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