Mountain Project Logo

SCC Community Forum

zekem · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2015 · Points: 70

As mentioned #1 is going to be the most difficult. But #1 CANNOT be implemented until #4 is taken care of. So as far as priorities are concerned I'd say #4 takes priority. Paul already has Steele taken care of. The SCC just needs to organize volunteers to inventory the other properties. It shouldn't be be that hard. Until such a time there should be no bolts installed or removed. Inventory what ya got then decide what stays and what goes and what new routes are permitted.

As far as trespassing, take down all those routes and mark the property lines. Put an official statement in the SCC site about not trespassing. I don't care what anyone thinks about if it's ok or not. The fact is that the SCC CANNOT promote trespassing and still maintain respect from their neighbors outside the climbing community

Term limits, that's gonna be a difficult one to accomplish and will take some time. Just as #1. But it's something that needs to be an ongoing discussion with input from the community.

wwes · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jun 2015 · Points: 0
Paul Barnes wrote:you did a pretty good job of softening the blow, but that video is damning evidence. They had JUST BOUGHT THE CLIFF. Do you think they didn't know where the property lines were?
You still refuse to believe this, but I couldn't give less of a shit about softening the blow to the SCC. And I don't want to start down any road, it just brings a tear to my eye to see you trying to be constructive and I thought you deserved a response. I've already made the point I came to make - repeatedly - and I honestly have no idea who thought what about the purchase of Steele, nor do I care all that much, but since I'm here now...

I don't doubt that the SCC bought that chunk of land with the hope that they would get to climb some of the stuff that wasn't on their land. If you say that's how it happened, I'll take your word for it because I don't know. That way of thinking was probably reinforced when a climber bought the neighboring property. But like I said, trespassing is a long standing tradition among SE climbers. We both know this is true, which is why I asked earlier if your position was that people shouldn't climb on private property under any circumstances or only when nobody finds out. The old guard's attitude seems to be something like, "don't buy and open a crag because newbies will mess it up for us - keep it a secret, just trespass, and make sure nobody finds out." That may have worked 20 years ago but is totally unsustainable today. Anyhow, in the context of SE traditions, I don't think the SCC thinking that way about Steele (if they did) indicates maliciousness or total disrespect or incompetence or whatever. If the neighbors were different people that didn't mind climbers in their backyard or just didn't pay any attention to their cliff line, people may be able to climb on that private property today without issue. Unfortunately, the climber neighbor has made it clear that other climbers are not welcome on his cliff, so that's the law. A little ridiculous if you ask me, but hey, that's his prerogative. But accusing the SCC of "condoning and advertising" trespassing writ large is a little over the top and is not conducive to getting anything constructive done. If we really want to get things done, we have to tone down the rhetoric and start from the position that the people we're arguing with might not be complete assholes. I'm sure the people in the video knew when they were or were not on their property. But I didn't, so they weren't advertising it to me. And they never said "Hey, this isn't ours, but feel free to climb it!", so I didn't know when they were on private property and they were therefore not condoning I do the same. Was including those portions of the cliff in the video a mistake? Yes. Was an SCC board member posting routes on private property inappropriate? Yes. Is this proof that the SCC is an altogether terrible organization that deserves us to all take a public dump on them? No. This is apparently only an issue at Steele, on your buddy's property. It will be OK.

Finally, it seems silly that after all this debate the main beef with the SCC at this point is that they're in this guy's back yard. Can't he just put up his own no trespassing sign and shoot trespassers with a pellet gun or something and be done with it?

About the route databases - property managers might actually be a good solution for this. Still volunteers, but they presumably know and care about the place and might be more motivated to do this. Maybe even make it one of their duties or whatever.
Paul Barnes · · Gainesville, Georgia · Joined Nov 2007 · Points: 30

Well Wes while we've agreed on some things here and disagreed on others. This will be one we just disagree on. Because, I DO think that the issues we've raised are indicative of the SCC as a whole in both the way they think and the way they operate...and in more places than just Steele. There was also an access easement used to bolt the shit out of a National Scenic Trail at Deep Creek that we covered early on, remember? Plausible deniability was present there, of course. But the totality of all of these circumstances paints a picture that each must draw his/her own conclusions from. That much is true.

michael sticher · · Unknown Hometown · Joined May 2011 · Points: 0

Just some food for thought- these SCC guys aren't hard to get a hold of. I'm pretty sure the president left his number and email address on the first page of this thread. If you really want your questions answered there might be a better way than this.

wwes · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jun 2015 · Points: 0

"Access easement"? You mean like a trail? I thought we were talking about trespassing.

When everyone was arguing about Deep Creek, the main argument was that there was a shady land deal. The SCC went to great lengths to help you guys understand that wasn't the case. Then there was the predictable "bolt the shit out of" argument (with no evidence, as usual), even though it's not SCC property and the SCC didn't bolt it. And everybody could already go to Deep Creek - you just had to hope one of the two parking spots were open and walk farther. Now there's a parking lot to accommodate more people and you don't have to walk as far. People that think "access" is a dirty word might not like that, but it doesn't make it bad and it's totally irrelevant when talking about trespassing.

Remember when there was meeting in Atlanta and you guys all complained about Deep Creek, realized your argument was silly, and then "buried the hatchet"? I believe an SCC board member went to great lengths to make sure you were all satisfied with the Deep Creek explanation before moving on to the next topic. So let's move on to the next topic already.

wwes · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jun 2015 · Points: 0
michael sticher wrote:Just some food for thought- these SCC guys aren't hard to get a hold of. I'm pretty sure the president left his number and email address on the first page of this thread. If you really want your questions answered there might be a better way than this.
This is far too reasonable an idea Michael. I'm going to have to ask you to refrain from thinking that way. It is NOT welcome in this thread. Maybe if you have a picture of a bumper sticker or something a little easier to understand you could post that instead?
Chuck Parks · · Atlanta, GA · Joined Jan 2008 · Points: 2,190

Sorry I'm late to the party. Life and all that. First, my bona fides.

I've been climbing outdoors in the southeast for about a dozen years now. I've been an SCC Life Member for about 10 years. I've climbed at most of the areas under discussion here (Yellow Bluff, Steele, Castle Rock, Deep Creek). I've never done a first ascent (that I'm aware of) or placed a bolt on anything. I know I've met Shannon in passing, both on the rock and at various climbing charity events around town. saxfiend is an old climbing buddy of mine. I've probably met some of the others contributing to this thread out there in the real world as well, but just don't know who, when or where.

Now for what pertinent facts I can draw from my admittedly addled memory. First off, Steele. I was there for what I believe was the (re)opening trail day. I had never been to Steele before then. At the trail day the word from those in the know was that the SCC had only purchased a small portion of the cliffline, and that the routes on that section of cliff generally sucked. The whole point of the purchase was as a beachhead to secure access. This would prevent another "Jamestown" situation, where the SCC owns an island of cliffline surrounded by private property. When future opportunity arose to negotiate purchase of better portions of the cliff at Steele, access would already be in place.

During that first trail day, a considerable portion of time and effort was devoted toward improving the trail to the Graham's Crack area. Probably more work was devoted to that trail than was to the trail to the SCC-owned area. We were told that the property owners usually weren't around, and as long as a low profile was kept it would probably be alright. At the end of that day we all went and climbed the stuff around Graham's Crack. It seemed a bit odd, but the people "in charge" were sanctioning it, so whatever. I don't recall who was involved that day, or what level of affiliation they had with the SCC.

So pretty much from day one, trespassing at Steele has been an unofficially approved activity as far as I know. Hell, I've been to Steele multiple times and I still have never gotten around to actually climbing anything left of the Graham's Crack area. The last time I was there we saw a nice, carved wooden signpost pointing out the trail to Graham's Crack. That struck me as so odd that I began to doubt my memory of where the property line was in the first place. Why the hell would they post a sign directing people to an area if they aren't supposed to be climbing there?

Does anyone actually know the neighboring landowner's stance on people climbing there? I sure don't. So for now I've been operating under the time-honored adage of "It's better to ask forgiveness than permission." For what it's worth, during my visits there I have never witnessed any untoward behavior (except maybe some less-than-stealthy hollering between partners down by Monopoly). Still, if it's against the neighbors' wishes the SCC should do the right thing: post some signs marking the property boundary, close the trail to Graham's Crack, and get the routes off of Mountain Project. If it isn't an issue with the neighbor, then let sleeping dogs lie.

As for Yellow Bluff, I have only climbed there once a couple of years ago. There were certainly plenty of bolts, but we also got on some nice, unmolested gear routes while we were there. I do recall some story about opening day when the SCC bought it. Someone was planning to turn Orange Crush into a sport climb. Will Eccleston led it onsight on gear right then and there, and general sentiment was it should be preserved as-is. Maybe we just need more guys like Will around...

My general take on the SCC is that their raison d'être is to acquire and secure access to climbing areas. Climbers have been bitching about ethics and style since day one. Trying to sort that shit out is like herding cats. But at the end of the day, is it better to have climbers bitching about ethics and style at 17 crags, or 70? People say it's irresponsible for them to purchase property and then open it up to the public without doing a historical survey and posting all kinds of signs and rules (and now guidebooks... really?). But then the second the NPS says they're going to institute a climbing management plan someplace with major impact concerns like Yosemite, everyone freaks right the f**k out. Be careful what you wish for... you might just get it.

Here's a thought. The next time someone bolts something on SCC property that shouldn't be bolted, just go out there and chop it. Do a real nice job, cause we all have to look at that shit. If anyone gives you grief you can cite your legal precedent, the case of Forgiveness v. Permission. Tell them you decided to be real nice and not bill them for your time and effort. It's a donation to the SCC, from the bottom of your heart. That should stimulate some spirited discussion, and then maybe we can all get on the same page someday.

Paul Barnes · · Gainesville, Georgia · Joined Nov 2007 · Points: 30

So after Steele was bought and paid for, but not during the fundraising, the SCC openly admitted that the part they bought sucked but it was ok cause they were just gonna run about all over the whole of Chandler Mountain and even went so far as to build a trail to the private property routes because the owners were never around anyway. This from someone who was there.

But I'm wrong about how they operate? Not so much it seems.

wwes · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jun 2015 · Points: 0

Chuck, the owner of the left portion of the cliff is BHMBen, a climber in this thread. He does not want you climbing on his land. I believe the SCC has posted a sign since he began complaining. Also, in order to just go chop the bolts, the bolts would have to exist first. That's not nearly as fun as making shit up and bitching about it on the Internet.

Paul, you seem to have missed part of Chuck's post:

"At the trail day the word from those in the know was that the SCC had only purchased a small portion of the cliffline, and that the routes on that section of cliff generally sucked. The whole point of the purchase was as a beachhead to secure access. This would prevent another "Jamestown" situation, where the SCC owns an island of cliffline surrounded by private property. When future opportunity arose to negotiate purchase of better portions of the cliff at Steele, access would already be in place."

That's a little less nefarious sounding than your summary. But you're probably right, you've got it all figured out. Now would you please explain your take on the trespassing argument? Are you saying nobody should climb on private property under any circumstances or only if they don't advertise it? Do you and your friends ever climb on private property? Is it OK if I climb on Ben's land if he doesn't find out? Please clarify.

Paul Barnes · · Gainesville, Georgia · Joined Nov 2007 · Points: 30

You are coming unhinged. It happens every time you seem to be losing the argument.

If you are asking me to admit to a crime on the World Wide Web...it ain't gonna happen.

BirminghamBen · · Birmingham, AL · Joined Jan 2007 · Points: 1,620
wwes wrote:Chuck, the owner of the left portion of the cliff is BHMBen, a climber in this thread. He does not want you climbing on his land.
This is true.
Believe it or not, it was not my intention to go that route when we moved up there.

Lemme do this dance one more time....
We were approached by the SCC to donate the cliff, tax deductible, about three months after we were there....I politely declined.
Then, after having multiple run-ins with more than one group, some of whom were quite loud, I began marking some of the leftward routes as private.
An SCC Board Member took exception to this and approached me again, alongside the SCC President, to donate.....
After things like dog attacks, climber's loud enough that I can hear them inside yelling from the cliff tops, and littering.
All the while, during what was a very open exchange with the SCC and Area Reps, the SCC would not mark the boundaries, took vehement exception to our desire for relative peace, and basically decided to go along with business as usual.
Not good.

So, yep, the left side can be considered closed.
JUST LIKE YELLOW BLUFF.
My wife's point has been, the whole time, "climbers moving in next door should have been an asset to the SCC."
They've made us feel persecuted for moving against "free and open access for everyone" no matter how obnoxious.
Ever read up on the climbers who bought and shut down part of RRG?
You ought to.

As recently as last week, they rallied a third "approach" now that it seems people are bending their ear about some things...
Same story.
Same tune.
Time to stop it.
For good.

The right side, owned by Mrs. Osborn, is where Graham's and points right are.
It's all private, yet sanctioned.
The SCC has NEVER spoken to the Osborn's...or at least the correct ones.
It just turns out that I know the family through my business.
Climbing to the right is NOT condoned locally.
It's condoned, defended even, by a bunch of people from ATL, Chatt, etc....the SCC Board....many of whom are wholly absent from Alabama and/or climbing, in general.

Have people been going there since the 60's/70's?
Yep.
Will they continue?
Perhaps.
Should the information be listed in the public domain, defended by the MP Admin and SCC, thereby encouraging people to go check out all the cool climbing??
I don't believe so.

You want me to explain anything else about Steele, in general?
I said, before, this will have repercussions.
I don't believe the SCC, or people like you who keep pushing, understand how precarious the situation is at Steele...or elsewhere in AL.

wwes wrote:I believe the SCC had posted a sign since he began complaining.
Wrong again.
I posted the boundary signs to the left long ago after some errant, young, locals cited MP and the DCA's having routes listed as their logic for thinking it was cool.
It was not cool since there were six of them, a loose coonhound, and they looked very noobish.
The SCC provided additional signage this Spring....
It's posted on both sides of the boundaries....as it should be.
Did the SCC, Area Rep, or Steele-regular Board Member?
Even after much kinder requests than anyone has seen lately??
Naw.

wwes wrote:Paul, you're right, you've got it all figured out. But would you please explain your take on the trespassing argument? Are you saying nobody should climb on private property under any circumstances or only if they don't advertise it? Do you and your friends ever climb on private property? Is it OK if I climb on Ben's land if he doesn't find out? Please clarify.
Okay, I will wade into your poorly camouflaged trap....
My take...
1. People climb on private property and have. Is it sustainable, probably not anymore. The onus is this... The SCC, as front-and-center faces for climbing in the SE, should not. And they should definitely not advertise it.
2. I have climbed at virtually every crag in the SE....all of them. But, now, we're all sort of over it and have much more fun at Steele, Sunset, Tallulah, and WNC these days.
3. If a tree falls in the woods, and no one hears it, does it make a sound? Hard to answer.
Paul Barnes · · Gainesville, Georgia · Joined Nov 2007 · Points: 30
wwes wrote: That's a little less nefarious sounding than your summary. But you're probably right
Regardless of how you spin it...the facts are the same...and they are irrefutable.
wwes · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jun 2015 · Points: 0

It wasn't a trap, it was a simple question. But whatever. I can't even believe I argued with you hypocrites this long without first noticing this:

Ben, the very first route on your MP tick list is Reckoning Day, at Steele. According to Paul's beautiful spreadsheet, this route is not on your land or on SCC land. It's on private property. You climbed it this year, in February, and then posted it online. I guess the route was already online, no harm posting that you climbed it, right? But when you climbed it, was that trespassing? Or did you maybe get permission from the land owner, post about climbing it, and then tell everyone else not to? Or maybe you just trespassed and the landowner didn't find out? Does this count as admitting to a crime on the World Wide Web or is it just stupid? I can't keep all this bullshit straight anymore. A little farther down, in 2014, it shows you climbed Bird's Nest Crack, Sugar Magnolia, Golden Arch... all on the right side of Steele. All on private land. Anyhow, if you think people should stop climbing routes on private land and/or posting about it online, maybe you should do the same. Or you could just yell at the hippies to get off your property, admit that you just want it to yourself, and go the hell away already.

BirminghamBen · · Birmingham, AL · Joined Jan 2007 · Points: 1,620

You seem angry.

Paul Barnes · · Gainesville, Georgia · Joined Nov 2007 · Points: 30

Wes...you missed the part about him knowing some of the Osborns through his business, didn't ya?

Anyway...let me tell you a couple things about where people choose to make their home. As I sit on my porch typing this I'm lookin at a golf course (think 1920's textile mill village and municipal course not country club). Now there's a convenient little three or six hole loop I can slip out there and play and never get close to the clubhouse, never encounter any rangers, or if I do they just wave. They know who I am. Am I supposed to be out there? No. Could you get away with it? No. Would I go on golf project.com and post pictures of myself out there tryin to look all Jordan Spieth and shit? Hell no.

You get the idea. Sometimes there's privilege (and the Socialists gasp) associated with where one chooses to make one's home.

saxfiend · · Decatur, GA · Joined Nov 2006 · Points: 4,221
wwes wrote:That's a little less nefarious sounding than your summary. But you're probably right, you've got it all figured out.
Wes, nefarious or not, it's pretty clear from Chuck's post (as Paul pointed out, somebody who was there on opening day) that the SCC was publicly sanctioning climbing in areas that were NOT within their portion of the cliff:

Chuck Parks wrote:During that first trail day, a considerable portion of time and effort was devoted toward improving the trail to the Graham's Crack area. Probably more work was devoted to that trail than was to the trail to the SCC-owned area. We were told that the property owners usually weren't around, and as long as a low profile was kept it would probably be alright. At the end of that day we all went and climbed the stuff around Graham's Crack. It seemed a bit odd, but the people "in charge" were sanctioning it, so whatever.
Add to that this quote from the Steele section of the Dixie Cragger's Atlas: "Either express or implied, it was understood that the reason for purchasing this property was to provide an access point to the cliffline."

So I think we can all agree that the SCC thoroughly screwed the pooch on Steele. Whether this was intentional (or nefarious if you prefer) or through naïveté and incompetence, who knows. Since the SCC is maintaining steadfast and deafening silence on the subject, it has left the door open for conspiracy theories on their motivation. So I'll just offer my own:

I hereby hypothesize that when the SCC was getting ready to purchase this land, they approached the property owners on either side (NOTE: those property owners are not the same now as they were then) Some SCC person said, hey, we know the adjoining cliffs are on your land, and officially, we're telling people to stay out (wink wink); but as long as people aren't traipsing through your yards, do you really care if there's climbing on those cliffs? And the property owners probably scratched their heads and thought, you know, I don't really do anything up there, all I care about is my yard and/or farmland. So okay, SCC, if your climbers are well-mannered, they can climb on my cliffs.

That's my conspiracy theory and lacking any documented facts, it's just as good as any other. It's also just as irrelevant in light of the new reality of antagonism between the SCC and its current neighbors.

On the subject of Yellow Bluff, I'm still waiting for a coherent response from Shannon on his list of routes: where are they, and which (if any) were retro-bolted. But I expect I'll buy a winning lottery ticket before that actually happens.

JL
saxfiend · · Decatur, GA · Joined Nov 2006 · Points: 4,221
wwes wrote:It wasn't a trap, it was a simple question. But whatever. I can't even believe I argued with you hypocrites this long without first noticing this: Ben, the very first route on your MP tick list is Reckoning Day, at Steele. According to Paul's beautiful spreadsheet, this route is not on your land or on SCC land. It's on private property. You climbed it this year, in February, and then posted it online. I guess the route was already online, no harm posting that you climbed it, right? But when you climbed it, was that trespassing? Or did you maybe get permission from the land owner, post about climbing it, and then tell everyone else not to? Or maybe you just trespassed and the landowner didn't find out? Does this count as admitting to a crime on the World Wide Web or is it just stupid? I can't keep all this bullshit straight anymore. A little farther down, in 2014, it shows you climbed Bird's Nest Crack, Sugar Magnolia, Golden Arch... all on the right side of Steele. All on private land. Anyhow, if you think people should stop climbing routes on private land and/or posting about it online, maybe you should do the same. Or you could just yell at the hippies to get off your property, admit that you just want it to yourself, and go the hell away already.
Hehe, I've been wondering how long it would take for someone to notice this.

JL
wwes · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jun 2015 · Points: 0

Paul... you missed the part where Ben DID post about it on golfproject.com. Actually, he posted about it, and then started bitching about people posting about it. Thanks for the lesson though. Anyways, I can see we're back to talking about socialists. That's a pretty clear sign the person you're talking to has ceased to think, so I'll just talk to you bros later.

And Ben, don't insult me. Anger is a lowly human emotion that does not afflict the Borg.

Paul Barnes · · Gainesville, Georgia · Joined Nov 2007 · Points: 30

If I had a vacation property that I only visited during a certain time of year, I don't think I'd pick a fight with a neighbor who lived there year round. I can't wait to see how this turns out.

wwes · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jun 2015 · Points: 0

I'm not the SCC, I'm not picking a fight, I'm not a socialist, I don't have any vacation property, and I don't go to Steele at any time of year.

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Southern States
Post a Reply to "SCC Community Forum"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.