ratagonia
02-02-2012, 11:33 AM
Yes, yes I did and I stand by those statements. I think we all know that these canyons will change in character as they are popularized. Will it be the death of a canyon? Sure blogospheric hyperbole to make the point regarding how a wild canyon changes with human impact. We can have a debate about whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. The inherent contradiction is that I am involved in canyoneering in no small measure because of the success of forums like this. I am sure that is true for many canyoneers. At the same time I can understand the reluctance of certain canyoneers to spill the beans and share information on canyons as a way of preserving wild places. The irony is that in many cases it appears that the canyoneers most actively involved in promoting and in many cases profiting from the growth in canyoneering are also the ones weighing what information to disseminate.
The conflict of interest is obvious.
Ken
I fail to see what the conflict of interest is, Ken.
There are plenty of canyons for people to do out there, plenty with published information, plenty without. I think there should be a balance, and I think the current balance is about right.
I have the most at stake, financially, of the players here.
Canyoneering is growing just fine, thanks. Publishing more canyons is not necessary for canyoneering to grow, at least, publishing more canyons in an already target-rich environment. Certainly publishing more canyons near Las Vegas will spur growth there, but there are many, many canyons published in Utah, so publishing more is not likely to increase growth of the sport here.
As you pointed out, there are many, many canyons in Mr. K's book that are pretty close to un-visited, despite being 'published'.
What I see is that people publish or don't publish based on their philosophy, with very little attention to their personal finances involved.
You might consider Shane an exception, but it is clear that Shane does quite well at his day job, and the little bit of 'income' he gets from pay-for-play is rather beside the point. If his interest was money, he would redirect the time and energy he spends on his website to working harder at his dayjob.
As in hypocrisy, conflict of interest is in the mind of the beholder.
Tom :moses:
The conflict of interest is obvious.
Ken
I fail to see what the conflict of interest is, Ken.
There are plenty of canyons for people to do out there, plenty with published information, plenty without. I think there should be a balance, and I think the current balance is about right.
I have the most at stake, financially, of the players here.
Canyoneering is growing just fine, thanks. Publishing more canyons is not necessary for canyoneering to grow, at least, publishing more canyons in an already target-rich environment. Certainly publishing more canyons near Las Vegas will spur growth there, but there are many, many canyons published in Utah, so publishing more is not likely to increase growth of the sport here.
As you pointed out, there are many, many canyons in Mr. K's book that are pretty close to un-visited, despite being 'published'.
What I see is that people publish or don't publish based on their philosophy, with very little attention to their personal finances involved.
You might consider Shane an exception, but it is clear that Shane does quite well at his day job, and the little bit of 'income' he gets from pay-for-play is rather beside the point. If his interest was money, he would redirect the time and energy he spends on his website to working harder at his dayjob.
As in hypocrisy, conflict of interest is in the mind of the beholder.
Tom :moses: