Weird Vibe
-
flaredcrack
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 1:40 pm
Weird Vibe
Anyone else getting a sort of weird vibe from all this climber coaliton activity? The new site and all is great, but I kind of feel like the coalition oversteps their bounds and attempts to speak for everyone. Can't put my finger on it, but I'm not sure how I feel about all this.
-
flaredcrack
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 1:40 pm
In response to “flaredcrack’s” first post…
Common human dilemma.
First, a group of people (who aren’t really an organized “group”) are being negatively affected. Second, a smaller subset of the larger group thinks they see the perceived threat and have an idea how to address it on behalf of the entire group, and take the initiative to act in the best interest of the larger group. Third, the larger group does not participate but watches the smaller group act on, what they say is, their behalf with varying degrees of skepticism, appreciation, criticism, support, and hostility. Fourth, the smaller group gains momentum, and appears to be making “progress.” Now, the larger group has a quandary.
What to make of the smaller group—their actions, their intent, their motives, and their relationship to the larger group?
It is often human nature when trying to assess another’s behavior to “use ourselves” as a role model and “project” on to them what we would do in certain situation. Often these projections tell us more about the person doing the projecting than any real truth about the people who are being projected upon. Sometimes we “project” our fears and suspicions on to others, and sometimes we “project” our good will and even extend others the benefit of the doubt. But in all cases we end up “projecting” because we rarely, ASK.
The real dilemma for the two groups is to find a way to replace projection with something that more closely approximates the truth.
This smaller group, the Coalition, is motivated by only one goal, to try to protect climbing for everyone. That is altruism. We are motivated strictly by “what is in the best interest of climbing”. We do not speak “for climbers” we speak “for climbing for all.” Climbing by definition is a selfish act. In order to protect climbing for all, climbers individually must relinquish some of their unabridged freedom to do whatever they want to make it possible for other climbers to climb. That is reality.
If people in the Coalition, especially me, sound like a parent it’s probably because we often are addressing the “child-like behavior,” self-interest at the expense of others, of climbers. There is nothing redeeming about self-interest when it harms others. But people do it and the rest of us have a right to object when we are the ones being harmed. Members of the Coalition are especially going to object since that is our mission to “protect, promote, and ensure responsible climbing.”
There are no bounds on common sense, but there are bounds on self-interest when it harms others. What is “harm to others” is something reasonable people can agree and disagree on. But the easy “calls” of irresponsible acts, like illegally bolting on Forest Service land, bolting without permission on private land, guiding on the National Forest without a permit, building campfires near clifflines on the national forest, spray painting trees on private land, are no brainers. All climbers, not just the Coalition, have a right to object to any climber who selfishly, or unknowingly, does something that “threatens” everyone else’s climbing. There is no such thing as “absolute freedom.”
Now, AFTER climbers own the land and decide as a “group” that spray-painting trees is okay THEN the Coalition has no business telling climbers otherwise.
In the meantime, the Coalition will continue as a small group working on behalf of the larger group, try to protect climbing for everyone.
Shannon
Common human dilemma.
First, a group of people (who aren’t really an organized “group”) are being negatively affected. Second, a smaller subset of the larger group thinks they see the perceived threat and have an idea how to address it on behalf of the entire group, and take the initiative to act in the best interest of the larger group. Third, the larger group does not participate but watches the smaller group act on, what they say is, their behalf with varying degrees of skepticism, appreciation, criticism, support, and hostility. Fourth, the smaller group gains momentum, and appears to be making “progress.” Now, the larger group has a quandary.
What to make of the smaller group—their actions, their intent, their motives, and their relationship to the larger group?
It is often human nature when trying to assess another’s behavior to “use ourselves” as a role model and “project” on to them what we would do in certain situation. Often these projections tell us more about the person doing the projecting than any real truth about the people who are being projected upon. Sometimes we “project” our fears and suspicions on to others, and sometimes we “project” our good will and even extend others the benefit of the doubt. But in all cases we end up “projecting” because we rarely, ASK.
The real dilemma for the two groups is to find a way to replace projection with something that more closely approximates the truth.
This smaller group, the Coalition, is motivated by only one goal, to try to protect climbing for everyone. That is altruism. We are motivated strictly by “what is in the best interest of climbing”. We do not speak “for climbers” we speak “for climbing for all.” Climbing by definition is a selfish act. In order to protect climbing for all, climbers individually must relinquish some of their unabridged freedom to do whatever they want to make it possible for other climbers to climb. That is reality.
If people in the Coalition, especially me, sound like a parent it’s probably because we often are addressing the “child-like behavior,” self-interest at the expense of others, of climbers. There is nothing redeeming about self-interest when it harms others. But people do it and the rest of us have a right to object when we are the ones being harmed. Members of the Coalition are especially going to object since that is our mission to “protect, promote, and ensure responsible climbing.”
There are no bounds on common sense, but there are bounds on self-interest when it harms others. What is “harm to others” is something reasonable people can agree and disagree on. But the easy “calls” of irresponsible acts, like illegally bolting on Forest Service land, bolting without permission on private land, guiding on the National Forest without a permit, building campfires near clifflines on the national forest, spray painting trees on private land, are no brainers. All climbers, not just the Coalition, have a right to object to any climber who selfishly, or unknowingly, does something that “threatens” everyone else’s climbing. There is no such thing as “absolute freedom.”
Now, AFTER climbers own the land and decide as a “group” that spray-painting trees is okay THEN the Coalition has no business telling climbers otherwise.
In the meantime, the Coalition will continue as a small group working on behalf of the larger group, try to protect climbing for everyone.
Shannon
In response to “flaredcrack’s” second post…
In a recent nationwide interview survey on climbing access issues, the top three reasons cited, in order of importance, for a dramatic rise in the number of climbers visiting a climbing area were:
1.) Magazine articles
2.) Guidebooks
3.) On-line guides
Nothing the Coalition has done has increased attention to the Red. Individuals, magazine companies, and others, have done much to bring attention to the Red. People inside the Coalition, me included, do not like the added attention an on-line guide brings to the Red. I argued against it, strenuously. I was out voted. But it is done. First, here at redriverclimbing.com, and now at the Coalition’s new site. Since the Coalition, has an obligation to do the responsible thing, and if enough people want to keep the Murray property open for climbing, we will raise the money as competently as possible, and as responsibly as possible.
Shannon
In a recent nationwide interview survey on climbing access issues, the top three reasons cited, in order of importance, for a dramatic rise in the number of climbers visiting a climbing area were:
1.) Magazine articles
2.) Guidebooks
3.) On-line guides
Nothing the Coalition has done has increased attention to the Red. Individuals, magazine companies, and others, have done much to bring attention to the Red. People inside the Coalition, me included, do not like the added attention an on-line guide brings to the Red. I argued against it, strenuously. I was out voted. But it is done. First, here at redriverclimbing.com, and now at the Coalition’s new site. Since the Coalition, has an obligation to do the responsible thing, and if enough people want to keep the Murray property open for climbing, we will raise the money as competently as possible, and as responsibly as possible.
Shannon
-
captain static
- Posts: 2438
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 6:05 pm
I think the results of the survey are interesting because of the reasons, magazine articles and guidebooks have probably always been a top method for existing climbers to gain an interest in visiting an area outside of their home crag. The online guidebook is a technological improvement on the old tried and trued guide an the climbing oriented website, I guess, a technological improvement on the magazine. Did the survey look into the effect indoor climbing gyms (yet another technological improvement on climbing?) is having on bringing new climbers into the sport?
"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
-
Bruisebrother
- Posts: 254
- Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2002 11:27 pm
flaredcrack, Hey Widecrack, if you or the ones influencing you have something to say about the preservation of climbing in the Daniel Boone N.F.--Speak Up! P.M. me and I'll personnaly see that your concerns are addressed, by the Coalition, it's Advisory Council or if need be by the Bruise Brothers Mtn. Club.
-
flaredcrack
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 1:40 pm
I think you are overreacting Bruisebrother; I've only been influenced by the members on this board (coaltion members). The idea of organized climbers, i.e. a coalition, is to me, an oxymoron. I believe that all groups eventually become a beurocracy. What may have begun as an effort to secure climbing priveleges, may evolve into an organization which may push the Forest Service into a threatened positition to react to aggressive climber organizations. I'm sure many members are motivated and "altruistic", but others are pushy and beligerent. Let's see, Chester said for me to "shut the hell up." You referred to me as a "Widecrack." It's this type of amateurish jargon which turns a lot of people off to the organization. It's my opinion that the coalition should work more behind the scenes, instead of pointedly telling the Forest Service that we don't need to work with you anymore, we'll just raise $320,000 and buy the land instead. What happens if the purchase goes through? Is there a climbing fee? Will you eject those that do not agree with your by-laws? Will you allow those who use your land to engage in illegal activities, i.e smoking weed? How will you police this broad land area? Why not just let climbers continue to climb as they have in the past?
So here is my take:
Say you get free cable. Maybe you tapped into someones else line, or maybe the person who lived there before you did it. You are watching cable and all is well. Except the cable company finds out, and cuts off your service. They don't fine you or make you pay for the illegal usage, they just ask you to pay from now on. But that pisses you off, because you were getting it for free before. So, the moral of the story is just because climbing in the red was carefree before, doesn't mean it should have been.
Climbers seem to feel like they are entitled to have whatever they want, when ever they want it. For free. Even though there is no reason why they should have it at all.
Wes
Say you get free cable. Maybe you tapped into someones else line, or maybe the person who lived there before you did it. You are watching cable and all is well. Except the cable company finds out, and cuts off your service. They don't fine you or make you pay for the illegal usage, they just ask you to pay from now on. But that pisses you off, because you were getting it for free before. So, the moral of the story is just because climbing in the red was carefree before, doesn't mean it should have been.
Climbers seem to feel like they are entitled to have whatever they want, when ever they want it. For free. Even though there is no reason why they should have it at all.
Wes
"There is no secret ingredient"
Po, the kung fu panda
Po, the kung fu panda
-
Guest
Very well said, Wes. I agree 100%.
I would like to caution those of us who are highly visible RRGCC members (CAC and BOD, specifically) to speak carefully when discussing access issues with other climbers, both on this board and in person. Even though you or I may not be speaking for the coalition at all times, what we say will be taken as a RRGCC stance regardless, and speaking out of turn (or out of our asses) will create problems. I'm not referring to anything said in this thread, by the way. While of course we don't all agree on all the issues, we do need to clarify when we are representing the RRGCC and when we are expressing our own opinions which may disagree with those held by the RRGCC. We especially need to be careful to try not to convey an air of superiority or authority over other climbers. That is not what we are about, and many climbers are confused on that issue.
Toward that end I am changing my screen name to my real first name, because it's getting damn confusing for people to keep all of me straight. Also it sucks when people call me Lynne when I'm leading. I'm sorry to all of my beautiful friends who I have cussed out for doing that.
I would like to caution those of us who are highly visible RRGCC members (CAC and BOD, specifically) to speak carefully when discussing access issues with other climbers, both on this board and in person. Even though you or I may not be speaking for the coalition at all times, what we say will be taken as a RRGCC stance regardless, and speaking out of turn (or out of our asses) will create problems. I'm not referring to anything said in this thread, by the way. While of course we don't all agree on all the issues, we do need to clarify when we are representing the RRGCC and when we are expressing our own opinions which may disagree with those held by the RRGCC. We especially need to be careful to try not to convey an air of superiority or authority over other climbers. That is not what we are about, and many climbers are confused on that issue.
Toward that end I am changing my screen name to my real first name, because it's getting damn confusing for people to keep all of me straight. Also it sucks when people call me Lynne when I'm leading. I'm sorry to all of my beautiful friends who I have cussed out for doing that.