using the rest of the forest.
Personally, I use chalk. And in an event where chalk may be banned I would hope that there would be an opportunity for compromise with the FS. As previously mentioned, colored chalk could be the aesthetic solution. I just hope we never have to make a choice.
I'd be open for a restriction to colored chalk to any new areas that were bolted on FS land. I don't know how well it would work though with the Red being such a destination and people coming from all over not knowing the rules. i think that ultimately it would fail horribly. the areas that are currently established on FS land are pretty well compressed and have seen such a large human impact, i don't think restricting chalk use in these areas would do them much good.
Sand inhibits the production of toughtosterone, so get it out and send.
I won't comment on your rant about this web page except to say your rant has been discussed and talk about on this web page more times than I can count on two hands.defender wrote:I agree that the Forest Service is probably more interested in the approaches and bases of the crags, and how they impact the overall forest, than they are the aesthetic issues of the rock.
As for the above quote. It is my understand from having asked the questions and educated myself with what the forest service "cares about". (That education coming primarily from the RRGCC.) That it is a fact not a question to be "probably" agreed upon, that the focus is not on the cliff face but the ground at the base of the cliff and specifically Arch sites.
Last edited by rhunt on Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Climbing is the spice, not the meal." ~ Lurkist
-
Horatio Felacio
- Posts: 3338
- Joined: Tue Sep 24, 2002 7:26 pm
sorry defender, everyone is usually pretty excited for moral dilemmas/debates, but i think the heat has everyone a little out of their minds! thanks for bringing us back in check about what other people might think of comments made by anonymous people hiding behind screen names. i like unicorns, that is why i chose my screen name. furthermore, i can't believe that we found ourselves joking around instead of discussing possible scenarios with FS-RRG Climbing Community relations! Outrageous. There was a porno i saw as a kid named outrageous. it starred a man named defender. this man was a janitor in a female prison. defender was continually raped with his broomstick by the little girl inmates. defender was not sad about this though. defender smiled and thanked each little girl that beat him up, then raped him. he liked being raped. it reminded him of his childhood when his gay uncle would make him gargle sperm until he threw up.
Yo HO!! Just got me a code red and some funyons big dawg!!! SHIT YEAH! - Ray, excited about his breakfast
-
Guest
