blank
Printable View
blank
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by RAM
Brainstorm away!
I hope everyone supports the idea. Thanks for your input Mr Ram.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by spinesnaper
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.
ShaneQuote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
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
Thanks Hank! Awesome shot. Looks like a pristine place!Quote:
Originally Posted by hank moon
Quote:
Originally Posted by spinesnaper
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
RamQuote:
Originally Posted by 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
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slot Machine
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)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
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