Non-Technical Canyon Hiking Guide to the Colorado Plateau

[stefan]

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]

Big Tony.... Tony the Tiger.... Frosted Flakes, their greeeeaaattt

I get it now

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

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

[stefan]

cool, ice! the SAR argument is a very good one for including the names.

[Scott P]

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).

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Scott P]

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.

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. 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]

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]

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?

[Iceaxe]

My last word on this..... I don

[Scott P]

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]

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?

[Iceaxe]

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.

[Scott P]

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]

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]

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.

[Iceaxe]

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.

[Scott P]

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! ), 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.