PDA

View Full Version : Non-Technical Canyon Hiking Guide to the Colorado Plateau



Iceaxe
06-02-2006, 06:08 PM
Non-Technical Canyon Hiking Guide to the Colorado Plateau
by: Kelsey, Michael
5th Edition

Coming June 2006

PRE-ORDER SALE!
Order before June 8th and save $2.00.
Normal price $19.95

SALE PRICE $17.95

This 5th Edition of the Canyon Guide to the Colorado Plateau has been completely revamped and updated. All canyon maps have been re-drawn and are more accurate then past editions. The book is now in full color (the only canyon guidebook of its kind) and has an additional 100 pages. New hikes have been added to such canyon hotspots as Cedar Mesa, Robbers Roost, Escalante, and Paria River areas, as well as Bryce and Arches National Parks. For the first time canyons and hikes in NE Utah and NW Colorado have been included. Technical canyons have been removed from this new edition, but they can still be found in Michael Kelsey

rockgremlin
06-02-2006, 07:23 PM
Just picked one up today! :2thumbs:

Iceaxe
06-03-2006, 08:40 AM
Then give us a short description of whats new and what looks interesting to you.

rockgremlin
06-03-2006, 09:31 AM
I'll let ya'll know when it arrives.

stefan
06-09-2006, 12:58 PM
Just received my book in the mail. It turned out quite nice. It's a bit heavier, but the fotos are REALLY nice.

There's a bit of new stuff...i think two of the interesting additions, which i knew were going to be included, are fiftymile mountain including ruins and more of cummings mesa.

Iceaxe
06-12-2006, 03:25 PM
Got my book.... it looks really nice. The new color picture format is well worth a couple extra dollars. :2thumbs:

Tons of Cedar Mesa stuff. Pretty much everything out of Tassoni's book plus whatever else MK could dig up. The secret places are dwindling really fast.

The book is a typical Kelsey guidebook........ lots of great information jammed into a very small place. Newbie's use a little caution until you get the hang of using one of Kelsey's books.

:popcorn:

rockgremlin
06-13-2006, 03:23 PM
Got mine yesterday. I've got my weekends booked solid for the next 5 years!!!! :haha: I agree. Very well put together. The secret places are for sure dwindling fast...especially after this gets out into the bookstores. Kelsey must know this state better than pretty much anyone. Its unbelieveable how much cool stuff is packed into this one little book. Very much worth the cash.

Windwalker
06-18-2006, 01:19 PM
I believe I recognize the authors name, it's on one of my books about the San Rafael Swell area. After doing three or four of his hikes in the swell I found that his time tables are far different than mine. The time it would take me to do one of his hikes was probably about two to three times his estimates.

I just Googlin Mr Keelsy and found that he's some kind of hiking machine or an animal.

Does this new book give a more down to earthly mortal estimate of time it takes to do a hike??

shaggy125
06-18-2006, 01:24 PM
Does this new book give a more down to earthly mortal estimate of time it takes to do a hike??

:haha: this is one of the most common complaints about his books. If you have an old version then he now doubles the time it actually takes him and he puts that as his estimate, however this is still usually quite a bit faster than most mortals.

Eric.

Scott P
06-18-2006, 06:16 PM
If you have an old version then he now doubles the time it actually takes him and he puts that as his estimate, however this is still usually quite a bit faster than most mortals.

You mean you can't keep up with a 63 year old man? :mrgreen:

(Me neither). :nod:

Scott P
06-18-2006, 06:25 PM
Anyway, new stuff included NW Colorado/NE Utah. Lot's in Cedar Mesa. Some in Escalante. New hikes near Grand Junction. New hikes in th Paria area, and a bit in Zion. A few new canyons in the Roost (already in the tech guide).

Some stuff that has been deleted are all the closed canyons on the Navajo Nation. Also, the entire Hualapai Reservation, because that area has also been closed to hikers. A few other hikes were dropped such as Hatch Wash (because it is now a bushwhack) and Aztec Creek.

Iceaxe
06-27-2006, 08:24 AM
I finally started to check out the new Kelsey book "Hiking the Colorado Plateau" in detail last night. Damn, it can be confusing. He combines 3 or 4 canyons on one page and then jumps around between the canyons while describing them. I can only read one or two descriptions at a time before major confusion sets in and I have to put the book down. Maybe its just me since following written descriptions are not my forte. I do much better with a good illustrated map.

And speaking of maps, When I last spoke to Kelsey he mentioned that all the maps in the book had been redrawn. My understanding was they should be to some type of scale since they were drawn on a light table with the USGS map underneath. These maps are not good enough to reliably navigate with, but they might be more accurate in locating features then his maps of the past. He also mentioned that he plans to experiment with Topo! for his next maps. I hope he can get that to work for his books, it would be much better.

I still highly recommend the book for its vast amount of information. Just be aware you have to do some digging to find the nuggets.

I also noticed you can figure out some of the new technical canyons that will be in his next book. One particular route even has the downstream rappels noted on the map below the "hiker exit". And mentions for those who wish to continue downstream should see "Technical Slot's Revision 2".

Anyhoo..... I'm digging through the book, it has a lot to digest..... kinda like eating an elephant sandwich.

:popcorn:

stefan
06-27-2006, 09:04 AM
I hope he can get that to work for his books, it would be much better.



Since you are using maps on your site, are there any publishing issues associated with using these maps?




I still highly recommend the book for its vast amount of information. Just be aware you have to do some digging to find the nuggets.



in some ways i almost prefer this, i think it's more rewarding. one thing i kinda wish he didn't do was placing the sleepy hollow description BEFORE the description to coyote gulch. i think it may attract more attention this way, and there may be a larger impact, considering the gaggles of people flocking there.




I also noticed you can figure out some of the new technical canyons that will be in his next book. One particular route even has the downstream rappels noted on the map below the "hiker exit". And mentions for those who wish to continue downstream should see "Technical Slot's Revision 2".


yup and he's got a lot more. for example, i found 4 slots on satellite images i had heard nothing about, and he has them already written up for this new book. should be quite the compendium when he's finished with it. you may beat him to the punch, ice, considering he's gonna take some time to finish it, but he's done a lot of newer stuff, already, that isn't published just yet.

Iceaxe
06-27-2006, 09:47 AM
Since you are using maps on your site, are there any publishing issues associated with using these maps?

I would have to read the Topo! fine print again. But Topo! is very generous in what they will let you do with maps generated with their software. You must obtain permission to sale any maps, but you can give them away for free. All maps must contain the Wildflower logo. There might be some other rules I forgot. Its been about 6 years since I jumped through the hoops. I do know several guidebooks (Ron Kay's Zion book) use Topo! generated maps. The actual maps are USGS and are public domain.


you may beat him to the punch, ice, considering he's gonna take some time to finish it, but he's done a lot of newer stuff, already, that isn't published just yet.

Heck.... I already have about a two year back log of new (to me) canyons to do. I'm just trying to find the time to do them all. I still haven't finished everything Kelsey has in his first book.

:nod:

Scott P
06-27-2006, 04:49 PM
I also noticed you can figure out some of the new technical canyons that will be in his next book. One particular route even has the downstream rappels noted on the map below the "hiker exit". And mentions for those who wish to continue downstream should see "Technical Slot's Revision 2".

Have you checked out the juicy bait for Sleepy Hollow yet?

PS the tech slot book is due next spring.

Iceaxe
06-28-2006, 01:08 PM
Have you checked out the juicy bait for Sleepy Hollow yet?

I have now! :2thumbs:

Just curious how difficult is this slot. Kelsey has a big warning stating something like "highly experianced climbers only" or some such.

So lets see... we have Spur and Sleepy Hollow as new stuff coming....

Anyone notice any more?

:popcorn:

Iceaxe
06-28-2006, 04:28 PM
I'm still working my way through the book. I've looked really hard at about 1/4 of the stuff..... most of it is really good so far.

But.... I think you have found a couple of errors..... The Butler Wash Road (SJC 262) is exactly 21 miles long from Hwy 95 to Hwy 163 (Kelsey has it at 22.0). I drove the road in May and checked it with both vehicle and GPS. I agree with the mileage in Tassoni's book for overall. A couple of his sites are off by a 1/10th or so but Tassoni is pretty accurate. Kelsey gets off by 1 mile somewhere along the path. That would make locating some of the ruins really difficult because milage is all you have to go by without GPS waypoints.

One other pet-peeve.... Kelsey is renaming stuff or not using the established name. I'm guessing this is in defiance to Tassoni who was first to publish. Many of the ruins in Butler (and I assume elsewhere) have accepted names. Most the ruins in Butler were named by the Illustrated America Exploring Expedition of 1892. Some of these ruins even have the name and date inscribed on a nearby wall, yet Kelsey has not used the established names. :nono:

Established --> Kelsey
Fish Mouth Cave is Big Cave
Cold Springs is Hidden Ruin
Monarch Cave is Big Pool
Double Stack is Split Level

This drives me up a wall. Particularly when he does it to ruins and canyoneering routes. :wallbash:

nat
06-28-2006, 05:11 PM
Have you checked out the juicy bait for Sleepy Hollow yet?

I have now! :2thumbs:

Just curious how difficult is this slot. Kelsey has a big warning stating something like "highly experianced climbers only" or some such.
:popcorn:

As a heads up (warning) this slot is fairly stiff. Actually, Kelsey has 2 slots mentioned in his guide here, Sleepy Hollow and "Long Branch". I should say, these are also mentioned (without any real beta, except for location) in Steve Allen's Canyoneering 3 Escalaante guide. He has some comments on Long Branch on page 4, and comments on both Long Branch and the Main Fork of Sleepy Hollow (which he calls Big Tony) on pages 212-213. I've done the main fork, and it has some hard high upclimbs with some continuous high stemming (up to about 50 ft up). It's probably harder than E4, and unless you are pretty comfortable with these things, probably not recommended. A really great slot though. There are pictures of it on Tom's latest rave, and Wade's canyonquest website. I haven't done Long Branch, but have rim walked it a couple of times. It could be very difficult and risky (see Steve Allen's comments on page 4).

Iceaxe
06-28-2006, 05:26 PM
I don't have Allen's Escalante book, I have a hard time following his stuff, I need pictures (read maps). How about posting a link to the pictures or tell me by what name they were calling the canyon?

Frosted Flakes maybe???

So Frosted Flakes is Big Tony is Sleepy Hollow???

http://canyonquest.com/pics/tony/abc.sized.jpg

nat
06-28-2006, 05:34 PM
I don't have Allen's Escalante book, I have a hard time following his stuff, I need pictures (read maps). How about posting a link to the pictures or tell me by what name they were calling the canyon?

Frosted Flakes maybe???

So Frosted Flakes is Big Tony is Sleepy Hollow???



That's correct. (Remember Tony the Tiger?)

stefan
06-28-2006, 05:35 PM
as far as his renaming canyoneering routes, he may in fact include the names that we know and love, as side notes. he said he didn't have a problem with doing that. how many actually make it into the book remains to be seen.

Iceaxe
06-28-2006, 06:31 PM
Big Tony.... Tony the Tiger.... Frosted Flakes, their greeeeaaattt :roflol:

I get it now :2thumbs:

I had a nice long phone conversation with Kelsey last month. One of the things we discussed was the names of canyons. I tried to explain that we were not naming canyons, but were naming routes. Simliar to climbing... as Grand Teton has one name but about 100 routes. I also mentioned it would be good for SAR, since I try to supply all my beta to the local SAR personal. There was a rescue in Leprechaun when that canyon was still pretty much flying under the radar.... the guys left Leprechaun Canyon with their check in..... only problem was no one in SAR knew where Leprechaun Canyon was. Here is that entire story if you have not heard it http://climb-utah.com/Powell/leprechaun2.htm

I also mentioned to Mike that calling it Mile Marker 25.1 Canyon in his last book didn't turn out so hot..... I believe he failed to find the humor in my remark :haha:

Mike told me he would inculde an AKA in his next book..... I think it would be a nice touch. :five:

stefan
06-28-2006, 07:08 PM
cool, ice! the SAR argument is a very good one for including the names. :2thumbs:

Scott P
07-05-2006, 01:40 PM
One other pet-peeve.... Kelsey is renaming stuff or not using the established name.

True, but both Steve Allen and you do the same thing. Steve Allen goes as far as changing USGS names, and has changed many local names, as well as some of Kelsey's.

You have done the exact same thing on your site as well (But no offence meant). :2thumbs:

Personally, I think everyone should go with the earliest established name for any feature.

Of course, this didn't start with Kelsey or Allen. National Geographic named Grosvenor Arch, but it was known for many decades as Bultler Valley Arch. Before that, Denali was known way before McKinley.


So Frosted Flakes is Big Tony is Sleepy Hollow???

Well, sort of I guess. Sleepy Hollow is actually the name that has been used for decades. I remember my first time there (non techical section) in the mid 1980's with the WMC and it was known as Sleepy Hollow then. I bet the name is probably older than that as well. I don't whom came up with this Frosted Flakes and Big Tony bs, since the canyon was already named for decades. Actually Steve Allen uses the name Sleepy Hollow in his book, so I assume Frosted Flakes/Big Tony may have been made up to hike the identity? Otherwise people would all know where Sleepy Hollow is? Don't know. Anyone have some insight?

stefan
07-05-2006, 01:48 PM
Actually Steve Allen uses the name Sleepy Hollow in his book, so I assume Frosted Flakes/Big Tony may have been made up to hike the identity?


as i understand it...

Big Tony (slot & fork) is given by Steve Allen...and more appropriately Big Tony Fork of Sleepy Hollow.

Frosted Flakes by Tom Jones....to mask Big Tony Fork

MRK is naming the slot sleepy hollow since it's naturally the main fork, i guess. If i remember he also inscribes long branch on the map, but makes no mention to it.

Scott P
07-05-2006, 02:03 PM
Big Tony is given by Steve Allen...and more appropriately Big Tony Fork of Sleepy Hollow.

Frosted Flakes by Tom Jones....to mask Big Tony Fork

MRK is naming the slot sleepy hollow for simplicity, i guess.

I see. Should have checked the book. It was Big Tony Fork of Sleepy Hollow. Still, Sleepy Hollow is and has been the name for the main drainage for a very long time now. It should be the name used.

stefan
07-05-2006, 02:19 PM
Big Tony is given by Steve Allen...and more appropriately Big Tony Fork of Sleepy Hollow.

Frosted Flakes by Tom Jones....to mask Big Tony Fork

MRK is naming the slot sleepy hollow for simplicity, i guess.

It should be the name used.

so i updated my post before you finished posting... i changed the simplicity-->it's the naturally the main fork.

though, i must say, i like the the distinction different names can give the individual slots, and i will always think of it as big tony,
but i agree, sleepy hollow, is the most appropriate name.

Iceaxe
07-05-2006, 02:26 PM
Scott,

You and Kelsey make the same mistakes/assumptions with naming. Steve Allen (and a large number of others) come from a climbing background, and climbers name routes. SA is not renaming canyons, he is naming routes to establish the path he used. This is typical in climbing, This is typical even in hiking where the particular trail is named....

Timpenokee and Aspen Grove are both trails/routes that climb Timpanogas.

Mindbender, Not Mindbender, North Fork, Moki Steps, the Crack, Ho Hum are all routes used to access the North Fork of Robbers Roost.

Battle Creek, Chute, Eye of the Needle and MIA are all routes that access Oak Creek.

Now MK renames a route to try and get it to conform to some type of canyon name. That is why the majority are always whinning about MK renaming stuff. And in certain communities (climbing) renaming an established route is a big no-no. It is seen as an ego trip or an attempt to trump those who established the route.

Make sense?

:popcorn:

Scott P
07-05-2006, 03:13 PM
You and Kelsey make the same mistakes/assumptions with naming. Steve Allen (and a large number of others) come from a climbing background, and climbers name routes.

Well, not really in my own eyes. See below. I am no expert climber, but have done some climbing as well (but very little), and yes I am familiar with route naming, and have named published climbing routes as well.


SA is not renaming canyons, he is naming routes to establish the path he used.

I disagree (in a friendly manner of course). Here are some examples. Let me know if SA is renaming canyons or routes in the following examples:

Grotto Canyon is SA's book is Big Hole Draw on the topo map.

Neon Canyon was known as Caverns Hollow at least as far back as the 1950's, and I even have 1950's photos of Golden Cathedral labeling it as Caverns Hollow. I'm not sure if SA was in fact the one whom renamed it Neon, but I have been told so. I first heard the Neon name from Steve Negler in 1988, but found out that it was the same as Caverns Hollow several years later.

Icabod Canyon (SA's name) is know by the locals as Sheep Canyon. SA even says this in his book.

Hydra was aslo renamed by SA for his Escalante book.

What do think of the above? Are these simple routes or canyons?


This is typical in climbing, This is typical even in hiking where the particular trail is named...

I am well familiar with this, and I'll use another example from your site. What you call Exit Canyon in Three Canyon was a route that I gave you the beta on. I understand it was called Sneak Canyon or The Sneak historically because the ranches refered to such routes as sneaks. You did change the name of the canyon. :2thumbs:

Here's another discussion to chew on.

East Fork Sevenmile was a published as early as 1988. If you say HDH and GDJ are just simply names of the technical sections of the canyon, and not the canyon itself, then by the same token MK has actually changed very few names of canyons, but only names of routes.

Let me explain. If HDH and GDJ are names of routes in the technical sections of canyons, and you didn't really change them, then MK really didn't change the names of The Squeeze or Knotted Rope.

MK published the name East Fork Sevenmile. He did not publish the technical sections. You published those as (but got the names from others) HDH and GDJ.

The same could be applied to The Squeeze. SA never published the technical section of the Squeeze, MK was first to do so. Therefore, by your reasoning, the technical section should be known as Segars Hole, because MK was first to publish the technical section, and it would just be a route name. Same exact situation with Miners Hollow vs Knotted Rope.

So, I would like to pose the question. To which name should the technical section of the two canyons above be known? Can you see where it gets confusing?


North Fork, Moki Steps, the Crack, Ho Hum are all routes used to access the North Fork of Robbers Roost.

Interesting point, and let's discuss this one for fun. :popcorn: North Fork was originally published as The Crack in 1987 (Hiking and Exploring Utah's Henry Mountains and Robbers Roost). Now The Crack Route is published as a different drainage in the latest Kelsey book (Technical Slot Canyon Guide to the Colorado Plateau), and the previous The Crack is called North Fork. You can see how confusing name changing of canyons can be!


Now MK renames a route to try and get it to conform to some type of canyon name. That is why the majority are always whinning about MK renaming stuff. And in certain communities (climbing) renaming an established route is a big no-no. It is seen as an ego trip or an attempt to trump those who established the route.

Make sense?

Yes, perfect sense, but what do you think of my examples above?

stefan
07-05-2006, 03:43 PM
scott,

i am not about to get into this with you and shane, i think it's fine to name a canyon in a published context, however you feel...this is our freedom of speech...but i do believe/agree that it's helpful and respectful to include the names others have used, if it is (already) published or at least very well established within a group/community, e.g., the canyoneering community.

but as far as the debate you and shane are embarking on...yet again...one thing shane mentioned was...




he is naming routes to establish the path he used. This is typical in climbing,
:
Now MK renames a route to try and get it to conform to some type of canyon name. That is why the majority are always whinning about MK renaming stuff. And in certain communities (climbing) renaming an established route is a big no-no. I



i just want to make the point, since you keep mentioning "published" work, that "establishing" a route does NOT necessarily mean that you've published it....i think "established" very well means that a sufficient number (could be a small part of the canyoneering community) of connected people actually know that you have done it.

Scott P
07-05-2006, 04:08 PM
i am not about to get into this with you and shane

Don't worry, this is a friendly conversation, and it would be nice if more would chime in. I assume Shane would agree?


i think it's fine to name a canyon in a published context, however you feel...this is our freedom of speech...but i do believe/agree that it's helpful and respectful to include the names others have used, if it is (already) published or at least very well established within a group/community, e.g., the canyoneering community.

Bingo. What do you think of my specific examples above?

The line is blurred as to what published to what published or established might be, but all my examples above fit in one of three catogries:

1. Published in a book or on a website or group.

2. Locally known and established place names.

3. Published name on a USGS map.


i just want to make the point, since you keep mentioning "published" work, that "establishing" a route does NOT necessarily mean that you've published it....

Agreed. Try using a few of my above examples and let me know your opinion on some specific ones.


i think "established" very well means that a sufficient number (could be a small part of the canyoneering community) of connected people actually know that you have done it.

Yep, and the line gets blurred when a non-technical portion of a canyon has been published, and a technical has not. That's where I posed the question on East Fork Sevenmile vs HDH/GDJ, The Squeeze vs Segars Hole, and Knotted Rope vs Miners Hollow.

What do you think of the specific ones above? :popcorn:

Iceaxe
07-05-2006, 04:41 PM
My last word on this..... I don

Scott P
07-05-2006, 05:12 PM
I'm not saying SA or anyone else (including myself) is innocent of renaming routes. I believe it is often done out of ignorance, but that still doesn't make it right.

Shane, I can agree and buy the fact that you have done this out of ignorance, and the subject is interesting discussion rather than an arguement. It was just a discussion, and the line is blurred when it comes to canyons vs routes.

I still do believe, however, that most of SA's or MK's changes were not done out of ignorance. SA in his book, for example says plainly that what he renamed Icabod but it was previously known as Sheep Canyon by locals. I also can't believe that SA wouldn't see that "Grotto Canyon" was labeled as Big Hole Draw on the topo, neither can I beleive that he had never seen MK's book (published first) as labeling Ding and Dang as First and Second Canyons.

On the other hand, just as you say, MK's changes such as Segars Hole and Miners Hollow were not out of ignorance either, and he even states SA route names in his books.


BUT.... there is a reason nearly everyone accuses MK of renaming routes, and there is a reason you seldom if ever hear the same accusation of most other guidebook authors.

Ahhh Shane,

I do see see it, and don't misunderstand, as I am agreeing with you when it comes to renaming routes/canyons. I do not agree with Kelsey renaming them. I was only pointing out that he is not the only one doing so. I am on your side on the matter, and have had the same subject conversation with MK, several in fact, probably before you did, and still on going on occasions.

My only disagreement at all, was that MK was not the only one intentionally doing it (I'm not speaking of you).

Personally, it seems there may be a certain rivalry between SA and MK, and that one or the other does indeed change names for what ever reason.

(On a different note, it is pretty entertaining (?) to know that both call themselves environmentalist, but have such different viewpoints on so many different subjects and like to point out the differences to each other, and which one is more environmentally friendly and in which ways, all indirectly of course).

[quote] If you don't see the difference and what everyone is whining about, you just don't get it

Iceaxe
07-05-2006, 05:28 PM
Still Shane, I wish you would discuss some of the specific examples, and what you think of these ones----just for fun of course, and when you get the time.

Since you asked...... I think some of the renaming is out of rivalry.

In MK's last book he renamed the ruins that were listed in Tassoni's book. I lost all respect for MK's stance at this point. By renaming the ruins MK went against every argument that had supported him in the past. Tassoni's book listed the ruins under the historical, popular, BLM, local names...... and MK changed these names to something that no person had ever heard of before.

You tell me why?

:popcorn:

Iceaxe
07-05-2006, 05:35 PM
FWIW: I only own one of SA's books. I'm not a big fan of his books because I prefer maps. They are easier for me to understand. Even the chicken scratches MK call's maps are vastly superior to SA's walk 15 minutes and turn left descriptions.

So its impossible for me to intelligently discuss many of the specific SA vs MK names you mention since I don't have the books to reference.

:ne_nau:

Scott P
07-05-2006, 05:40 PM
Since you asked...... I think some of the renaming is out of rivalry.

Me too, but I believe it isn't exclusive to MK. He may be the most common offender, but not the only one, as my other examples point out.


In MK's last book he renamed the ruins that were listed in Tassoni's book.

I'm not sure if he has the book, but I'll ask him.


By renaming the ruins MK went against every argument that had supported him in the past. Tassoni's book listed the ruins under the historical, popular, BLM, local names...... and MK changed these names to something that no person had ever heard of before.

You tell me why?

I was under the impression that MK uses the BLM and local names, but doesn't always use hiker or guidebook generated ones. I believe he usually ask the locals and BLM if a canyon or site has a name, and if they say no, he either makes up his own or uses a canyon/site name from other hikers. No real consistancy on hiker or other guidebook author generated names. Sometimes he uses them and sometimes not. Kelsey's canyon or site names are like a box of chocalate......

I don't know this time, but I'm going on a trip with him next week and am putting together a list of additions/correction to his latest book to bring. I'll make sure to add what you said above about the ruins, if you would like. The Monarch Cave one really surprises me since it is obviously historical (from the photo you posted).

Scott P
07-05-2006, 05:47 PM
FWIW: I only own one of SA's books. I'm not a big fan of his books because I prefer maps. They are easier for me to understand. Even the chicken scratches MK call's maps are vastly superior to SA's walk 15 minutes and turn left descriptions.

I feel the exact same way. Also, I have noticed that SA will pass on some good "stuff" in his route descriptions while taking you to much less interesting "stuff", and that almost all his long loops cross a bunch of well used roads (which makes carrying a week supply in a pack pointless). I actually have both sets of guidebooks from both authors, and both have their good and bad points.


So its impossible for me to intelligently discuss many of the specific SA vs MK names you mention since I don't have the books to reference.

I see. I would bet they are in the library if you really are curious about checking the reference I posted. I can assure you that both authors are changing each others published names.

Speaking of maps, MK told me not too long ago that he was thinking of using USGS maps. I was wondering what ever happened with that.

Iceaxe
07-05-2006, 06:05 PM
Speaking of maps, MK told me not too long ago that he was thinking of using USGS maps. I was wondering what ever happened with that.

I spoke with MK last month and he told me much the same thing. His new maps are too small to be of much uses. I think his older maps were better.

MK told me it takes him one day to generate each map, and then asked me how long I spent on each map on my website. When I replied about 15 minutes he mentioned that he was going to give Topo a second chance.

:popcorn:

Iceaxe
07-05-2006, 06:16 PM
I was under the impression that MK uses the BLM and local names, but doesn't always use hiker or guidebook generated ones.

I was under the same impression.... and I understood MK's stance, I might not have agreed with it, but I understood it...... with his latest book he went against all his own statements and traditions..... I pretty much gave up on him and naming at that point and filed it under ego.

Maybe MK should pick up a 1892 copy of Illustrated America. Below is more from my website.

History: The Monarch Cave Ruins contain the an inscription from the Illustrated America Exploring Expedition of 1892. Warren K. Moorehead was appointed as leader of the Illustrated America Exploring Expedition to explore, survey, map, photograph, and secure specimens in southeastern Utah. Although the Illustrated America Exploring Expedition collection of artifacts was very small, Moorehead and members of his expedition wrote enthusiastically and romantically about their adventures and discoveries in a series of articles for American Illustrated Magazine. Their descriptions of alcoves and ruins in Butler Wash are memorable.

Also, I no longer care what SA calls things because he is no longer publishing guidebooks. SA stuff is all water under the bridge. I chastise MK because I hope he will amend some of his tactics I find distasteful in future books. If SA were still publishing I would do the same.

:popcorn:

Scott P
07-05-2006, 06:35 PM
I spoke with MK last month and he told me much the same thing. His new maps are too small to be of much uses. I think his older maps were better.

MK told me it takes him one day to generate each map, and then asked me how long I spent on each map on my website. When I replied about 15 minutes he mentioned that he was going to give Topo a second chance.

Once he told me it was because it wasn't good or unavailable on Macs, but I think that has changed. Maybe he'll add them sometime. Adding as many canyons on one page as he often does could prove rather challenging for TOPO, and maybe that's why he uses the hand drawn ones? I think I'll ask him again.


Maybe MK should pick up a 1892 copy of Illustrated America. Below is more from my website.

Have you pointed out this by chance? He might change it in future editions.


Also, I no longer care what SA calls things because he is no longer publishing guidebooks.

Do you know why? I did like his books. Last I heard, he was publishing a book on pace names (how ironic! :roflol: ), but I don't remember where or whom told me that.

Also, one more thing I remember from previous discussions with MK. He told me a place name should either have to do with the west (ie cowboys), or be generic (ie North Middle Fork). He doesn't like names like Leprechaun because it has "nothing to do with the West".

Personally, I don't like names like "Mind Bender" or "Lucky Charms", but like desciptive ones that describe the natural features of the canyon, or an experience. Still though, I agree that the previously established or local names should be used, especially the published ones.

Iceaxe
07-05-2006, 08:43 PM
He doesn't like names like Leprechaun because it has "nothing to do with the West".

What exactly does Mile Marker Canyon 25.1 have to do with the ol' west?!?!

Perhaps MK better do a little more research and find out where the Leprechaun name came from, he might be surprised.

Hint: it has major ties to Silverton Colorado, can't get much more ol' west then that ;-)

I try to know the history of every canyon name on my website. Many of the stories behind the names are very intriguing. I also believe this is why a new route sometimes goes through several names until one that fits is found. I understand completely why 1st and 2nd canyon didn't stick as names. To begin with, these were not the 1st and 2nd canyon. They were in the middle of a string of canyons. The name doesn't always go to first to publish.... the name often goes to the first to publish a name that fits.


Have you pointed out this by chance? He might change it in future editions.

I assume if MK wants me to proof his books he will send me an advance copy.

:rockon:

Scott P
07-05-2006, 09:10 PM
What exactly does Mile Marker Canyon 25.1 have to do with the ol' west?!?!

Nothing, but generic. In his defence on this one, I believe before he was a COF member he claimed to not know which canyon was which back then. For his next book, I think he should include all the now known names, especially since the mile post have all changed and are no more applicable!


Perhaps MK better do a little more research and find out where the Leprechaun name came from, he might be surprised.

I believe I told him once.


To begin with, these were not the 1st and 2nd canyon. They were in the middle of a string of canyons. The name doesn't always go to first to publish.... the name often goes to the first to publish a name that fits.

Personally, I would still go with the first name published unless offensive for some reason (for example in CO, Peckers Dick was renamed Dickers Peck to avoid too much offence). I can think of many names that don't fit in my eyes. Mind Bender is one. Since I am a civil engineer, I always associate bending with metal. Metal sounds like it should be bolted. Don't know why, but I really do not like the MB name for the canyon, but like some of the other names given.


Have you pointed out this by chance? He might change it in future editions.

I assume if MK wants me to proof his books he will send me an advance copy.

Actually, I think this would be a good idea to send a draft to several people since it's too late after the fact. I really like and enjoy MK's books, but on one trip I have joked with him that I am publishing my own book called "Kelsey's Corrections". Most of the book is accurate, and I recommend the book, but there are a few errors or updates.

Also, I believe that MK is coming up with his own website where people can post additions/corrections to any route desciption, and he will look them all over and keep people updated. Could be a good place to post the a.k.a.'s.

stefan
07-06-2006, 01:40 AM
i think it's fine to name a canyon in a published context, however you feel...this is our freedom of speech...but i do believe/agree that it's helpful and respectful to include the names others have used, if it is (already) published or at least very well established within a group/community, e.g., the canyoneering community.

Bingo. What do you think of my specific examples above?

The line is blurred as to what published to what published or established might be, but all my examples above fit in one of three catogries:

1. Published in a book or on a website or group.

2. Locally known and established place names.

3. Published name on a USGS map.


i just want to make the point, since you keep mentioning "published" work, that "establishing" a route does NOT necessarily mean that you've published it....

Agreed. Try using a few of my above examples and let me know your opinion on some specific ones.


i think "established" very well means that a sufficient number (could be a small part of the canyoneering community) of connected people actually know that you have done it.

Yep, and the line gets blurred when a non-technical portion of a canyon has been published, and a technical has not. That's where I posed the question on East Fork Sevenmile vs HDH/GDJ, The Squeeze vs Segars Hole, and Knotted Rope vs Miners Hollow.

What do you think of the specific ones above? :popcorn:

you probably have a good point about grotto, neon, icabod, hydra, that is about changing them and their not being routes but canyons. not gonna touch it.

Okay, as far as GDJ,HDH,KnottedRope,Squeeze go, i am getting a little lost here....are you asking about what protocol should be followed in how a technical route should be referenced? well, part of the point i was rasing was about "establishing" vs. "publishing." i DO know the SA established, by my definition, ALL of those canyons well before MRK, in fact MRK still hasn't done HDH or GDJ. technically you could argue that MRK is naming the canyon in which the slot resides while SA is naming the route/canyon.

are we really trying to resolve this? it seems to me that what you have is to opposing forces which are powerhorses. you have MRK, someone who publishes, describes and names in his own way...he reaches an incredibly large and more mainstream audience and establishes in print. VS a community of people who are either quite or super focused on canyoneering, who either care about those who established routes and the names they gave or at the least continue to propagate them as they repeatedly hear about them or know of them published more exclusively elsewhere, and who may actually like the mystique of the underground notion these names carry with them.

will there be a resolution? doubt it, but i like the idea that each side recognize the other in the AKA format, definitely for the purposes of SAR/sheriff, if not for general readership awareness/historical purposes.

yes confusion can ensue with the practices of naming and renaming. but in some sense, i think maps and good descriptions eliminate this, and can allow for a facilitation of description within a text, especially in the case of terms like "exit canyon."

yeah, i am sure some ego and/or rivalry is involved too...they're only human.


as far as ding/dang, SA references MRK's swell guide in his swell book. so i am sure he knew about them.

Scott P
07-06-2006, 07:37 AM
Okay, as far as GDJ,HDH,KnottedRope,Squeeze go, i am getting a little lost here....are you asking about what protocol should be followed in how a technical route should be referenced? well, part of the point i was rasing was about "establishing" vs. "publishing." i DO know the SA established, by my definition, ALL of those canyons well before MRK, in fact MRK still hasn't done HDH or GDJ. technically you could argue that MRK is naming the canyon in which the slot resides while SA is naming the route/canyon.

My question was where the line is drawn between a canyon name and a route name, and if technical sections of canyons should have different route names from the already established canyon names.

MK first published East Fork Sevenmile Canyon non-techincal section in 1988. The technical sections were much later published in 2006 (18 years later) under HDH and GDJ.

SA first published The Squeeze in 1992. The technical section of the canyon was published in 1998 (6 years later) under Segars Hole.

SA first published Knotted Rope in 1992. The technical section of the canyon was published in 1998 (6 years later) under Miners Hollow.

The same could be said for Sleepy Hollow and FF and BTF.

My question was when does a technical route name become a canyon name and vice versa? To me, the line is blurred rather than clear.

I also believe at least some of the renaming is due to secrecy (Shane, what do you think?). If trip reports and beta for HDH and GDJ were published under EFSM, everyone would know where it is, and the location wouldn't be secret. If FF was published under Sleepy Hollow, everyone would know what canyon was being talked about, thus FF is used when posting TR's to hide the identity. At least, that's what I think. I have done the same thing to an extent too.

Once something gets published, however, hiding identity becomes pointless. In that case, going with the eariest known or published name makes the most sense to me, even if "lame" or "doesn't fit". First and Second are a good example. Some believe the names do not fit. Maybe so. On the other hand, look at Knotted Rope. It doesn't fit at all either because the Knotted Rope the canyon was named for was never in the canyon itself, but in an entire different drainage.


are we really trying to resolve this?

No, just discussing it. I seriously doubt anything we could say here would resolve the issue at hand.

Anyone mind if I post some of this to the canyons group for discussion?

stefan
07-06-2006, 08:33 AM
My question was where the line is drawn between a canyon name and a route name, and if technical sections of canyons should have different route names from the already established canyon names.


i agree it's blurred...i all too much depends on the canyon and the people involved.

how bout this scott, all over the place you see canyons whose creeks are named differently from the canyon it is in...sometimes it's helpful because the same creek passes through many different canyons....some times it doesn't. routes and canyons can have different names, or they can have the same name....there will be blurred examples and clear cut examples, and that's just the way it's gonna be...just like a species of tree can have many different common names.

now let me ask you this scott, cause you still haven't addressed my "establish" vs "publish" issue. whether or not MRK knew or didn't know that SA had already established the squeeze/knotted rope before him, he would create his own names regardless, because he doesn't believe in the way others have been naming canyons/routes. he's viewing the fact that he's publishing the route for the first time as his opportunity to give it a proper name....which is fine, that's his right. but, probably for many reasons, he's not getting involved with the history of those who have done these canyons first and including the names that they used in the process, IF SUCH NAMES have continued to be used within the canyoneering community. you might consider this interesting, given how involved he gets with history, but he has his reasons, i am sure. i think this is the point of issue, if you respect this whole "who established (not necessarily published) first and adhere to their naming," then you follow that path, otherwise you do something different.

now just because MRK published them first do NOT mean everyone needs to conform to his names. EFSM....he may have named the drainage, but there are TWO FORKS...what's wrong with having HDH and GDJ describing the routes down each fork? if MRK wants to call them east fork and west fork of ESM, AKA HDH and GDJ....i think this is a happy medium. shane's maintaining the (arguably) most well know names for those canyons, and he's giving a more canyon-centric naming.




My question was when does a technical route name become a canyon name and vice versa? To me, the line is blurred rather than clear.

my claim was that how it becomes a route/cyn name is blurred as well as the route and canyon names themselves. it all depends, and maybe we shouldn't be too crazed by it. however one wants to view the reason for 2 or more names is up to them, we can't get into blanket statements when there is a spectrum...but what we can do, is provide the HISTORY of when such canyons were descended, how they were named and in what capacity they were named...

SCOTT, why don't you set up a website of the history of the descending/naming of slot canyons. add your own beta to canyons if you feel like it, but you could definitely provide some interesting information for people. i'd be definitely interested in it as a soure, AND you just *may* get people giving you more information than they previously have been willing to give, since YOUR information that you are broadcasting may be incomplete




I also believe at least some of the renaming is due to secrecy (Shane, what do you think?). If trip reports and beta for HDH and GDJ were published under EFSM, everyone would know where it is, and the location wouldn't be secret. If FF was published under Sleepy Hollow, everyone would know what canyon was being talked about, thus FF is used when posting TR's to hide the identity.

of course, only to some extent though... i mean i think there could be equally meaningful or parallel reasons. i mean, okay, in the context of FF or "my fault" and "your fault" the reason was PURELY to hide the names. on the other hand, while SA and anyone else who's named canyons may have had this "hiding" notion in mind, they equally may like to name their "routes," as they establish them, and to give colorful character to such routes/slots/cyns to remember and identify them. again there are two forks of EFSM...they need different names to distinguish them...how one decides which way to go is their prerogative.




Once something gets published, however, hiding identity becomes pointless. In that case, going with the eariest known or published name makes the most sense to me, even if "lame" or "doesn't fit".

i agree when the name is first published...hiding its identity is pointless. in fact some would argue that hiding identity is pointless at any point. not sure about the necessity of going to earliest known or published name. i don't think that one MUST do anything, but i think the preference is, at the LEAST, to mention the other "published" or " previously well known" names.

:ne_nau:

Scott P
07-06-2006, 09:17 AM
how bout this scott, all over the place you see canyons whose creeks are named differently from the canyon it is in

Good point. Professor Creek vs Mary Jane Canyon and Kaibito Creek vs Chaol Canyon.


now let me ask you this scott, cause you still haven't addressed my "establish" vs "publish" issue. whether or not MRK knew or didn't know that SA had already established the squeeze/knotted rope before him, he would create his own names regardless, because he doesn't believe in the way others have been naming canyons/routes.

Agreed.


he's not getting involved with the history of those who have done these canyons first and including the names that they used in the process

Though Shane's post seem to idicate otherwise in his latest book, earlier he did hold the same views. But, he wants to use generic or cowboy names since that is history. Cowboys and locals had names for many of the canyons long before people started doing canyons for fun. He believes those are the historical names, not the canyoneers ones. Still, more recently not using Monarch Cave makes no sense.


IF SUCH NAMES have continued to be used within the canyoneering community. you might consider this interesting, given how involved he gets with history, but he has his reasons, i am sure. i think this is the point of issue, if you respect this whole "who established (not necessarily published) first and adhere to their naming," then you follow that path, otherwise you do something different.

I agree, but I was only stating what he has told me.


now just because MRK published them first do NOT mean everyone needs to conform to his names.

I disagree here. Maybe not need to conform, but should conform. Goes both ways, with him conforming the other way too.


shane's maintaining the (arguably) most well know names for those canyons, and he's giving a more canyon-centric naming.

I disagree. East Fork Sevenmile name has been used for almost two decades. As far as I know, other than one group, no one heard or used the names HDH or GDJ until very recently. EFSM has been on my list and other canyoneers list for over a decade.


but what we can do, is provide the HISTORY of when such canyons were descended, how they were named and in what capacity they were named...

Too controversial. People get incredibly angry when someone claims a first descent. Some say there are none left. Others say only certain people can claim them, but no one else.


SCOTT, why don't you set up a website of the history of the descending/naming of slot canyons. add your own beta to canyons if you feel like it, but you could definitely provide some interesting information for people.

I've already tried that, but have got flamed for it, but it doesn't matter to me. There are other problems as well. Certain people/groups lie about doing or not doing canyons and can't get their stories straight. Best to leave it alone and not try to figure out whom is telling the truth, and whom was first.


i'd be definitely interested in it as a soure, AND you just *may* get people giving you more information than they previously have been willing to give, since YOUR information that you are broadcasting may be incomplete

I've already published several canyons on websites, have you seen the info?


of course, only to some extent though... i mean i think there could be equally meaningful or parallel reasons. i mean, okay, in the context of FF or "my fault" and "your fault" the reason was PURELY to hide the names.

To hide names of canyons that already had names.


they equally may like to name their "routes," as they establish them, and to give colorful character to such routes/slots/cyns to remember and identify them.

Which is just fine by me if the canyon or route doesn't already have a name.


again there are two forks of EFSM...they need different names to distinguish them...how one decides which way to go is their prerogative.

Left and right is simple enough, especially since the canyon has had a name for almost two decades. HDH may be a route, but are you refering to a "fork" or "route"? You say fork. When does a fork name become a route name? The line is blurred.

As the complex increases in size, it becomes more blurred. Left and Right may work for EFSM, but not for the Robbers Roost Complex. North Middle Fork? Aaak. Don't like it.


not sure about the necessity of going to earliest known or published name. i don't think that one MUST do anything, but i think the preference is, at the LEAST, to mention the other "published" or " previously well known" names.

Whether MK, SA, or whom ever, I think the order of naming should go like this:

1. Historic or local names

2. USGS names

3. Previously published names

4. Previously known among canyoneers names

Then if you can't find any of the above, tag on your own name. Sometimes you can't, but there might have been a previous name. This would be unintentional renaming. Such is the case with Alcatraz vs earlier names and Starfish vs Keyhole. With HDH for example, if I didn't know it was the EFSM, I might tag on my own name out of ignorance. If something isn't known to the general public, it's hard to find out whom the "pioneers of the canyon" call it.

Actually, the only reason to worry about it is to avoid confusion. Other than that it doesn't really matter too much.

Actually, you too are reading way too much into what I said. My one and only point was that MK is not or was not the only person whom has ever or will ever rename a canyon. Others have done so for various reasons. That was my only real point here. I can't think of tactics MK has used in any of his guidebooks (picking, naming, sketching, etc.) that haven't been used before. That was my only point.

Iceaxe
07-06-2006, 10:24 AM
Too controversial. People get incredibly angry when someone claims a first descent.

Providing the history of a name/names has nothing to do with first descents. I believe it is well known that you and MK were not the first to attempt Alcatraz. But the name stuck because it was a cool name, had a cool story to go with it, and the name fits the canyon.

Alcatraz had a half dozen names before Alcatraz that I am aware of, but other then NF of TCB no other name was widely adopted by the canyoneering community in general.

Keyhole was AKA Starfish at one time..... I have recently dropped that AKA from my website because only a few old timers even remember it had anther name. Its now Keyhole to everyone., including the NPS.

Same-same for Pandora's Box. It wore several different handles before the general community settled on Pandora's. I have to admit.... I'm curiously awaiting to see what name MK tries to hang on Pandora.... North Prong of the South Fork of the West Fork of Spring Canyon... :lol8:

stefan
07-06-2006, 11:26 AM
he's not getting involved with the history of those who have done these canyons first and including the names that they used in the process

Though Shane's post seem to idicate otherwise in his latest book, earlier he did hold the same views.



I know, but this likely has been out of pressure from many people, including you, nat, shane, me, and, i am sure, many others. however, i am sure the most he'll write is other names, nothing about who established/named them, which for the arguments you gave is more appropriate anyhow.







now just because MRK published them first do NOT mean everyone needs to conform to his names.

I disagree here. Maybe not need to conform, but should conform. Goes both ways, with him conforming the other way too.



uhh, so by conform i meant regularly use. for example, i ALWAYS refer to the mountain as DENALI, but i will acknowledge that legally it is named mckinley. are you saying i SHOULD call it mckinley? i don't think i need to, i think all i NEED to do is acknowledge it's legal name.





shane's maintaining the (arguably) most well know names for those canyons, and he's giving a more canyon-centric naming.

I disagree. East Fork Sevenmile name has been used for almost two decades. As far as I know, other than one group, no one heard or used the names HDH or GDJ until very recently. EFSM has been on my list and other canyoneers list for over a decade.



okay, whatever. but someone has descended and named those canyons before you and most. whether or not it's a FIRST descent doesn't matter, if you feel like they are names you should honor, so be it, if not, do as you wish....shane's the first to "publish" the routes and decided to honor the names. it's not the end all be all, but i suppose it's some sort of standard.






i'd be definitely interested in it as a source, AND you just *may* get people giving you more information than they previously have been willing to give, since YOUR information that you are broadcasting may be incomplete

I've already published several canyons on websites, have you seen the info?



some of it, yes, perhaps not all? i was more referring to the evolution of canyon names and threw it in as an aside, but if you'd like to list all of the sites you've put information i'd be interested in a comprehensive list.





of course, only to some extent though... i mean i think there could be equally meaningful or parallel reasons. i mean, okay, in the context of FF or "my fault" and "your fault" the reason was PURELY to hide the names.

To hide names of canyons that already had names.



yes and what's your point here? it wasn't as if it was to CHANGE the names of the canyons, it was simply show photos/video without directly revealing the canyons...i don't think there is any harm in that if one wants not to reveal the canyon or is asked not to.







again there are two forks of EFSM...they need different names to distinguish them...how one decides which way to go is their prerogative.

Left and right is simple enough, especially since the canyon has had a name for almost two decades. HDH may be a route, but are you refering to a "fork" or "route"? You say fork. When does a fork name become a route name? The line is blurred.



actually MRK dislikes left and right as you need to determine which is the reference orientation, looking up canyon or down canyon. i think it's simple enough to define it as facing towards the bifurcation, but someone needs to assume that and in some cases it may not be so clear.

Fork Route? i suppose in this case BOTH :haha: i guess i was saying that at the time shane published it, the two forks did NOT have names, so he named them. they could just as well be routes. in this case you could say they are one in the same. but of course MRK will come around and give them additional names as well, with the AKA. the line is definitely blurred, but i guess what i am saying is why worry about it so much.





As the complex increases in size, it becomes more blurred. Left and Right may work for EFSM, but not for the Robbers Roost Complex. North Middle Fork? Aaak. Don't like it.



agreed. yeah, that's why grand gulch has so many interesting names for canyons. the difference here is HOW these canyons are being named. i just don't see what is so different from how they were named in the past and how they are named today. people named them for people or something that was found in the canyon, or whatever...those names are as arbitrary and subjective as those given today. and by the way, i like the name mindbender.





not sure about the necessity of going to earliest known or published name. i don't think that one MUST do anything, but i think the preference is, at the LEAST, to mention the other "published" or " previously well known" names.

Whether MK, SA, or whom ever, I think the order of naming should go like this:

1. Historic or local names

2. USGS names

3. Previously published names

4. Previously known among canyoneers names

Then if you can't find any of the above, tag on your own name. Sometimes you can't, but there might have been a previous name. This would be unintentional renaming. Such is the case with Alcatraz vs earlier names and Starfish vs Keyhole. With HDH for example, if I didn't know it was the EFSM, I might tag on my own name out of ignorance. If something isn't known to the general public, it's hard to find out whom the "pioneers of the canyon" call it.



in general i agree with your protocol here, but perhaps, exceptions can be made when there is a need to define a complicated route or if the name is too cumbersome.

now HDH isn't the east fork of seven mile....it's the east fork of the east fork of seven mile... is that a NAME? not officially. now shane has established in print that one CAN call it HDH. if you had published it first, you might have called it something else. shane would still have put HDH on his website and maybe given a reference to where it came from and perhaps he'd mention your name as well. this is the way it is...time is the real test for which or how many names actually survive.




Actually, the only reason to worry about it is to avoid confusion. Other than that it doesn't really matter too much.

i agree. there is/can be confusion...as with many things in life. but, i'll admit, it makes for interesting conversation and delves somewhat into "history."

stefan
07-06-2006, 11:30 AM
Same-same for Pandora's Box. It wore several different handles before the general community settled on Pandora's. I have to admit.... I'm curiously awaiting to see what name MK tries to hang on Pandora

i can tell you what he's naming it. i don't want to create problems and such, but he's actually giving it a reasonable name. i don't think he'd have a problem with me telling you all.

his current choice is either Meeks Mesa Slot [or Canyon], but it could change.

Scott P
07-06-2006, 11:57 AM
Providing the history of a name/names has nothing to do with first descents.

Agreed, but stephan's question did, and I was answering.


Same-same for Pandora's Box. It wore several different handles before the general community settled on Pandora's.

I like Pandoras Box name. Out of curiousity, what were the old names?


uhh, so by conform i meant regularly use. for example, i ALWAYS refer to the mountain as DENALI, but i will acknowledge that legally it is named mckinley. are you saying i SHOULD call it mckinley?

Nope. It should have never been renamed McKinley in the first place. :naughty:


okay, whatever. but someone has descended and named those canyons before you and most.

I've never decended those canyons, just scouted them out a long time ago.


whether or not it's a FIRST descent doesn't matter, if you feel like they are names you should honor, so be it, if not, do as you wish....shane's the first to "publish" the routes and decided to honor the names.

MK was first to publish the canyon. Shane was first to publish the "route", but you said fork (See below).

i
was more referring to the evolution of canyon names and threw it in as an aside, but if you'd like to list all of the sites you've put information i'd be interested in a comprehensive list.

Here are some:

http://www.summitpost.org/canyon/182257/Professor-Creek.html

http://www.summitpost.org/canyon/152668/Clearwater-Canyon.html

http://www.summitpost.org/canyon/152541/Cable-Canyon.html

http://www.summitpost.org/canyon/152456/Gem-Canyon-Middle-Fork.html

http://www.summitpost.org/canyon/152118/Enigma-Canyon.html

http://www.summitpost.org/canyon/152117/Gem-Canyon-West-Fork.html

http://www.summitpost.org/canyon/151990/Buckwater-Draw-South-Fork.html

http://www.summitpost.org/canyon/151989/Buckwater-Draw.html


yes and what's your point here? it wasn't as if it was to CHANGE the names of the canyons, it was simply show photos/video without directly revealing the canyons...i don't think there is any harm in that if one wants not to reveal the canyon or is asked not to.

I didn't say there was harm here. The harm comes after the canyons are published and then it has three or four different names. Actually, I'm as guilty as the next man, and have renamed canyons.

My only point was that MK is not the only one doing it.


in general i agree with your protocol here, but perhaps, exceptions can be made when there is a need to define a complicated route or if the name is too cumbersome.

now HDH isn't the east fork of seven mile....it's the east fork of the east fork of seven mile... is that a NAME? not officially. now shane has established in print that one CAN call it HDH.

That's fine, but my post was about fork vs route. I'm still confused on your stance here. Is HDH the name of the fork, canyon, or route or a combination. If it is either of them, that is fine. In other words, should Shane put on his website "aka EFSM", for the "main fork", or would they be considered completely different canyons/forks/routes of the system?

In other words would EFSM just be the canyon below the confluence of HDH and GDJ, or would HDH and GDJ be just routes within EFSM which is the name of the canyon? Where does EFSM begin and end?

Actually, you guys are reading way too much into this. My one and only point is that MK is not the only one whom has ever renamed canyons. Even if you are both right on EFSM/HDH/GDJ, there are still other examples of others who have. I have too. There are many reasons why people have done so (ego, name fitting, secrecy, ignorance, etc). None of the tatics (any tactics/methods) in MK's book are new; they have all done before. MK is not the only, nor the first, nor the last to rename canyons or routes. SA has done the same thing, as have I, and other canyoneers. That was my only real point.

Iceaxe
07-06-2006, 12:38 PM
I didn't say there was harm here. The harm comes after the canyons are published and then it has three or four different names. Actually, I'm as guilty as the next man, and have renamed canyons.

My only point was that MK is not the only one doing it.

Actually I believe MK is the only person currently guilty of it. At least purposely doing it. Everyone else currently publishing mass canyon routes and maps has a gentlemens agreement to use the popular/excepted name where possible. This agreement doesn't mean you can't vary, but it would be frowned upon if you renamed without a legit reason.

In my eyes renaming Pandora's to Meeks Mesa Slot is kinda pissing on the history of the canyon and those who came before......

So exactly how many years does a canyon have to maintain a local name before Kelsey considers it historical? Pandora is about 5 years old. Leprechaun is at least 20 years old.....

Double Stack, Fishmouth and Monarch Cave are 114 years old.... :lol8:

:popcorn:

stefan
07-06-2006, 12:50 PM
That's fine, but my post was about fork vs route. I'm still confused on your stance here. Is HDH the name of the fork, canyon, or route or a combination. If it is either of them, that is fine. In other words, should Shane put on his website "aka EFSM", for the "main fork", or would they be considered completely different canyons/forks/routes of the system?

In other words would EFSM just be the canyon below the confluence of HDH and GDJ, or would HDH and GDJ be just routes within EFSM which is the name of the canyon? Where does EFSM begin and end?

well, i made it confusing. okay, you want me to have a stance...here it is.

i think that East Fork of Sevenmile actually encompasses the east and west fork tributaries above the confluence and the canyon below the confluence, and in a similar way West Fork of Butler encompasses all 3 tributaries. That is, it defines ALL that is part of that fork.

Now for the upper tributaries. I think the WHOLE idea for route is to make a connection/parallel/metaphore with climbing, possibly to satisfy folk like you who have strong views on such topics.

but if you are gonna PRESS me for my stance, i would simply say this....in my head, i am ASSOCIATING those names HDH & GDJ with the SLOTS, not the entire forks and not the route. So in my mind, for example, the SLOT =MINDBENDER, but then you could go as far to say the MINDBENDER FORK OF ROBBERS ROOST CANYON. in this way, the name for the slot can be used as a reference for the fork one is talking about. Alcatraz is the slot, and it's in the Alcatraz fork of (north fork of) TCBC.

BUT i know you don't like that, so i don't push that angle with you, but this is how it works in my head, an i am sure it'll always be this way. concurrently i always know the other names that are used in their different contexts.

again, all of this is arbitrary...all names are, and when you start making rules, rules are either broken or are insufficient or change over time such that they create discrepancies with past names.

but when i think of all these names....i personally think of the slots themselves. there is a difference between descending a slot canyon and climbing a route. often the climbing route is an ambiguous line....in contrast with a slot which usually makes for a very well defined route. in this sense i think the analogy breaks down, but in a more abstract sense i think it holds.

Scott P
07-06-2006, 01:22 PM
Actually I believe MK is the only person currently guilty of it. At least purposely doing it. Everyone else currently publishing mass canyon routes and maps has a gentlemens agreement to use the popular/excepted name where possible.

That's where we disagree. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one, but agree that MK should use the known names.

SA also did it. I urge you to check the following examples yourself:

Grotto Canyon vs Big Hole Wash (can't dispute a topo map)

Neon Canyon vs Caverns Hollow (a well known name for 50 years)

Icabod Canyon vs Sheep Canyon (SA even says this in his book that the locals call it Sheep Canyon)

Hydra vs Sheep Canyon (SA even says this in his book that the locals call it Sheep Canyon)

Ding and Dang vs 1st and 2nd (MK obviously published these first and even used the new names in his latest book)


So exactly how many years does a canyon have to maintain a local name before Kelsey considers it historical?

I don't know. Good question to ask him.


often the climbing route is an ambiguous line....in contrast with a slot which usually makes for a very well defined route

Exactly. That is why the line is blurred.

Iceaxe
07-06-2006, 02:11 PM
SA also did it. I urge you to check the following examples yourself:

FORGET ABOUT SA.... he is ancient history! He has not published a canyoneering book in 10 years! Everything SA did 10 years ago is now history... what was done in the past is history....

I said MK is the only person currently who is intentionally changing names to something he makes up that I know of.

:rockon:

stefan
07-06-2006, 02:35 PM
often the climbing route is an ambiguous line....in contrast with a slot which usually makes for a very well defined route

Exactly. That is why the line is blurred.

i realize that ... but, you can make the case for the justification of name for the "technical route/slot/canyon-section" in much the same way as the name for a climbing route....in this case it would be to specify the "slot" which is presenting *most* of the challenges and technical obstacles, i.e., that part of the canyon which is technical or semitechnical or whatever. anyway one defines it, scott, YOU are always gonna poke holes.

i don't think anyone's disagreeing with you that "the line is blurred," i guess the difference is whether you are comfortable with it or not. and sure, it can lead to confusion. i guess we're living in that "confusing" time as some of this stuff is getting named...time will decide which names will stick and then confusion will be less of a problem. don't you think it's kinda fun that you are witnessing the transient nature of this rather than thinking about it 50-100 years lafter the fact? confusion can be a good thing that mixes up the mundane...but as far as SAR goes, well, that's another matter altogether, confusion clearly isn't helpful in that case.

Scott P
07-06-2006, 03:06 PM
I said MK is the only person currently who is intentionally changing names to something he makes up that I know of.

OK, I'll agree with that one. Currently.

Minus the trip report "fluff" for secrecy of course, hee hee.


i don't think anyone's disagreeing with you that "the line is blurred," i guess the difference is whether you are comfortable with it or not.

I'm comfortable with it. Remember my only point was that MK was not the only one to ever do so, and there are other reasons. Sort of like the picking thing. Another author suggested the same thing over 20 years ago. Nothing new there.

Iceaxe
07-06-2006, 03:17 PM
Minus the trip report "fluff" for secrecy of course, hee hee.

:roflol:

:five: