Tallulah Gorge Peregrines

Paul Barnes wrote: Yeah I dont think I'd put anything about bolting routes all over Lookout Mountain, Signal Mountain, Mowbray Mountain, and Monteagle Mountain on there either if I were them.

Obviously what I meant was they didn't announce getting the money (which is pretty atypical, at the CCC we'll sure as heck let you know when someone gives us a grant, just try to avoid our spray), didn't issue the comment you are having issues with, etc. In other words, you're getting upset over words the SCC didn't say and which I seriously doubt are accurate given where they did come from.

If this were mine to give I'd let y'all borrow it for the meeting. But, surely someone attending has a copy. It has a lot of info on who retro'd each line.

Oh...so it didn't happen. How nice.

Brian Payst wrote: Obviously what I meant was they didn't announce getting the money (which is pretty atypical, at the CCC we'll sure as heck let you know when someone gives us a grant, just try to avoid our spray), didn't issue the comment you are having issues with, etc. In other words, you're getting upset over words the SCC didn't say and which I seriously doubt are accurate given where they did come from.

Brian....
I'm sorry to say that this is, in fact, the case.
There are, in fact, SCC funded bolts and stations splattered all over the sandstone belt where they do not belong.
Forget that the UNFoundation posted it.
I am telling you this is the case.
Tyler has indicated it to be the case above.
IT HAS HAPPENED.

Good work on you guys at Table Rock, SC BTW.
Keeping hope alive.

BHMBen wrote: Brian.... I'm sorry to say that this is, in fact, the case. There are, in fact, SCC funded bolts and stations splattered all over the sandstone belt where they do not belong. Forget that the UNFoundation posted it. I am telling you this is the case. Tyler has indicated it to be the case above. IT HAS HAPPENED. Good work on you guys at Table Rock, SC BTW. Keeping hope alive.

Not arguing that at all, just that the quote people were getting upset about likely wasn't accurate and did not come from the SCC so blaming them for it isn't accurate. Like I said, I don't condone retro-bolting no matter who is pulling the trigger on the drill. I wish we could make further progress at Table Rock, but SC land managers are tough when it comes to climbing. Seems to be slowly changing and hopefully it will keep getting better.

Ok...I'm just fuckin dense....so ya gotta spell it out for me. Which thing is not true...the Unfund didn't give the SCC money with the agreement that they would bolt 35 new routes with it?, or The SCC did get the money but didn't use it to bolt new routes all over the damn place? Which thing is inaccurate?

Paul Barnes wrote:Ok...I'm just fuckin dense....so ya gotta spell it out for me. Which thing is not true...the Unfund didn't give the SCC money with the agreement that they would bolt 35 new routes with it?, or The SCC did get the money but didn't use it to bolt new routes all over the damn place? Which thing is inaccurate?

I don't know. Not enough info there and who knows if the write-up is accurate or just marketing fluff. I certainly hope this isn't accurate: "There will be a core curriculum that the ukelele projects draw from, ultimately enabling groups from all over the city to potentially come together and play in one large ensemble." That scares the crap out of me.

Paul Barnes wrote: Which thing is inaccurate?

Brian Payst wrote: I don't know.

I don't even know what to say now after all that. Just damn.

As one of those who got Table Rock opened in the 1990's, I am sorry that we couldn't get the falcon closure better managed. I argued then, and now, that blanket closures are usually not necessary. Certainly not on a wall as vast as Table. Even blanket closures should be monitored and lifted once the chicks fledge or it is determined there are none. Forest Service in NC does a pretty good job of that. We lost that battle, but won the war of getting climbing opened up in a state where it had not been previously. Hopefully GA Parks will listen and learn.

Brian, the UnFoundation gave the party in question $2000 in 2012 to buy bolts for the creation of new climbs as their website says. Part of the grant deal is that recipients return to the UnFoundation board to give a presentation as to how the money was spent. The recipient's own presentation is, no doubt, where the website statement came from.
So to cast aspersions on the UnFoundation--a foundation that you know little about (and which does some cool things)--in order to defend the SCC--an organization that has an acknowledged transparency problem--is a strained and disingenuous defense. If the SCC hasn't been open and honest about its bolting activities--and it hasn't-- why would they put anything about a bolting grant on their website? As this "peregrine" discussion shows, that information would be instantly controversial.
No matter how you try to parse it, he UnFoundation's statement is a smoking gun. Let's agree not to disavow the facts.

Here you go...

"Thanks for reaching out to us. We provided a micro grant to an experienced group of local climbers, who took it from there. We really don't have any specific information, other than new routes were created in an area called "Deep Creek" which is roughly 20 minutes outside of Chattanooga. Here is a link to the SCC site with more information: seclimbers.org/modules.php?…

-Ben Garrison
UNFoundation Advisor"

Just shows that leaping to conclusions about internet posts isn't necessarily the best way to go.

Not sure what you mean, Brian, but I'm pretty sure the SCC doesn't want anyone delving into their handling of Deep Creek.

Todd Wells wrote:Not sure what you mean, Brian, but I'm pretty sure the SCC doesn't want anyone delving into their handling of Deep Creek.

Oh...delve into it we're gonna...you can believe that.

Since I have now been limited by the powers that be as to the number of posts I can make in a 24 hr period (when did that start?)...somebody else will have to haul the mail until I get back in.

Good luck with Brian. It seems like somebody sent him in here like a rodeo clown as a distraction.

I take this very seriously (check into my efforts to work for access in the Carolinas and beyond). My point is Internet forums and random website quotes are really not going to address the underlying issues. It will take conversations in person, on the phone, etc. by people of good will willing to work on the problem. I think those are lining up now and hope that the conversations will lead things to the right outcomes.

Brian Payst wrote: Obviously what I meant was they didn't announce getting the money (which is pretty atypical, at the CCC we'll sure as heck let you know when someone gives us a grant, just try to avoid our spray), didn't issue the comment you are having issues with, etc. In other words, you're getting upset over words the SCC didn't say and which I seriously doubt are accurate given where they did come from.

Maybe you've already grasped this and I'm just being dense--I often am--but isn't the fact that this behavior is atypical a smoking gun that all of this speculation about their intentions and how they knew their intentions would be perceived dead on? Trying to shrug all this off as a 'transparency' issue seems to me from a distance to be willfully delusional. The SCC is giving off a stink I can smell from Vermont.

I have been on the board of the SCC for a long, long time. I also served on the board of the AF for many years and worked with the AAC. I have read some of the comments and wanted to provide what information I can. The folks on the SCC board are all volunteers who do their best. Like all of the volunteers, sometimes I am more involved than other times. Like all the volunteers, I have made decisions and done things I might not do now. I don't know the answers to every issue that has been brought up. Tyler is an old friend and we have talked about some of the issues and I get it. We don't agree on every point but that is okay. I wish I had been more aware of some of the feelings you guys have about the SCC and maybe some things could have been addressed earlier and not festered. There has certainly been some issues that have fallen through the cracks - YB is an example and that is being positively worked on. Bernard Wolfe, fellow SCC board member and the person who put up the route that was unknowingly retro'ed by Chris Szeirzant some years ago [tilt a whirl], has gone to YB to see for himself and has reported that the sky is not falling at YB. But that should have been better managed and it wasn't. It will be now.

I am not sure what the issue is with Deep Creek - I was one of the original group of folks [along with Steven Farmer, the Eisemans, John Dorough, Chad Wykle, and many others] who put up routes in Deep Creek and Soddy Gorge. That group worked extensively with the rangers on a weekly [if not daily] basis to make sure climbing will be a valid recreational use of that area and the entire Cumberland Trail for years to come. The SCC as an organization was not really involved in those early days as the rangers wanted to deal with just a couple of folks they knew well and trusted. Deep Creek/Soddy has great sport climbing and equally great trad climbs (I think people fail to realize that there are as many, if not more, gear routes there …. and many more waiting if you like 30' roof cracks …). I know most every person who has put a bolt in the rock there and do not know of ANY hardware that was provided by the SCC. We all spent our own hard earned money. The SCC bought a small piece of land that gave climbers access to the Cumberland Trail. We paid a fair price for it [less than current appraised value] and I promise you that was an arms length transaction. We usually have to overpay because folks know they have something we want - not so with the parking lot at Deep Creek/Big Soddy.

That picture of Greg Kottcamp on the Castle Rock flyer was not an SCC flyer. Further - have you done the route he is on [and he bolted it long before the SCC was leasing Castle]? Sure it could be done on gear [as with most every sandstone route in the SE] but the rock is pretty chossy down low and is not a top to bottom splitter as best I can recall. Greg is the last person I would call a sport climbing poser having climbed the sketchiest and scariest 13s on gear that I have ever seen.

In that same vein, there have been comments about Matt Gant retro bolting a route at Dihedrals and bolting a crack. The Dihedrals route I am aware of - Lord of the Rings - was chopped, rightfully so. It has been rebolted by the way - not sure by who but not Gant. I have climbed it on gear and also clipped the bolts. When Matt bolted it he did not know it was an existing route - an honest mistake. The route he put up with the tongue in cheek name "sport rack crack" is not a bolted splitter. For sure, it has a dihedral section up high that takes bomb gear, but the majority of the route is slopey face holds.

The SCC board is not the crag or ethics police. We can do better [and will] with the crags we own and manage and with transparency issues [although I promise you that some of those issues has more to do with no one having the time than a desire to 'hide the ball']. What we have always been good at is getting behind a project - saving Boatrock, working with the park at Sunset, raising money to buy property that may get away. Managing, education, and mentoring are much harder, especially for volunteers with busy lives. But the SCC should not and will not provide hardware for route development, but instead for anchor maintenance and within delineated guidelines [which we have always had but are revisiting and revising].

The most difficult component is mentoring. Like most of you, I learned to climb placing gear … it took a long time to get up to leading a 5.10 and doing Punk Wave in the early 90s stands out as one of my best days climbing. Today, young folks start leading 5.10s in a gym, clipping bolts 5 feet apart, within a week. They think that is the norm. Not sure what to do about that. Maybe take them to do Punk Wave and watch them wet their pants ….

Sorry for rambling … had a couple IPAs while typing ….I will be glad to answer what I can, but am going out of town for a week or so and will be out of pocket. I will help however I can at Tallulah - the SCC has not purposefully ignored Tallulah and me, Brad Mcleod, Watford, etc, have been active in the past with addressing issues with the park [and even ga power if I recall correctly …]. Being from Ga, I am often asked if there is more the SCC should be doing there and I always say Tallulah has always had a local vibe and my feeling in the past has been to lay low.

This:

"We are not the crag police or the ethics police"...tells me that you just don't stand for anything at all. Nothing.

And this:

"some of those issues has more to do with no one having the time than a desire to 'hide the ball"...tells me that the wrong people are being allowed to volunteer. If ya don't have the time to do it right, then don't do it at all. Reference my comment about not letting a convicted sex offender babysit my kid just because they offer to do it for free.

With regard to the President. The organization obviously feels that ingorance is indeed a suitable excuse for retro-bolting, and that it is perfectly OK to place bolts where gear is available, and that someone who engages in both is a fine face to put on the organization. A big part of why people have withdrawn their support and feel like the entire lot of you JUST DON'T GET IT.

The SCC has the power to move the needle on access and, believe it or not, ethics. It is just becoming more and more evident that a conscious decision is being made to move it in the wrong direction. "Wrong" according to who? ME. And I may be in the minority...but I'm certainly not alone.

Well Paul, I don't know what else to say to you, other than I guess everyone should stop putting in massive amounts of time and effort on a volunteer basis trying to save climbing areas since they're not doing it 100% to your satisfaction every day of their lives.

There are issues, but you don't seem very interested in solutions.

See ya 'round,

- Will

Edit to say: It's really too bad, because the climbing community desperately needs people with traditional values to try and influence up and coming climbers and convince them of the enormous value to be gained by learning to climb in a self-sufficient, low-impact style. But if I were 17 years old, coming out of a gym, and visiting T-Wall for the first time and thinking "why the he11 don't they just bolt everything here?" and I read this thread, I would definitely not be inspired by your comments. I would write you off.

Here's a solution Will & Dave: introduce a motion at your next board meeting stating that bolted cracks will not be allowed at SCC owned/managed cliffs and that previously bolted crack routes will be chopped/ patched and returned to their natural state. Thus no grandfathering-in of bolted cracks.

If such a motion were to be introduced, was passed and was implemented by the SCC, you'd gain instant credibility and respect from your detractors here. So, put your
motion where your mouth is and show a good faith intention to get your bolting under control. I'll help with the clean up.

Should I hold my breath?