SCC Community Forum

shannon stegg wrote:I am the Old Guard, I have volunteered time and money, I have been cleaning up messes from Douche Bags for a long time now. I have been told by Mr. Taipan Jam that I could be charged criminally for removing bolts on my routes, but that would not be the first time a local access committee has decided to vote on having me arrested. Do your research so I nor anyone else has to hear you whine.

Sheesh. It appears both you and Red Dawg need some serious reading comprehension lessons.

Or you could just change your post later like some of you do to make it for more "in context" (ha ha, get it?)

Maybe you can go back and re-read what I wrote. Let me provide a synopsis (that's a big word, you may need a dictionary).

If Bernard doesn't care about retros, no one else should.
If Shannon cares about retros on his previously established route, should be removed.

**************All closed routes (at WHATEVER CLIFF) should be removed from MP database so drifters passing through like me don't get all confused...**************


You guys are the ones talking up leaving bits of fixed gear in. At that point you may as well just rap bolt and be done with the nefariousness. That's not Old Guard (nor LNT) in my book, but if you want to talk ethics, I'll talk them until the cows come home. How many hard "trad" (let's say 12+ and up) routes in the SE have actually seen "clean" redpoints on the FA you figures? Any? lol

Edit: Since the various "definitions" seem to be ill defined here (fixed anchors in middle of cliff any1?) here's an example of a "clean redpoint" FA for y'all.

youtu.be/LDgJnDY9P-U ...real talk...apropos

2x Edit: Just so we are clear, I condemn retro bolts if the FA doesn't want them. I have seen guide services "sanitize" routes (and even whole areas...)) in other parts of the country as well. Sad

taipan jam wrote:Drifters.

Apparently, since they are "public record", the "popular" position is to leave 'em up "for historical reasons".

This might have been fine two years ago when we saw the same five people climbing throughout the year plus maybe twenty 'drifters' in peak season....
Now, in the Fall and Winter, the place sees 5-10x the traffic it did, not too long ago....according to the SCC-supplied car counter.
I contend that it's a safety/access detriment to the general public for the SCC to promote climbing off of legally-owned/accessed SCC property.
Apparently Saxfiend disagrees.
Apparently Bernard does too.

And, sadly, because of poor transfer of information, even the new Dixie Cragger's Atlas contains routes/pictures of verboten climbs!

Heck, look at the disparity....
Little River Canyon got posted on MP once.
The outcry was so huge that it got taken down.

It's like the 80's all over again!

Zeke, I can see you're getting excited. Before your view gets too slanted though, I thought you might like a bit more of the backstory on this thread you were asking for. These guys were largely upset that Yellow Bluff had an abundance of routes like the one in your profile pics:

mountainproject.com/v/11073…
mountainproject.com/v/coco-…

They dislike these routes, they dislike the people that bolt/endorse them, and they probably dislike you for climbing it, especially if you're a relatively new climber. But ultimately, nobody could really produce any pics of stuff this hilarious at Yellow Bluff, so I think now we're just back to saying "retro" and "socialism" and bitching about spreadsheets. And I think someone wants us to get off his lawn. I think that's most of it, but it's not entirely clear what everyone is talking about. The SCC has definitely dropped the ball on one thing though - they should have come out and told everybody that Tilt a Whirl is the only retro bolt at Yellow Bluff the day after the walk through.

Anyhow, as Mr. Douche said, if you guys think it's really that important that the public has this Yellow Bluff spreadsheet, go make the damn thing yourself and quit bitching about the gubment not doing it. Or just go buy Watford's guide book. Paul's right, the SCC is NOT an all volunteer organization - they have ONE paid employee, and I believe that's a fairly recent change. I have a good feeling she knows how to make a spreadsheet, but I also suspect she's not the leading authority on the history Yellow Bluff. If Watford had trouble getting all the routes, I don't how the hell she's supposed to do it, especially since nobody even knew about them until page 10 of this MP thread. Besides, her requests may be denied if she doesn't present herself in an official manner. By the way - are any of those routes that Stegg listed and you guys are demanding be recorded on the closed side of Yellow Bluff by any chance?

Zeke is right though, documenting all the routes at Yellow Bluff wouldn't be terribly hard. I know this because we did it at Boat Rock. A bunch of unpaid volunteers actually put together a nice, organized guidebook. We didn't even bitch about it on the internet first. There's a version organized for printing out as well as a PDF version that you can just use on your phone. It's pretty swell. And SCC didn't even sell the guides like Zeke suggested, they just gave them out for free! What a bunch of socialists!

Zeke, have you heard of Boat Rock? Nobody in this thread cares about it because it's just boulders and it's not in their back yard, despite the fact it would greatly elevate their NC trad game, but it's a small (medium?) boulder field in west Atlanta with a bit of history of its own, including names like Kauk, Hill, Legendary Master Dalton, Erbesfield, and Stegg himself. In fact, I don't really know Stegg, but the first time I met him was at Boat Rock - he was cutting a tree down with a chainsaw to improve the landing on a boulder problem(!). Anyhow, Boat Rock had this history and was a great place for Atlanta locals. Then one day contractors started buying chunks of it and demolishing the boulders to build subdivisions. So the SCC got together and bought the rest of the land before anybody else could. You know how they raised the money to pay it off? That's right, with a bunch of unproductive, feel good events like pint nights that nothing worthwhile ever comes from. Yippie indeed! There's now a park full of granite boulders in west Atlanta that you're welcome to enjoy whenever you're in the area. You don't even have to be a SCC member and you can still dump on them on the internet if you want. Please try and keep it clean though - although you won't see too many of them bitching on the internet, it's owned and maintained entirely by unpaid volunteers.

Another quick question:

Are there any SCC board members participating in this thread? Or is this just a waste of time that will lead to nothing?

zekem wrote:Another quick question: Are there any SCC board members participating in this thread? Or is this just a waste of time that will lead to nothing?

I'd say the latter. But the SCC did have multiple, open to the public meetings as a response to these threads. And a walk through of Yellow Bluff to find all the offending routes.

Wes,

I'm not getting excited. Just trying to learn and giving my opinions from what I've heard. I think having a group of volunteers go out to make the spreadsheets and then give them to the SCC would be the best way to go about it. Id be more than willing to donate time to such a cause for anywhere near me. As should anyone with any concern for the protection of climbing.

zekem wrote:Another quick question: Are there any SCC board members participating in this thread?

If they are they are posting under recently created anonymous handles and mostly championing the SCC, asserting that there is nothing to see here, or criticizing Ben and/or Shannon.

I don't know enough about the SCC to make an informed decision on them or not. But what I've seen gives me serious concerns as to the effectiveness/motives of the SCC. It seems as though there is quite a bit of room for improvement. Especially in the transparency department.

Paul Barnes wrote: If they are they are posting under recently created anonymous handles and mostly championing the SCC, asserting that there is nothing to see here, or criticizing Ben and/or Shannon.

This is a ridiculous, paranoid way of saying no. Maybe Zeke is actually an account created by Paul so he can ask himself questions! These guys seem to think that semi-coherent rants on Mountain Project should be the brightest blip on the SCC radar and at the center of their decision making process. Incidentally Zeke, there is an official SCC message board on the SCC's website that SCC board members do post on. These guys won't post there though because they think socialist censorship or something... So they demand the SCC comes here and accuse them of being arrogant because they seem to think that the SCC message board would be the best place to discuss the SCC. Waste of time that will lead to nothing. Anyhow, if you'd like to actually hear from or speak to the SCC you're in the wrong place.

Having a group of volunteers go out to make the spreadsheets and then give them to the SCC probably would be the best way to go about it. Nobody here is going to do that. They're just going to bitch about nobody else doing it.

The SCC message board seems pretty barren. Not too much going on over there. It's a shame to have so little interaction in what could be a valuable resource.

I hope to hear of more meetings from the SCC. In different areas. Possibly one around my way with advertisement before hand. I'd like to attend such an event.

BHMBen wrote: Apparently, since they are "public record", the "popular" position is to leave 'em up "for historical reasons". !

Hrrmpff. This should be taken up with higher ups here imo. Promoting climbing on private/closed land is one of the worst things you can do, particularly in the SE

It's barren because nobody is over there bitching. Did you post anything? Did you ask any questions? Did you see any of these guys posting over there?

seclimbers.org/modules/Foru…

Here's an entire thread with all the board members discussing the recent meetings. In an effort to be transparent, they recorded the Atlanta meeting. Do you see anybody over there talking constructively with them?

You know what, never mind. You're in the right place after all. Carry on bud.

Wes, I'm not sure what the last part of your message was supposed to imply. It certainly was not what I was expecting seeing that I'm just trying to have a civil conversation and learn about an organization that I may be able to join/assist at some point. Thanks though for showing your true colors.

wwes wrote: Having a group of volunteers go out to make the spreadsheets and then give them to the SCC probably would be the best way to go about it. Nobody here is going to do that. They're just going to bitch about nobody else doing it.

You mean like this?

mountainproject.com/v/11073…

You're Welcome.

I think that list of Paul's is a great start. Have you sent that to the SCC? If so, I think it should be made available on their site! That is the kind of information that is very helpful. Also if those routes off of SCC property are not to be climbed on it should be made VERY clear. Maybe don't post those at all and have clear boundary markers in the property itself.

I am having trouble seeing what is SCC property from their site. I think that making it clearer could be a useful upgrade. Say these are SCC owned/managed lands:

And then have links to the information about them.

Then have a separate section for other climbing areas in the southeast with links to their info. The way it's set up now it looks like they own/manage every public climbing area around.

It means that nobody here is concerned about doing anything constructive with the SCC. They just want to bitch about it. So this probably isn't the best place to learn about it. You showed up on page 13 of this (second) thread, asked what was going on, and proceeded to tell us about all the ways an org you don't know anything about displeases you. I just meant you'll be in good company here if that's all you want to do.

I'm assuming you're an Obed local. I have no idea what the SCC does or doesn't do up there, but if you have any ideas on how to improve things, I'm sure the SCC would be willing to work with you to get those things done, especially if you're taking the initiative. Maybe they already have trail days up there. If not, I'm sure they would be happy to support you if you'd like to organize some. But this message board isn't the place to get anything productive done with the SCC, let alone learn about the organization.

The SCC is also aware that it's website needs an upgrade. Unfortunately, the only paid employee is not a web designer. If you possess these skills and would like to help out, I bet they'd take you up on it.

And yes Paul, I mean exactly like that, except I thought we were talking about Yellow Bluff. Clearly, you guys are able to do this sort of thing on your own, so why demand that the government take care of it? For example, people keep mentioning that Stegg should chop any of his retro'ed routes at Yellow Bluff if he doesn't want them there. Again, I don't know him personally, but his reputation leads me to believe that if he found any of his routes retro bolted at YB he wouldn't be bitching that the SCC hasn't chopped them yet - he would have already chopped them himself the moment he saw them. Are any of his routes retro bolted? Unrelated question - are they all on the SCC side of Yellow Bluff?

"It means that nobody here is concerned about doing anything constructive with the SCC. They just want to bitch about it. So this probably isn't the best place to learn about it. You showed up on page 13 of this (second) thread, asked what was going on, and proceeded to tell us about all the ways an org you don't know anything about displeases you. I just meant you'll be in good company here if that's all you want to do. "

I simply stated things that concerned me about the organization. And I also offered up things that I found could be helpful for it. I have no web skills or I would offer them. I'd be more than willing to assist in any way in my area. Seems that the ETCC is mostly responsible for the obed area. Maybe I should just stick to them instead of the SCC which appears to be more concerned with the Chatt/Atl area.

I just took some concern into the SCC as I felt it was something j could maybe get behind and also something that may be a resource to open some private crags in my area (cookeville, TN). Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place.

See, if you read Wwes' post carefully...
He is telling on himself....

wwes wrote:someone wants us to get off his lawn.

"US"...he says

vimeo.com/5495887

vimeo.com/17335474

wwes wrote:Tilt a Whirl is the only retro bolt at Yellow Bluff

Got some insider information that none of the rest of us have, SCC guy?

Also I chose to post here over the SCC board because this had way more traffic. So it seemed a better place for a discussion. I figured that there were SCC members involved in this conversation. Well, until I asked and realized there were not. That's why I was posting here rather than there.

zekem wrote:Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place.

These meetings were called to try and determine that very thing.
To express concern...
To offer some guidance, some help...
As I said previously, it was met with a slap in the face.

As an example, I can do web design....in addition to advanced crapper-building skills.
Would I now that SCC board members have called "us" names, admitted to retro-ing routes, actually brought Paul's mother and child into the conversation at one point, and are generally replying in a Mickey Mouse-like fashion?
Surprise: Not unless something gives.

As Wwes suggests Zekem, if you want to impact the physical nature of a place (improvements, etc.) just do it on your own time.
As far as backing the org that owns or has access to many prime climbing spots, that's your call.

There are SCC members engaged.
Some of us are past members.
Some of us never were, but have tried to help/donate/etc.
Some never were SCC members and likely never will be.