Super Amazing Slots?

An enlightening offline discussion convinced me that publishing the beta on the
Dante's (Canyon's #3-#5) might be squandering a rare and valuable thing- a
natural resource that is pristine and mysterious.

I have an idea that might preserve and protect the Dante's and create a new
challenge for canyoneers.

What if the canyoneering community set aside the Dante's as a designated
exploration area? Kind of like a test for well rounded canyoneers that want the
extra challenge of the unknown? Do your own route finding, pack for the worst
etc.

Is this a foolhardy idea putting people at risk? Are these good canyons to
create a virtual exploration environment?

Obviously you can still do "show, don't tell", but it might eliminate the
"secret handshake" tension.

These Dante's ethic's that would be the only shared infromation (a very rough
draft):
The SandTrap works well in these canyons.
You must be a well rounded canyoneer, proficient in leaving no rope gooves.
These canyons are physical and dangerous.
Pack for bear and do your best to leave nothing in the canyon (especially
bolts).
Please don't share your knowledge or photos.

Is this an insane idea? Or maybe a chance to set aside an exploration preserve
(I think Tom coined this term)?

People could post a community expectation for the Dante's on their beta
websites?

Tom? Shane? Everybody? Your thoughts?

Bob

Isn't that what it is right now? At least until one of the powers of beta puts fingers to keyboard and types out a route description and gives it a dedicated place on the interwebs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

Isn't that what it is right now?

---

It depends. Only if all of the beta publishers know each other and there is a
silent agreement amongst those publishers.

I'm wondering if a page on your website explaining the Dante's might discourage
the next Slot Machine from starting another thread revealing all of the secrets
of the Dante's?

Bob

Hi all,

I've been following this thread since it started and it has finally pushed me to register and become a bogley member. I just have a few thoughts on this topic.

In a world dominated by one species as destructive as the human race, there are things that should be preserved. This preservation needs active involvement to be achieved. The only reason The Wave is still so wonderful is because of the protection of the permit system. However, many canyons do not fall under the protection of the government. Many wonderful, beautiful slots lie outside national parks and reserves. I hate that I cannot go anywhere in the world and not see the work, or rather damage of man. The world is getting smaller with faster transportation and ever available information. Because the canyoneering community has no set, agreed upon code of ethics someone needs take the responsibility of preserving these works of art. I believe that the "Show, don't tell" method takes this responsibility on.

There are obviously some sore spots among members of the canyoneering community concerning the "Show, don't tell" method. The problem with this method is that it creates an "us" and "them" mentality. People feel left out. However, if we can more efficiently use the web to create a more united community, this method could become a good way to train new canyoneers, decreasing injuries and deaths, and useful in creating a universal code of ethics, preserving the art now and in the future.

If we, as a community, could create a forum or something of the sort where people could sign up to do "Show, don't tell" canyons more openly then it could help unify. If I wanted to descend Inferno or one of the many other "secret" canyons, I should be able to post somewhere on this fancy Interweb, "I want to hike Inferno, will someone show me?" And after I have been shown I should be able to show someone else because I have been trained by someone who has good canyon ethics. I understand that this is kind of how the system currently works, but it needs to be more readily available and public.

My last thought is that we all need to treat each other with respect. None of this would have happened if SaraT was asked to remove her pictures in a respectful manner. Obviously I don't know exactly how everything when down, but if we all firstly assume a misunderstanding has occurred instead of purposeful wrong doing a lot of unnecessary conflict can be avoided.

Steph

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simple

Because the canyoneering community has no set, agreed upon code of ethics someone needs take the responsibility of preserving these works of art. I believe that the "Show, don't tell" method takes this responsibility on.

---

Great first post. :2thumbs:

For those playing along at home.... the canyoneering community has already established several routes that fall into this type of special category for various reasons. probably the two most well known are Lomatium and Krill. To date a route had to have a legitimate reason respected by most/all for having such a lofty status bestowed upon it.

I would be curious to hear the reasons that Canyons #3-#5 should receive this type of designation?

I find the idea of a "training ground" of unbetaed canyons intriguing, that would help the entire community up their game (get some skills). My problem with "show don't tell" is that is really not what you are doing. Instead of a printed paint by numbers route guide you are just dragging your breathing beta supply along with you.


:popcorn:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

Great first post. :2thumbs:

For those playing along at home.... the canyoneering community has already established several routes that fall into this type of special category for various reasons. probably the two most well known are Lomatium and Krill. To date a route had to have a legitimate reason respected by most/all for having such a lofty status bestowed upon it.

I would be curious to hear the reasons that Canyons #3-#5 should receive this type of designation?

I find the idea of a "training ground" of unbetaed canyons intriguing, that would help the entire community up their game (get some skills). My problem with "show don't tell" is that is really not what you are doing. Instead of a printed paint by numbers route guide you are just dragging your breathing beta supply along with you.


:popcorn:

---

Lomatium and Krill are good examples, because the access is so tenuous. The best reason I can think of for these canyons might find that status is because they are poised to be used in that way already, if the community is serious about experimenting with a new way to occasionally share canyons


I have a suggestion to adress one of your concerns .....It is a long running policy, among my many partners, that people who have not been in the canyon before, get the lead. In fact if you have been before, then grab the lead, someone will likely call you out on it. A nice policy. "Show but don't tell" canyons have a long history of placing the problem solving in the hands of the folks being 'shown." Those in the canyon for the first time can and do ask for help sometimes. Sometimes time pressure or a nasty silo might mitigate, but vast majority of the time, on trips I am on, the lead and the problem solving is given to those who have not been before. Others may like this approach.
ram

I use that technique most of the time with my kids.... they are gaining skills very fast with that approach. :2thumbs:

But still, having your breathing beta (or dad) along is not even close to the same thing as an exploration. Let's see if I can figure out the problem is an entirely different animal from I have to figure out the problem.

FWIW: I see no problem with giving the "training ground" a try, worse that can happen is it doesn't work.

Just food for thought.... :popcorn:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

I find the idea of a "training ground" of unbetaed canyons intriguing, that would help the entire community up their game (get some skills). My problem with "show don't tell" is that is really not what you are doing. Instead of a printed paint by numbers route guide you are just dragging your breathing beta supply along with you.

---

the difference is, the people who are being shown don't know what's there yet. they only know as much has been shared with them, if anything at all. with beta, the features are all published and reviewable, so it's totally paint by numbers. you know every move before you set foot in the canyon.

however, if someone shows you, often the canyon is "revealed" as you go. they will probably know the rope length, and wetsuit requirements, but if you are ghosting, they probably don't know anything else. you don't tell people the solutions to the puzzle before you get there. solving them is half the fun.

really, the two approaches are hardly comparable. and, usually you've done a few canyons with the other person, so they (or you, if you are doing the showing) know when the skills are there for a more advanced canyon, especially an unpublished one that might throw a curve ball or two.

You must have missed this.... "having your breathing beta (or dad) along is not even close to the same thing as an exploration. Let's see if I can figure out the problem is an entirely different animal from I have to figure out the problem."


One version has a pucker factor of 10, one has a pucker factor of 2. And pucker factor is really the big difference in exploring the unknown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

You must have missed this.... "having your breathing beta (or dad) along is not even close to the same thing as an exploration. Let's see if I can figure out the problem is an entirely different animal from I have to figure out the problem."


One version has a pucker factor of 10, one has a pucker factor of 2. And pucker factor is really the big difference in exploring the unknown.

---

Want the pucker factor back in a canyon you know? Watch....or don't watch your daughter doing her first silo. It doesn't get much better with the 2nd and 3rd silo either. Sometimes knowing what is ahead can be just as bad, perhaps worse. What are ya gonna do? She wants the places and you think she has trained up erough and paid the dues. Proof is in the doing. I won't go on Facebook because I don't want to know what my son Aaron is doing these days. There are canyons I take folks where I am plenty scared knowing what is coming.
Ram

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RAM

Want the pucker factor back in a canyon you know? Watch....or don't watch your daughter doing her first silo. It doesn't get much better with the 2nd and 3rd silo either. Sometimes knowing what is ahead can be just as bad, perhaps worse. What are ya gonna do? She wants the places and you think she has trained up erough and paid the dues.

---

Don't I know it!

This kid stuff scares the snot outta me... :jaw-dropping:

But you don't get tamed ducks from wild duck eggs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CarpeyBiggs

the difference is, the people who are being shown don't know what's there yet. they only know as much has been shared with them, if anything at all. with beta, the features are all published and reviewable, so it's totally paint by numbers. you know every move before you set foot in the canyon.

---

Agreed. How to use an unpublished canyon is up to the user, obviously. Training
ground, show don't tell, exploration experience, all seem like good uses of
these canyons. But what is the best way to keep the details of these canyons
unpublished, now that many people know about them? Do the beta publishers
acknowledge their existence and ask people to keep details quiet? Shane?

Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slot Machine

Agreed. How to use an unpublished canyon is up to the user, obviously. Training ground, show don't tell, exploration experience, all seem like good uses of these canyons. But what is the best way to keep the details of these canyons unpublished, now that many people know about them? Do the beta publisher’s acknowledge their existence and ask people to keep deatails quiet? Shane?

Bob

---

Hmm..I dunno if that's the solution either.

IE - there plenty of canyons detailed in books that aren't published online (Kelsey) and yet when I visit these canyons there is not a soul around, yet Kelsey gives the beta freely and comprehensively. So the beta is there - so perhaps the difficulty of these canyons is what scare most people away (thus in great condition for my group and I)?

Even in Martins book for AZ, plenty of beta published, very very very rarely seen anyone else.

On second thought, these canyons may not be a 5/5 for every one but they are in prime condition; no bolts, tiny rope grooves (if any), and lots of fun!

I'm half for publishing and half for not-publishing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slot Machine

Agreed. How to use an unpublished canyon is up to the user, obviously. Training ground, show don't tell, exploration experience, all seem like good uses of these canyons. But what is the best way to keep the details of these canyons unpublished, now that many people know about them? Do the beta publisher’s acknowledge their existence and ask people to keep details quiet? Shane?

Bob

---

I am a little confused, Bob, because I don't see much of a difference between what you are proposing and what we have already. Perhaps you could clarify what is different and new...

The 'system' we have now is:

1. Each beta publisher makes their own choices about what to publish and what not. And they publish or not.

2. People interested in doing canyons without beta go out and do them. And they publish or not.

3. People who want beta on canyons that are not published ask on the interwebs, and may or may not get provided information at the level of detail they wish.

4. People who want beta on canyons that are not published ask on the interwebs, get contacted privately, and either accept or don't accept a conditional offer.

What are you proposing that is different than this system?

Tom

Hey, big kudos to Slot Machine, Steph, and others for being open to alternative approaches to the "us vs. us" problem. It's great to see some convergent movement in this thread - keep it up!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ratagonia

I am a little confused, Bob, because I don't see much of a difference between what you are proposing and what we have already. Perhaps you could clarify what is different and new...

The 'system' we have now is:

1. Each beta publisher makes their own choices about what to publish and what not. And they publish or not.

2. People interested in doing canyons without beta go out and do them. And they publish or not.

3. People who want beta on canyons that are not published ask on the interwebs, and may or may not get provided information at the level of detail they wish.

4. People who want beta on canyons that are not published ask on the interwebs, get contacted privately, and either accept or don't accept a conditional offer.

What are you proposing that is different than this system?

Tom

---

Tom,

I might have been unclear before, I am only talking about The Dante's.

I'm proposing treating The Dante's in a new different way. Let's say all the
beta publishers post on their respective websites that The Dante's are an
exploration preserve along with a set of standards for how the preserve is to be
treated. (see my post at the top of this page)

It seems if another Slot Machine comes along and publishes beta on Dante's you
would be pretty disappointed. It seems you have shared something special with a
bunch of people and would like to continue that tradition of treating friends to
a mysterious canyon. Why not make an attempt at keeping this place clean and
mysterious?

Maybe an ethic against posting Dante's beta on the interwebs? An ethic that
every canyoneer knows about?

The Dante's beta will get published very soon if no expectation is set. But if
you don't care, then it's a waste of my time to care.

Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slot Machine

Maybe an ethic against posting Dante's beta on the interwebs? An ethic that every canyoneer knows about?

The Dante's beta will get published very soon if no expectation is set. But if you don't care, then it's a waste of my time to care.

Bob

---

:gents: That has to be the best way to avoid all of this crap that seems to come up every time someone talks about someone else "secret canyon"... they are not secret so lets just acknowledge that they exist and try to turn them into preserves. Then the next time someone comes on and posts like Bob did it won't be 5 pages of :argue: Instead Tom can pipe in with "That canyon is one of what we call a preserve, a no beta on the internet, go do it, go loaded for bear, Don't bolt the damn thing" and enjoy :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slot Machine

Tom,

I might have been unclear before, I am only talking about The Dante's.

I'm proposing treating The Dante's in a new different way. Let's say all the beta publishers post on their respective websites that The Dante's are an exploration preserve along with a set of standards for how the preserve is to be treated. (see my post at the top of this page)

It seems if another Slot Machine comes along and publishes beta on Dante's you would be pretty disappointed. It seems you have shared something special with a bunch of people and would like to continue that tradition of treating friends to a mysterious canyon. Why not make an attempt at keeping this place clean and mysterious?

Maybe an ethic against posting Dante's beta on the interwebs? An ethic that every canyoneer knows about?

The Dante's beta will get published very soon if no expectation is set. But if you don't care, then it's a waste of my time to care.

Bob

---

It sounds like a fun experiment. So where from here? First off, the "Author" would need to remain blissfully ignorant. I don't believe he would ever agree to the idea of an exploration preserve. What works in our favor is that the book he would publish these canyons in came out pretty recently, he doesn't plan a general guide anytime soon and he dismissed these canyons as being too short when a member of the community asked him about it years ago.

I don't think it is up to Tom. He has been out there for years without publishing. I think it may come down to what Shane wants to do with these canyons. No effort to create the idea of a preserve is possible, without him leading the effort.
Ram

blank

It has been fascinating to read through this thread, and see where it has gone. The preserve concept is interesting and I hope there can be success with it. In fact, I hope the concept (or something similar) can be applied to other locations on the Colorado Plateau. Now, I like beta as much as anyone else; my bookshelf attests to this. I've spent way too much time dinking around the interwebs groping for data. But there is now a lot of info out there. Anyone finish off every canyon in Kelsey's 2nd edition? Heck, not even Mr. Kelsey has done every canyon in his book. I could spend the rest of my canyon days just sticking to beta'd routes.

But as a number of people - MSchasch, Penmartens, Iceaxe, to name a few - have mentioned, exploring is something special. Am I much of an explorer myself - nahhh, not really, but the concept appeals. Seems like “undocumented terrain/canyons” are a finite and dwindling resource, maybe something that should be preserved or saved at some point? I know not everyone feels this way, or has an interest in exploration. But maybe some compromise is in order? Naive and unlikely, perhaps, but just a thought.

So to folks interested in this "Dante" area, or other off-the-radar areas, I say: Go explore! Be safe, be clean, have fun, AND leave the experience you have available for others.

-john

blank

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RAM

It sounds like a fun experiment. So where from here? First off, the "Author" would need to remain blissfully ignorant. I don't believe he would ever agree to the idea of an exploration preserve. What works in our favor is that the book he would publish these canyons in came out pretty recently, he doesn't plan a general guide anytime soon and he dismissed these canyons as being too short when a member of the community asked him about it years ago.

I don't think it is up to Tom. He has been out there for years without publishing. I think it may come down to what Shane wants to do with these canyons. No effort to create the idea of a preserve is possible, without him leading the effort.
Ram

---

I don't have much time to respond at the moment, but so far I like the idea of a preserve. I have been reading the posts with an open mind and I'm interested in thoughts on how it should be defined and what the "rules" should be.

Brainstorm away!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RAM

I don't think it is up to Tom. He has been out there for years without publishing. I think it may come down to what Shane wants to do with these canyons. No effort to create the idea of a preserve is possible, without him leading the effort.
Ram

---

I hope everyone supports the idea. Thanks for your input Mr Ram.

Today I found a nice story about Dante's Inferno:

http://www.math.utah.edu/~sfolias/canyontales/tale/?i=inferno

Is it just me or is there a lot of beta in this story?

Yeah Bro, I found it while using tons of my free time for canyon internet
investigation. That is time I probably should be using for doing canyons or
something. :haha:

Bob

I am actually surprised that this post wasn't dusted off earlier. One concern I have in having a list of "preserved" canyons, is that any list is going to generate interest. I think for the folks keeping lists of secret canyons, they are going to have to balance being accommodating vs the reality that "loose lips sink ships." So in theory telling people that such and such a canyon is a ghost only canyon without other beta will never be as good as simply not even discussing a canyon on the interwebs. If you seriously want to protect these canyons, this entire thread and the math.utah.edu link should be removed from the Internet. Discussions of these "show but don't tell" canyons should really be in person, by phone, or by private message, IMO. I know that may not be a popular attitude but talking about a canyon will not guarantee the preservation of a canyon. There should be an understanding that threads on certain canyons will not be tolerated by the canyoneering community. Unfortunately I think that level of discipline is needed to truly protect these canyons.

Ken

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spinesnaper

If you seriously want to protect these canyons, this entire thread and the math.utah.edu link should be removed from the Internet.

---

If you really want to see a crap storm just moderate a thread on Bogley and watch it hit the fan... the funny part is a couple of those screaming keep it secret the hardest are the same individuals that have bitch the loudest in the past when a thread has been moderated for similarly principled reasons.

I'm not taking a side at the moment... just pointing out that you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

If you really want to see a crap storm just moderate a thread on Bogley and watch it hit the fan... the funny part is a couple of those screaming keep it secret the hardest are the same individuals that have bitch the loudest in the past when a thread has been moderated for similarly principled reasons.

I'm not taking a side at the moment... just pointing out that you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

---

Shane

If it wasn't a conundrum, it wouldn't be nearly as entertaining. Of course the hypocrisy runs even deeper because some of the A-team trip reports do seem to have the chest beating, how great am I quality even if the original authors did not intend the post to have that flavor ( and yes I am as guilty as anyone by reading and enjoying these blogs). They bait enterprising canyoneers to repeat these feats so they too can bask in greatness. (OK, maybe I have gone a bit overboard here.) Just remember that PR = increased profile. Next thing you know someone will be spray painting graffiti, putting up bolt gardens, leaving slings and body parts in your favorite, heretofore undespoiled, pristine canyon. So the canyoneering communities' leadership needs to come up with some sort of solution that helps keep these canyons on the down-low. Having a big thread about unbetaed canyons just does not seem like the ideal solution.

Ken

blank

Great pic Tom. Do you have one that shows the whole pothole? Just curious to see a pic zoomed out a bit.

So the canyoneering communities' leadership needs to come up with some sort of
solution that helps keep these canyons on the down-low. Having a big thread
about unbetaed canyon just does not seem like the idea solution.
Ken

Good point Ken.

It appears Tom no longer cares if it kept a secret (since photos are being
shared).

Maybe at this point setting aside a preserve is like expecting water to flow up
uphill.

Thanks Tom for sharing the photo. GREAT traverse Dave :hail2thechief:.

Bob

post deleted by author

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hank moon

Here's one...showing Tom taking the previous :)

---

Thanks Hank! Awesome shot. Looks like a pristine place!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spinesnaper

Shane

If it wasn't a conundrum, it wouldn't be nearly as entertaining. Of course the hypocrisy runs even deeper because some of the A-team trip reports do seem to have the chest beating, how great am I quality even if the original authors did not intend the post to have that flavor ( and yes I am as guilty as anyone by reading and enjoying these blogs). They bait enterprising canyoneers to repeat these feats so they too can bask in greatness. (OK, maybe I have gone a bit overboard here.) Just remember that PR = increased profile. Next thing you know someone will be spray painting graffiti, putting up bolt gardens, leaving slings and body parts in your favorite, heretofore undespoiled, pristine canyon. So the canyoneering communities' leadership needs to come up with some sort of solution that helps keep these canyons on the down-low. Having a big thread about unbetaed canyon just does not seem like the idea solution.

Ken

---

Hank has a good idea perhaps. Delete all this. Also take down all the other info.....As far as the story is concerned it struck me as not being so much chest beating as airing dirty laundry, in this case the tension, conflict, inefficiencies, fear. I thought the crew brave to bare themselves in this manner....Yes much beta in the story......but......no one knows which of the 6 or 7 drainages it is, do they? :naughty:
R

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RAM

Hank has a good idea perhaps. Delete all this. Also take down all the other info.....As far as the story is concerned it struck me as not being so much chest beating as airing dirty laundry, in this case the tension, conflict, inefficiencies, fear. I thought the crew brave to bare themselves in this manner....Yes much beta in the story......but......no one knows which of the 6 or 7 drainages it is, do they? :naughty:
R

---

Ram

I really didn't mean to pick on that particular story. I loved reading it and personally I didn't feel compelled to go search the Earth and retrace this canyon. Although I must say the photos are intriguing. Although this thread has been viewed over 4000 times, that is just 180 people looking at it 22 times each. I think Slot Machine has gotten the beta he was looking for and then some. So I think this thread could be aced as if it never existed. Those who needed this thread have gotten what they needed and the community will be supporting the effort to protect these canyons. Those who complain about the missing thread will be asked to stand in line at the Zion Backcountry desk in mid August and ponder the ad hoc conservation effort while they wait for a Subway or Mystery permit.:lol8:

blank

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slot Machine

I believe Shane is still on the fence but open to the idea of a preserve.

---

I'm on board with a preserve... depending on exactly what that entails.... it would probably be more accurate to say I'm on board with the idea of a preserve. It's certainly an interesting concept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slot Machine

This seems like an excellent approach, but would need everyone's support. I believe Shane is still on the fence but open to the idea of a preserve. I am open to the idea of deleting this thread, although some very good ideas would vanish into the ether.

Tom, I think everyone would appreciate hearing your thoughts about a preserve. I don't think it can happen without Tom's support.

Bob

---

We already have preserves. Reviewing the canyons I did last year, I see about a third of my canyon time is spent in un-published canyons. Looking through the last couple years of Raves, about the same, and sometimes I give full beta on the new canyon, though not bringing it onto Tom's Canyoneering Guide. I expect to maintain this policy, as I consider breaking new canyons to the public, outside Zion, is Shane's job, and I don't want to tread on his toes, nor attempt to compete with him.

Your proposal is to have a publicly-declared preserve, and I think the idea has a great deal of merit. I am skeptical it can work, however, but I am certainly willing to give it a try. I think there are better places to give it a try than the Dante's, but that is the bag that is open with the cats running around our ankles.

Perhaps, Bob, you would clarify what the proposed agreement is, as you see it?

I understand the negative action: not publish "full beta" on these canyons.

But I do not want to publish anything on these canyons on my website, even just a declaration of a preserve zone, WHERE it is, and a suggestion that people should not publish information on these canyons. I realize the WHERE is available publicly, here on this thread for the first time... this is what I am most uncomfortable with, drawing more attention to this area. Obviously it is a good little area, or we wouldn't be gettin' all jiggy about it... but it's not that good.

The problem I see is that the agreement is between X group of people, but with public availability of limited beta, another group of people Y are also involved, without actually agreeing to it. Like Mr. K., but others too, less famous. So I would not expect it to take too long for the agreement to be blown, and this sweet, clean little area becomes popular and chewed up. In a way, declaring an area a "preserve" seems like it would mark an area as a sacrifice area, just not right away. But it starts the clock ticking.

I'm not against canyons becoming popular, I'm actually in favor of it. But not ALL canyons. There is a certain irony here that this set of canyons has now been "outed" by people who have not even done them. I'm not saying you were "wrong" at any point in this process, Bob, just that you put us in kind of a crazy place.

Yes, as the arc of history bends towards justice, the arc of beta bends toward all canyons being published, beta'd, popular, bolted, trashed. Shane is our partner in keeping the bolts out of the canyons - thank you, Sir Ice. My opinion, elitist as it may be, is that there are enough canyons out there with beta to keep people busy for many years. And people who are interested in doing canyons without beta are certainly welcome to do so. It just seems peculiar to ask for beta on canyons that are not beta'd... and decline a private conversation that would have made that available to you.

So it comes full circle. The only way Bob would know that these canyons have been done but are deliberately not-public is to ask in a public place. Which he did. And then he declined my offer for a non-public discussion (was I really that obnoxious?), which is certainly his right. In the past, few of those offers have been declined, people go with us and do some canyons, and become part of our community or not. I am sad that this did not happen in this case.

So, yes, I can agree to not publish any more beta than has already been published. I can agree to publish that this particular area is a "preserve", but I would prefer not to. I think it draws too much attention to the area. There are other areas I would rather give up, like Little Gem Canyon, ( http://www.summitpost.org/little-gem...st-fork/152117 ), Ireland Mesa Canyon or Hidden Plus One.

Did I talk that around in circles twice? My head is spinning; might be the scotch. :cool2:

Tom :moses:

And the minute these canyons are listed publicly as "sacred cows" the Gold rush will be on...........

My question to the group--why does anything have to change?

A stark reality is that eventually this complex and many others will be broadbanded, thats a reality.

How we choose to slow or expedite this inevitable transition is up to us.

Plastering anything with the "sacred cow" moniker only draws interest by those who would otherwise not have any.( I use GSENM as my prime example)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldno7

Plastering anything with the "sacred cow" moniker only draws interest by those who would otherwise not have any.( I use GSENM as my prime example)

---

Exactly Kurt! That's why I have beef with someone posting pics of these gems and going "nah nah nah nah nah, lok where I have been and you haven't". Even if its not explicitly said quite like that, the rest of us feel left out. Hence the inquisitive minds.

If you post teasers of canyons, caves, etc. expect to be bombarded with location questions. That should not come as a surprise. Just being captain obvious here - but it seems like a few haven't learned that reality yet...

The ‘A Team’ has been, and is today, a broad and dynamic collection of people. Tom and Ram are the only consistent members. Most members are around for a few trips, or a few years, and then move on having matured into skilled canyoneers who think, act, and adventure in their own style. Each canyon can have its own unique ‘A Team’.
In the case of the Dante’s, the members of the ‘A team’ that first went in to explore gave their word to each other, equally, notwithstanding the fame of some, each having taken risks on that day, that they would not mention the Dante’s to the community. That these would be ‘show, not tell’ canyons.
When is an anchor not an anchor? When it fails, it is not an anchor.
When is an agreement not an agreement? When pictures and beta are given publicly to the community with the goal of bullying, flaunting, taunting, and/or manipulating, it breaks the agreement.
Half of the ‘A team’ unique to the Dante’s has broken the agreement. It is null and void. I no longer feel bound by an honorable agreement. I will not stand by and be part of bullying, deceit, and manipulation. It is against the moral standards by which I guide my entire life, not just the recreational sport of canyoneering.
I wonder how the other ‘hundreds’ are feeling, having bargained in good faith.
Penny

:facepalm1: Geez guys, these poor canyons are going to be committeed to death. Just frigging delete the thread. OK some of our really smart comments will disappear into the void. I for one do not believe for a minute that it is enough to advertise the existence of these canyon but set ground rules for the canyon. Many may respect that but it is still traffic. Unless these threads are taken down, it is inevitable that these particular canyons will see much more traffic and I suspect that with the proliferation of beta sites, someone will spill the beans.

I think on an other thread, it might be very interesting to talk about how "new' canyons are introduced to the public eye, what canyons are promoted and why, and how effective posting local ethics are in maintaining a particular canyon. I do agree that it would be very interesting to having an understanding that this might include a category of canyons without beta. Should Dante be one of these canyons? I think it is likely that the other canyons in this system will also see increased traffic.

Ken