Login with Facebook
 ADVANCED
Lost City
View Latest Posts in This Forum or All Forums
   Page 4 of 4.  <<First   <Prev   2  3  4
Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
 
 
By MojoMonkey
Jan 27, 2010
Brian wrote:
Just because a policy/tradition is old, established, and local that doesnít mean people canít propose changing it. We donít use hemp ropes and swami belts anymore.


You are trying to imply those two sentences make sense together, but they do not. The fact that the general climbing population moved from swamis and hemp ropes wasn't a change in tradition, but a change in technology. A comfy and strong harness and durable, bi-weave, dry-coated 9.0mm nylon rope simply wasn't an option back then.

FLAG
By Eric Engberg
Jan 27, 2010
Brian wrote:
But if you want to use that as an example: there was never any bolted belays at the Gunks and now there are. A tradition changed.


Perfect example of the less knowledgable and experienced jumping to the wrong conclusion. There are no bolted belays in the Gunks (and if you had ever hung from the tat below the final pitch of the yellow wall you sure would have liked there to be). There are bolted rap routes put in where the anchors ofen coincide with traditional belay stances. Ascending paarties freguently use them as belay and top rope anchors - frequently leading to more clusters... But the belief that those bolts were put there for the sake of climbers is wrong. It was to keep the climbers from rapping off of trees.

It's a similar mentality of drawing conclusions without all the facts that lead to threads like this.

FLAG
By JSH
Administrator
Jan 27, 2010
JSH @ home  photo courtesy of Gabe Ostriker
Eric, as much as I truly wish I could agree with you about the bolt stations - there are far too many of them too close, and where there were never were trees, to suggest they're there only for rapping.

It's never been clear to me what the Preserve's method was there, if there was one. This was much-debated when the bolts went in.

Again, please stick to the facts and avoid commenting on "mentality" and other judgments.

FLAG
By Smike
Jan 27, 2010
JSH wrote:
Eric, as much as I truly wish I could agree with you about the bolt stations - there are far too many of them too close, and where there were never were trees, to suggest they're there only for rapping. It's never been clear to me what the Preserve's method was there, if there was one.



So it took my all of about 30 seconds to get the facts. (I knew the answer but didn't wanted spew without references to back it up, whadda concept??)


mohonkpreserve.org/pdf/UIAA_Ar...

Strategic response: Promoting a low-impact ethic
The Preserve encourages a low-impact ethic through its Climbing Policy and Climbing Instruction Policy, which forbid trundling rocks, chipping holds, affixing new holds, cutting trees, and placing new bolts and pitons. The policies further discourage rappelling off trees, and encourage climbers to limit chalk use. Fixed anchors are maintained at tops of many popular pitches. The anchors were originally placed by climbers, but are now maintained by the Preserve, which has replaced over 40 dangerous, unsightly anchors with safe, unobtrusive ones. The use of fixed anchors minimizes damage to vegetation and limits visual clutter.

FLAG
By Tom Halicki
From Boulder, CO
Jan 27, 2010
"One of these policies was the creation of fixed anchors at the top of certain very popular routes to allow for a quick and safe return to the ground. Funded by a grant from the American Alpine Club, the Preserve has been able to form a subcommittee to assess climber use and install these anchors in the most needed spots. This results in less impact at the top of the cliffs, fewer social trails, fewer nylon slings left behind by climbers descending, and a safer situation. "

From Russ Clune's article "Climbing at the Gunks" on the Preserve's web site. One would have thought a Gunk's administrator would know this. They did the same thing at Seneca.

FLAG
By JSH
Administrator
Jan 27, 2010
JSH @ home  photo courtesy of Gabe Ostriker
Well, that reiterates exactly what I (and Brian) said - they are bolted belays placed at the tops of many popular pitches. Not just for rappelling without using trees.

I remember the debate about what the point was, exactly, when they started going in. For example, there are 4 sets, some within 25 feet of each other, along a walkable ledge, mid-cliff at the Frog's Head wall. These are clearly not just for rapping, Eric, which I'm sure you knew. The need for that - even beyond just rapping - was, and is, not clear to me, and I find the Preserve's statement a bit murky on that. To be clear, at least 3 of those weren't even fixed "anchors originally placed by climbers" before bolts went in; and it isn't consistent with what we call low-impact.

Again, Tom: please refrain from snarky comments.

FLAG
By Tom Halicki
From Boulder, CO
Jan 27, 2010
It's not a snarky comment. It is, unfortunately, a serious comment.

You might also see caughtinside's comment from yesterday.

FLAG
By JSH
Administrator
Jan 27, 2010
JSH @ home  photo courtesy of Gabe Ostriker
Tom, I hope you're not seriously insinuating that I was unaware of the Preserve's statement, or what was said before that statement was issued. That kind of up-front mistrust in the site and in me is really uncalled-for and hostile. It could even seem like you're looking for any excuse to attack, which is really tiring at this point, and the offense you meant is pretty clear.

FLAG
 
By Jake D.
From Northeast
Jan 27, 2010
byeeeeeeeeeeee

FLAG
By livinontheledge
From davis, ca
Jan 27, 2010
i just wanted to add another vote for leaving lost city undocumented.

i'm a former local - now living in california.

you cant unring this bell. so dont ring it at all.

FLAG
By Brian
From North Kingstown, RI
Jan 27, 2010
Eiger summit
Eric Engberg wrote:
Perfect example of the less knowledgable and experienced jumping to the wrong conclusion. There are no bolted belays in the Gunks (and if you had ever hung from the tat below the final pitch of the yellow wall you sure would have liked there to be). There are bolted rap routes put in where the anchors ofen coincide with traditional belay stances. Ascending paarties freguently use them as belay and top rope anchors - frequently leading to more clusters... But the belief that those bolts were put there for the sake of climbers is wrong. It was to keep the climbers from rapping off of trees. It's a similar mentality of drawing conclusions without all the facts that lead to threads like this.


Eric,
Perfect example of what I'm talking about. Whether you call them bolted belays or rappels (they are used for both despite the intent) by throwing in the uncessary commit about the poster being "less knowledgeable and experienced" is unnessary to make the arguement and says more about you than about me. BTW...I've been climbing at the Gunks for 22 years now. My point was a tradition was changed when they put in the bolted "rappels" and that caused heated controversy.
Brian

FLAG
By caughtinside
From Oakland CA
Jan 27, 2010
JSH wrote:
Again, please stick to the facts and avoid commenting on "mentality" and other judgments.


I didn't know we weren't allowed to make personal judgments on here. I doubt there's a post in this thread that doesn't make some sort of judgment or interpretation of other's posts. I'd also add that I resent your attempts to control the 'tone' of people's posts in light of the tone I get from your posts.

FLAG
By Gunkiemike
Jan 27, 2010
Andrew Gram wrote:
This is my opinion, which is that of just one administrator(we are a diverse group with a lot of different opinions). I certainly believe in respecting landowners publication wishes. With Mohonk, this situation isn't completely straightforward because to my knowledge this wish is more anecdotal than the result any kind of written policy and they've never contacted mountain project directly. If anyone can point to a written policy that should end any kind of debate about Lost city immediately. I think all of the site administrators would agree with this.


To expect the Preserve to reach out to MtProj. in this situation is a bit much, don't you think? OTOH, a simple phone call from any of the Admins to Hank would provide a quick resolution. Ask for a copy of the Land Management Plan. That's what you want. It is a written policy. Better yet, ask if they're OK with a photo gallery here on LC. Then lock this dead horse of a thread and be done with it.

And to those who think that climbers changed the tradition re. bolted anchors at the Gunks...just who do you think put those bolts in? The LANDOWNER!

FLAG
By Jake D.
From Northeast
Jan 27, 2010
Bye julie

FLAG
By steve richert
From San Diego, CA
Jan 27, 2010
Where two deserts meet, 5.8 JT
Part of the Gunks tradition seems to be an us vs them mentality about anyone who isn't deemed to be a local. I lived 20 minutes away from the gunks and climbed there regularly for years and rarely felt anything approaching friendliness from anyone climbing there. Contrast this with the fact that out west you can't stop people from being your friend because they all want to show you around, loan you their guidebook and ask you how your trip has been so far.

I don't think its right to force a change on everyone by posting LC on here or anywhere else, at least not in too much detail. However I think it is worthwhile for area leaders in the climbing community to examine their motivations for keeping areas secret. I think it could be done discreetly enough that we could see the pictures without having it spoon fed to the public.

I was a local for 20 some odd years and I never felt like making the hike up there, even when it was crowded. Most of the beta spraying noobs are not going to be walking all the way out there just to crash your party...

FLAG
By Andrew Gram
Administrator
From Salt Lake City, UT
Jan 27, 2010
Andrew Gram
Gunkiemike wrote:
To expect the Preserve to reach out to MtProj. in this situation is a bit much, don't you think?


It is probably too much to expect them to contact us Mike, but by the same token it is probably a bit much to expect anyone to follow a policy that can only be found by calling a land stewardship ranger.

I just extensively searched the Mohonk Preserve website and found nothing about a no publishing policy, even after diving through a few climbing policy documents not easily found in the mohonkpreserve.org/pdf directory. It has been a few years, but I also don't remember seeing this policy in my membership information or posted in the visitor center/information kiosks around the preserve.

I don't want Lost City posted here personally, but we can't not post it based on a word of mouth only policy.

FLAG
 
By Smike
Jan 27, 2010
Andrew Gram wrote:
It is probably too much to expect them to contact us Mike, but by the same token it is probably a bit much to expect anyone to follow a policy that can only be found by calling a land stewardship ranger


Isnít that part of the function of this very forum to help inform? In all respect if MP didnít want or feel the need for opinions of others to help with info why bother even having a forum in the first place? It would be hard for MP to justify seeking out information in a public forum about locations and only choosing to act on or acknowledge information that suits a predetermined agenda. Of course itís a free country as they say.

FLAG
By Andrew Gram
Administrator
From Salt Lake City, UT
Jan 27, 2010
Andrew Gram
I'm not sure what you are getting at smike. After all, the Lost City page was taken down in response to user feedback. My point is simply that it is difficult to proactively abide by a policy that is not documented. Please keep in mind that I think it is a bad idea to post Lost City - I am just making a statement about one point of debate.

In other news, it turns out Ranger Hank is trying to join the site to contribute to the discussion, but has had some spam filter difficulties. We are working to fix that and then we can get the preserve's position from the source.

FLAG
By Jake D.
From Northeast
Jan 27, 2010
Andrew Gram wrote:
I'm not sure what you are getting at smike. After all, the Lost City page was taken down in response to user feedback. My point is simply that it is difficult to proactively abide by a policy that is not documented. .


It may not be as visible on the Preserves page as it perhaps should be but it is well documented in most of the guidebooks in some form. The admin for an area should know the local ethics and rules of that area. Just the same way that folks post up Bird closures(rumney), archeological closures (like hueco's mushroom boulder) and private property information (torrent falls, Farley)

FLAG
By MojoMonkey
Jan 27, 2010
Gunkiemike wrote:
Then lock this dead horse of a thread and be done with it.


But if locked, just let it float to the bottom instead of deleting it. It sucked that the other thread was deleted. If the insulting posts were so horrible and violate site rules, toss them. No need to lose the good posts (rgold, JSH, and others) with them.

FLAG
By Smike
Jan 27, 2010
Andrew Gram wrote:
I'm not sure what you are getting at smike.


What Jake said, he said it much better then me.

FLAG
By Jake D.
From Northeast
Jan 27, 2010
Smike wrote:
What Jake said, he said it much better then me.


No, no.. all my posts are personal attacks and useless. Please go about the business of biting the hand that feeds you. They are more like "guidelines" anyway

FLAG
By Tico
Jan 27, 2010
Some quick hits, then I'm done.

1) I'm an ivy educated environmental consultant, ex NPS ranger, ex Scenic Hudson ranger, ex local. The Preserve's bolting policy is based on pretty good cliffside ecology studies/ user wrangling precedents. A lot of it is based on keeping people off the more fragile areas of the ridge, including cliff edges.

2) immediately after I initially posted in this thread, I emailed Hank to confirm the Preserve's official policy on LC. He responded in about twenty minutes. The MP admin argument that the policy is unclear is disingenuous to the point of sophistry. It reminds me a lot of Dean's ascent of the Delicate Arch; action that is not illegal, but can (and did) lead to a reduction in access.

3) Hi Richard, Hi Steve. Nice to hear from you guys on this matter. I talk pretty too. Jess and I are planning on renewing vows back in NP in a couple years, you are both definitely invited to the accompanying debauchery (again).

FLAG
By Jason Lantz
Jan 27, 2010
Andrew Gram wrote:
This is my opinion, which is that of just one administrator(we are a diverse group with a lot of different opinions). I certainly believe in respecting landowners publication wishes. With Mohonk, this situation isn't completely straightforward because to my knowledge this wish is more anecdotal than the result any kind of written policy and they've never contacted mountain project directly. If anyone can point to a written policy that should end any kind of debate about Lost city immediately. I think all of the site administrators would agree with this. Personally, I think "secret" crags have a lot of value, and I argue against them being posted on mountain project. I started climbingmoab.com years ago, which is one of the sites that was eventually rolled up into mountain project. My stance with the Moab area has always been to not publish a few longstanding "secret" areas with history similar to though maybe not as rich as Lost City. This opinion is in part because of my experiences at Lost City when I lived in new York - I loved climbing there, and I made some good friends showing people around or being showed around. I look at Indian Creek as a place that was long mostly undocumented, but changed completely after a good guidebook came out. Prior to the Bloom guidebook, walls like Way Rambo were deserted. No one even tried to add them to climbingmoab, and most of the traffic at Indian Creek was limited to Supercrack Buttress, Battle of the Bulge, Donnelly Canyon, and a handful of other documented cliffs and towers. After the guidebook was published, crowds were everywhere, the number of routes posted to climbingmoab exploded, and regulations started to be passed to deal with the overcrowding. The experience is completely different now. I don't think that secret areas and mountain project are incompatible. I love mountain project as a place to get descriptions for places that are poorly or outdatedly documented(though not by local wishes) such as the San Rafael Swell or Rock Canyon in Utah, the Black Hills Needles, etc. I love mountain project as a photo repository, as conditions log, and a supplement to published information. I think mountain project is an invaluable research tool for guidebook authors. I think it can be a great source of climbing history. I don't think it has to catalog every route ever climbed to be successful. On a different note, as an administrator and a site user, I ask that people in general tone down the personal attacks, even when the topic is one that rouses passions. One of the really nice things about mountainproject is that in general the community is less prone to the mudslinging that happens elsewhere, and that we really don't have any active moderators policing the forums. Lets try to keep it civil so we can keep it that way.

I love you andrew! Is there any way we can promote andrew and demote Julie? If one good thing comes from this thread it should be a clarification of Mountain projects policies regarding posting of an area. Just watch... in the next couple of years moab will see increasing regulation (we just got our first BLM ranger for the Creek and they rebuilt the ruin at ruins crack). Not to mention the "secret crags" where there are no parking spots and people are putting in bolts for less than good reasons(like to fix a ladder). If an area is posted there should be some way of verifying the consent of the landowner... not just the locals. Localism sucks but you wouldn't show up at someone's party with a hundred of your closest friends, would you? Not unless they've got a pretty good venue and consented permission.

FLAG
 
By rgold
From Poughkeepsie, NY
Jan 27, 2010
The traverse out to the Yellow Ridge on the Dogsti...
Brian: Just because a policy/tradition is old, established, and local that doesnít mean people canít propose changing it. We donít use hemp ropes and swami belts anymore.

I agree. Not all traditions are a good thing. On the other hand, I don't know if the practice of climbing as we know it would exist if not for the force of tradition. Tradition isn't, as some of the debaters would have it, an automatically negative aspect, and utterances like "the times are changing" are just as invalid as arguments as "this is the way its always been done."

And Brian, hemp ropes and swami belts have nothing to do with the concept of tradition. They are merely transitory stages in the development of gear. Tradition in climbing has to do with almost all climbers voluntarily agreeing to restrict the means theoretically at their disposal. The voluntary renunciation of means is at the essential core of climbing, and it is with good reason that controversies flare when climbers try to add tricks to their arsenal.

Personally, I have never argued for keeping LC undocumented on the basis of it being traditional. I have done my best to present the case on its own merits.

Brian: Just because someone climbs >5.11 doesnít mean that their opinion is any more valid than someone who climbs 5.6. Climbing level is not a measure of IQ.

Well sure. I think people ought to support their arguments with reasons, and arguments ought to be accepted or refuted based on the cogency of those reasons.

Just because someone is old and has been climbing since the rock was formed doesnít mean their opinion is any more valid than some younger newer climber.

Who could this be referring to? I'll have you know the Gunks were fully formed when I first showed up in, I think, 1959 or 1960, equipped with a Goldline rope, four pitons and eight carabiners, and (oh the horror) lacking documentation of any kind.

Ok, ok, I did have to wait an hour or two for them to cool.

I went to college and climbed for four years at (even more horror) undocumented crag, I've seen four revolutions in protection, an evolution in shoes that puts the best we had in the category of bad approach shoes, I've seen all kinds of gadgets for belaying and rappelling come and go, I've seen five full grade increases, watched various "refinements" in ratings that eliminate at least half the uncertainty of any route compared to those early days, and now find as many people on a mediocre winter weekday as there used to be on a gorgeous Fall weekend.

I mention this at least partially to note that I've probably embraced more changes than anyone else on this site. People who have tried to portray me as some washed-up old greybeard trying to preserve a distant and now irrelevant past are right about the washed-up old greybeard part but that's all.

So does all that experience, 51 years total, count for anything? In an argument such as the present one, I think not. What matters is the reasons given for the policy, and I've tried to set those forth as clearly as possible.

FLAG


Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
Page 4 of 4.  <<First   <Prev   2  3  4