Mystery at Scorpion Gulch

[adrians]

Hi,

I am not trying to be a pain in the ass but I don't think the answers I got to the identification of the canyons I was asking about in the previous post (the forking canyon across from Scorpion Gulch) were correct.

The answers indicated these were Baker east/west canyon. AKA nasty ass and tight ass. So I looked for access info on the ACA webiste---there it state that the canyons are located on the Egypt Quadrangle.

The area I am talking about ends on the Scropion Gulch quadrangle and starts on Stevens Creek North Quadrangle. To be more specific --these canyons reach the Escalante about a 1/2 mile south of the Kane/Garfield county line about a 1/4 mile south/east of Scorpion Gulch. they look almost like a tuning fork and look very narrow almost throughout their 3 mile or so length. The canyon drops into the Escalante at 4677T on the Scorpion Gulch quadrangle.

The Bakers seem to start across from point 4468T at the Escalante on the Egypt quadrangle.

Any help here would be appreciated. Thanks.

Adrian

[Udink]

The image from Google Earth that you posted in the other thread is without a doubt Baker. You seem to be getting mixed up between looking at Google Earth and the topo maps.

Based on your description (a canyon dropping into the Escalante at 4677T), the image below shows the place you're describing, and it doesn't have any narrows.

By the way, if you want to overlay the topo maps directly into Google Earth, try this link: http://www.gearthblog.com/kmfiles/topomaps.kmz

It will open directly in Google Earth, and at the proper zoom level will display the USGS topo maps seamlessly over the aerial imagery. It's a little sluggish, but very useful in situations like this.

[Iceaxe]

So I looked for access info on the ACA webiste

I think I found your problem :lol8:

Careful using any beta on the ACA site. Much of it is of very poor quality (some is pretty good). Problem is you never know what your getting.

And as a word of warning.... the ACA description of Tight Ass is extremely dangerous and just plain wrong. The ACA description of nasty Ass is old and now contains several major errors as conditions changed dramtically with the big floods in 2006.

Anyhoo.... my current plan is to have beta up on Baker in the next few weeks.

:popcorn:

[mrabe1979]

Anyhoo.... my current plan is to have beta up on Baker in the next few weeks.

:popcorn:

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :dropmouth:

[adrians]

Thanks so much, I'll look forward to the posting.

Adrian

[stefan]

Anyhoo.... my current plan is to have beta up on Baker in the next few weeks.


interesting ... when were you down in escalante? or are you currently planning a trip down there?

i am sure joe will be quite sad to see these go mainstream, but it's probably not the first time.

[Iceaxe]

i am sure joe will be quite sad to see these go mainstream, but it's probably not the first time.

A lot more canyons then Baker will be going mainstream..... Most like it, a few hate it.... it's not my job to make everyone happy.

:popcorn:

[CarpeyBiggs]

i am sure joe will be quite sad to see these go mainstream, but it's probably not the first time.

A lot more canyons then Baker will be going mainstream..... Most like it, a few hate it.... it's not my job to make everyone happy.

:popcorn:

Are you planning on doing both forks of Baker? I didn't think Ice was down with getting some Nasty Ass... Far from Jessica Alba... :roflol:

[Iceaxe]

You're just going to have to wait and see..... but I have a couple of really nice surprises in the works....

:banana:

[CarpeyBiggs]

What, no more cool swimming holes and indian ruins? :haha:

Just messing man, look forward to these surprises... :rockon:

[Iceaxe]

No way.... those are some of my favorite items.

A lot more hot chicks hang out at swimming holes than in Baker Canyon.

:2thumbs:

[adrians]

Mainstream? I think this exposes another set of issues.

1. Google Earth (~Terraserver) + Free Time = finding new canyons.

2. COncern: are people able to handle what they find without getting too deep into trouble?

I am afraid that without good beta and good portals to obtain that beta, we will be seeing more accidents and problems in the future as less experienced individuals get in over their heads. That's one reason I like this site and sites like Climb-Utah, becuase a relative newbie like me can get the real scoop and plan properly for what canyons to enter and which ones to stay away from until I get more experience. :nod:

So releasing beta is a chicken/egg kind of quandry.

[stefan]

Mainstream?

yes, mainstream, as in, not underground, in some sense like music, i.e., available for public consumption.



1. Google Earth (~Terraserver) + Free Time = finding new canyons.


no one is 'finding' new canyons. some are discovering, or perhaps rediscovering, routes through canyons ... but if it's been mapped, it's technically been found.



2. COncern: are people able to handle what they find without getting too deep into trouble?

I am afraid that without good beta and good portals to obtain that beta, we will be seeing more accidents and problems in the future as less experienced individuals get in over their heads. That's one reason I like this site and sites like Climb-Utah, becuase a relative newbie like me can get the real scoop and plan properly for what canyons to enter and which ones to stay away from until I get more experience.

well as far as accidents go on betaless canyons ... if someone doesn't know what to expect and isn't sure about their skills to deal with obstacles that they might come across, they shouldn't enter the canyon ... plain and simple.



So releasing beta is a chicken/egg kind of quandry.

the more people know about something, the more likely they are to abuse it or misuse it.


it's not inherently true that beta needs to be available for every canyon on the plateau, or the world for that matter. and there are plenty of reasons, depending upon whom you ask, why it shouldn't be available for every canyon ... and i do believe shane agrees with, at least, a subset of those reasons.

[Iceaxe]

and i do believe shane agrees with, at least, a subset of those reasons.

The problem lies in the widely differing opinions of what should be published and why or why not. Basically it comes down to a personal decision...

The only big problem I see is when one person makes the choice to publish it effects all of us. I also see this as the same basic issue with bolts.

:popcorn:

[adrians]

Stefan--I see it somewhat differently. There are canyons which are new --ie. not seen descents. Yes everything has been mapped out by USGS, et. al. but we are "discovering" (at least that is what I enjoy) new places--new to me and perhaps new to descents...

Look at the issue of the "author". I agree with what Shane is saying--its kind of like a bolting quandry. You publish everything and you can therefore take away the mystery of finding it for yourself. On the other hand...if you do not publish "provisional" data (meaning R or X type warning) it is highly likely that someone is going to get in way over their head. That is what I meant by chicken/ egg. damned if you do ...and damned if you dont.

[Iceaxe]

damned if you do ...and damned if you dont.

:nod:

[stefan]

Look at the issue of the "author". I agree with what Shane is saying--its kind of like a bolting quandry. You publish everything and you can therefore take away the mystery of finding it for yourself. On the other hand...if you do not publish "provisional" data (meaning R or X type warning) it is highly likely that someone is going to get in way over their head. That is what I meant by chicken/ egg. damned if you do ...and damned if you dont.

not sure if i agree. how many people are getting injured or dying in canyons without beta. it would seem to be an incredibly small number. it would also seem to be a very small number of people getting into betaless canyon, period.

as i said in my previous post, "the more people know the more they are likely to misuse or abuse" that knowledge and get in over their heads. hence beta is what is leading to more problems than the lack thereof. so i would argue that you're not really damned if you don't, except, perhaps, in the minds of the insatiable canyoneers who need more beta served up on a platter.

entering into the wrong canyon also can have consequences, but that's another topic.

as far as not publishing provisional data? well, i'll repeat it, if you're not superconfident in your ability to handle a betaless canyon, you shouldn't be in there. it's not a guidesource author's fault for not warning you. if it's "highly likely" as you suggest, then those folks aren't being intelligent. but what do i know, people jump off a buildings and hurt themselves for fun these days.

the issue, it would seem, occurs when one's abilities are not commensurate with the betaed canyon. this creates a higher likelihood of accident, that is, believing you're up for the canyon --- because of your interpretation of the available beta --- when in reality you're not prepared for it. of course there are many other reasons why accidents might occur, random occurrence, fatigue, etc.

[Iceaxe]

as i said in my previous post, "the more people know the more they are likely to misuse or abuse" that knowledge and get in over their heads.


You have anything to back this up or is this the old smoke and mirrors routine? Are you really trying to tell us that knowledge is bad???

.....oh... now I get it.... if we don't tell kids about sex we will solve teen pregancy ....And if we don't tell people about food we will solve world hunger.

:roll:

[stefan]

as i said in my previous post, "the more people know the more they are likely to misuse or abuse" that knowledge and get in over their heads.


You have anything to back this up or is this the old smoke and mirrors routine? Are you really trying to tell us that knowledge is bad???

.....oh... now I get it.... if we don't tell kids about sex we will solve teen pregancy ....And if we don't tell people about food we will solve world hunger.


nope, this is the wrong interpretation. try again, if you'd like.