Non-Technical Canyon Hiking Guide to the Colorado Plateau

[Iceaxe]

He doesn't like names like Leprechaun because it has "nothing to do with the West".

What exactly does Mile Marker Canyon 25.1 have to do with the ol' west?!?!

Perhaps MK better do a little more research and find out where the Leprechaun name came from, he might be surprised.

Hint: it has major ties to Silverton Colorado, can't get much more ol' west then that ;-)

I try to know the history of every canyon name on my website. Many of the stories behind the names are very intriguing. I also believe this is why a new route sometimes goes through several names until one that fits is found. I understand completely why 1st and 2nd canyon didn't stick as names. To begin with, these were not the 1st and 2nd canyon. They were in the middle of a string of canyons. The name doesn't always go to first to publish.... the name often goes to the first to publish a name that fits.

Have you pointed out this by chance? He might change it in future editions.

I assume if MK wants me to proof his books he will send me an advance copy.

[Scott P]

What exactly does Mile Marker Canyon 25.1 have to do with the ol' west?!?!

Nothing, but generic. In his defence on this one, I believe before he was a COF member he claimed to not know which canyon was which back then. For his next book, I think he should include all the now known names, especially since the mile post have all changed and are no more applicable!

Perhaps MK better do a little more research and find out where the Leprechaun name came from, he might be surprised.

I believe I told him once.

To begin with, these were not the 1st and 2nd canyon. They were in the middle of a string of canyons. The name doesn't always go to first to publish.... the name often goes to the first to publish a name that fits.

Personally, I would still go with the first name published unless offensive for some reason (for example in CO, Peckers Dick was renamed Dickers Peck to avoid too much offence). I can think of many names that don't fit in my eyes. Mind Bender is one. Since I am a civil engineer, I always associate bending with metal. Metal sounds like it should be bolted. Don't know why, but I really do not like the MB name for the canyon, but like some of the other names given.

Have you pointed out this by chance? He might change it in future editions.

I assume if MK wants me to proof his books he will send me an advance copy.

Actually, I think this would be a good idea to send a draft to several people since it's too late after the fact. I really like and enjoy MK's books, but on one trip I have joked with him that I am publishing my own book called "Kelsey's Corrections". Most of the book is accurate, and I recommend the book, but there are a few errors or updates.

Also, I believe that MK is coming up with his own website where people can post additions/corrections to any route desciption, and he will look them all over and keep people updated. Could be a good place to post the a.k.a.'s.

[stefan]

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?

you probably have a good point about grotto, neon, icabod, hydra, that is about changing them and their not being routes but canyons. not gonna touch it.

Okay, as far as GDJ,HDH,KnottedRope,Squeeze go, i am getting a little lost here....are you asking about what protocol should be followed in how a technical route should be referenced? well, part of the point i was rasing was about "establishing" vs. "publishing." i DO know the SA established, by my definition, ALL of those canyons well before MRK, in fact MRK still hasn't done HDH or GDJ. technically you could argue that MRK is naming the canyon in which the slot resides while SA is naming the route/canyon.

are we really trying to resolve this? it seems to me that what you have is to opposing forces which are powerhorses. you have MRK, someone who publishes, describes and names in his own way...he reaches an incredibly large and more mainstream audience and establishes in print. VS a community of people who are either quite or super focused on canyoneering, who either care about those who established routes and the names they gave or at the least continue to propagate them as they repeatedly hear about them or know of them published more exclusively elsewhere, and who may actually like the mystique of the underground notion these names carry with them.

will there be a resolution? doubt it, but i like the idea that each side recognize the other in the AKA format, definitely for the purposes of SAR/sheriff, if not for general readership awareness/historical purposes.

yes confusion can ensue with the practices of naming and renaming. but in some sense, i think maps and good descriptions eliminate this, and can allow for a facilitation of description within a text, especially in the case of terms like "exit canyon."

yeah, i am sure some ego and/or rivalry is involved too...they're only human.


as far as ding/dang, SA references MRK's swell guide in his swell book. so i am sure he knew about them.

[Scott P]

Okay, as far as GDJ,HDH,KnottedRope,Squeeze go, i am getting a little lost here....are you asking about what protocol should be followed in how a technical route should be referenced? well, part of the point i was rasing was about "establishing" vs. "publishing." i DO know the SA established, by my definition, ALL of those canyons well before MRK, in fact MRK still hasn't done HDH or GDJ. technically you could argue that MRK is naming the canyon in which the slot resides while SA is naming the route/canyon.

My question was where the line is drawn between a canyon name and a route name, and if technical sections of canyons should have different route names from the already established canyon names.

MK first published East Fork Sevenmile Canyon non-techincal section in 1988. The technical sections were much later published in 2006 (18 years later) under HDH and GDJ.

SA first published The Squeeze in 1992. The technical section of the canyon was published in 1998 (6 years later) under Segars Hole.

SA first published Knotted Rope in 1992. The technical section of the canyon was published in 1998 (6 years later) under Miners Hollow.

The same could be said for Sleepy Hollow and FF and BTF.

My question was when does a technical route name become a canyon name and vice versa? To me, the line is blurred rather than clear.

I also believe at least some of the renaming is due to secrecy (Shane, what do you think?). If trip reports and beta for HDH and GDJ were published under EFSM, everyone would know where it is, and the location wouldn't be secret. If FF was published under Sleepy Hollow, everyone would know what canyon was being talked about, thus FF is used when posting TR's to hide the identity. At least, that's what I think. I have done the same thing to an extent too.

Once something gets published, however, hiding identity becomes pointless. In that case, going with the eariest known or published name makes the most sense to me, even if "lame" or "doesn't fit". First and Second are a good example. Some believe the names do not fit. Maybe so. On the other hand, look at Knotted Rope. It doesn't fit at all either because the Knotted Rope the canyon was named for was never in the canyon itself, but in an entire different drainage.

are we really trying to resolve this?

No, just discussing it. I seriously doubt anything we could say here would resolve the issue at hand.

Anyone mind if I post some of this to the canyons group for discussion?

[stefan]

My question was where the line is drawn between a canyon name and a route name, and if technical sections of canyons should have different route names from the already established canyon names.

i agree it's blurred...i all too much depends on the canyon and the people involved.

how bout this scott, all over the place you see canyons whose creeks are named differently from the canyon it is in...sometimes it's helpful because the same creek passes through many different canyons....some times it doesn't. routes and canyons can have different names, or they can have the same name....there will be blurred examples and clear cut examples, and that's just the way it's gonna be...just like a species of tree can have many different common names.

now let me ask you this scott, cause you still haven't addressed my "establish" vs "publish" issue. whether or not MRK knew or didn't know that SA had already established the squeeze/knotted rope before him, he would create his own names regardless, because he doesn't believe in the way others have been naming canyons/routes. he's viewing the fact that he's publishing the route for the first time as his opportunity to give it a proper name....which is fine, that's his right. but, probably for many reasons, he's not getting involved with the history of those who have done these canyons first and including the names that they used in the process, IF SUCH NAMES have continued to be used within the canyoneering community. you might consider this interesting, given how involved he gets with history, but he has his reasons, i am sure. i think this is the point of issue, if you respect this whole "who established (not necessarily published) first and adhere to their naming," then you follow that path, otherwise you do something different.

now just because MRK published them first do NOT mean everyone needs to conform to his names. EFSM....he may have named the drainage, but there are TWO FORKS...what's wrong with having HDH and GDJ describing the routes down each fork? if MRK wants to call them east fork and west fork of ESM, AKA HDH and GDJ....i think this is a happy medium. shane's maintaining the (arguably) most well know names for those canyons, and he's giving a more canyon-centric naming.

My question was when does a technical route name become a canyon name and vice versa? To me, the line is blurred rather than clear.

my claim was that how it becomes a route/cyn name is blurred as well as the route and canyon names themselves. it all depends, and maybe we shouldn't be too crazed by it. however one wants to view the reason for 2 or more names is up to them, we can't get into blanket statements when there is a spectrum...but what we can do, is provide the HISTORY of when such canyons were descended, how they were named and in what capacity they were named...

SCOTT, why don't you set up a website of the history of the descending/naming of slot canyons. add your own beta to canyons if you feel like it, but you could definitely provide some interesting information for people. i'd be definitely interested in it as a soure, AND you just *may* get people giving you more information than they previously have been willing to give, since YOUR information that you are broadcasting may be incomplete

I also believe at least some of the renaming is due to secrecy (Shane, what do you think?). If trip reports and beta for HDH and GDJ were published under EFSM, everyone would know where it is, and the location wouldn't be secret. If FF was published under Sleepy Hollow, everyone would know what canyon was being talked about, thus FF is used when posting TR's to hide the identity.

of course, only to some extent though... i mean i think there could be equally meaningful or parallel reasons. i mean, okay, in the context of FF or "my fault" and "your fault" the reason was PURELY to hide the names. on the other hand, while SA and anyone else who's named canyons may have had this "hiding" notion in mind, they equally may like to name their "routes," as they establish them, and to give colorful character to such routes/slots/cyns to remember and identify them. again there are two forks of EFSM...they need different names to distinguish them...how one decides which way to go is their prerogative.

Once something gets published, however, hiding identity becomes pointless. In that case, going with the eariest known or published name makes the most sense to me, even if "lame" or "doesn't fit".

i agree when the name is first published...hiding its identity is pointless. in fact some would argue that hiding identity is pointless at any point. not sure about the necessity of going to earliest known or published name. i don't think that one MUST do anything, but i think the preference is, at the LEAST, to mention the other "published" or " previously well known" names.

[Scott P]

how bout this scott, all over the place you see canyons whose creeks are named differently from the canyon it is in

Good point. Professor Creek vs Mary Jane Canyon and Kaibito Creek vs Chaol Canyon.

now let me ask you this scott, cause you still haven't addressed my "establish" vs "publish" issue. whether or not MRK knew or didn't know that SA had already established the squeeze/knotted rope before him, he would create his own names regardless, because he doesn't believe in the way others have been naming canyons/routes.

Agreed.

he's not getting involved with the history of those who have done these canyons first and including the names that they used in the process

Though Shane's post seem to idicate otherwise in his latest book, earlier he did hold the same views. But, he wants to use generic or cowboy names since that is history. Cowboys and locals had names for many of the canyons long before people started doing canyons for fun. He believes those are the historical names, not the canyoneers ones. Still, more recently not using Monarch Cave makes no sense.

IF SUCH NAMES have continued to be used within the canyoneering community. you might consider this interesting, given how involved he gets with history, but he has his reasons, i am sure. i think this is the point of issue, if you respect this whole "who established (not necessarily published) first and adhere to their naming," then you follow that path, otherwise you do something different.

I agree, but I was only stating what he has told me.

now just because MRK published them first do NOT mean everyone needs to conform to his names.

I disagree here. Maybe not need to conform, but should conform. Goes both ways, with him conforming the other way too.

shane's maintaining the (arguably) most well know names for those canyons, and he's giving a more canyon-centric naming.

I disagree. East Fork Sevenmile name has been used for almost two decades. As far as I know, other than one group, no one heard or used the names HDH or GDJ until very recently. EFSM has been on my list and other canyoneers list for over a decade.

but what we can do, is provide the HISTORY of when such canyons were descended, how they were named and in what capacity they were named...

Too controversial. People get incredibly angry when someone claims a first descent. Some say there are none left. Others say only certain people can claim them, but no one else.

SCOTT, why don't you set up a website of the history of the descending/naming of slot canyons. add your own beta to canyons if you feel like it, but you could definitely provide some interesting information for people.

I've already tried that, but have got flamed for it, but it doesn't matter to me. There are other problems as well. Certain people/groups lie about doing or not doing canyons and can't get their stories straight. Best to leave it alone and not try to figure out whom is telling the truth, and whom was first.

i'd be definitely interested in it as a soure, AND you just *may* get people giving you more information than they previously have been willing to give, since YOUR information that you are broadcasting may be incomplete

I've already published several canyons on websites, have you seen the info?

of course, only to some extent though... i mean i think there could be equally meaningful or parallel reasons. i mean, okay, in the context of FF or "my fault" and "your fault" the reason was PURELY to hide the names.

To hide names of canyons that already had names.

they equally may like to name their "routes," as they establish them, and to give colorful character to such routes/slots/cyns to remember and identify them.

Which is just fine by me if the canyon or route doesn't already have a name.

again there are two forks of EFSM...they need different names to distinguish them...how one decides which way to go is their prerogative.

Left and right is simple enough, especially since the canyon has had a name for almost two decades. HDH may be a route, but are you refering to a "fork" or "route"? You say fork. When does a fork name become a route name? The line is blurred.

As the complex increases in size, it becomes more blurred. Left and Right may work for EFSM, but not for the Robbers Roost Complex. North Middle Fork? Aaak. Don't like it.

not sure about the necessity of going to earliest known or published name. i don't think that one MUST do anything, but i think the preference is, at the LEAST, to mention the other "published" or " previously well known" names.

Whether MK, SA, or whom ever, I think the order of naming should go like this:

1. Historic or local names

2. USGS names

3. Previously published names

4. Previously known among canyoneers names

Then if you can't find any of the above, tag on your own name. Sometimes you can't, but there might have been a previous name. This would be unintentional renaming. Such is the case with Alcatraz vs earlier names and Starfish vs Keyhole. With HDH for example, if I didn't know it was the EFSM, I might tag on my own name out of ignorance. If something isn't known to the general public, it's hard to find out whom the "pioneers of the canyon" call it.

Actually, the only reason to worry about it is to avoid confusion. Other than that it doesn't really matter too much.

Actually, you too are reading way too much into what I said. My one and only point was that MK is not or was not the only person whom has ever or will ever rename a canyon. Others have done so for various reasons. That was my only real point here. I can't think of tactics MK has used in any of his guidebooks (picking, naming, sketching, etc.) that haven't been used before. That was my only point.

[Iceaxe]

Too controversial. People get incredibly angry when someone claims a first descent.

Providing the history of a name/names has nothing to do with first descents. I believe it is well known that you and MK were not the first to attempt Alcatraz. But the name stuck because it was a cool name, had a cool story to go with it, and the name fits the canyon.

Alcatraz had a half dozen names before Alcatraz that I am aware of, but other then NF of TCB no other name was widely adopted by the canyoneering community in general.

Keyhole was AKA Starfish at one time..... I have recently dropped that AKA from my website because only a few old timers even remember it had anther name. Its now Keyhole to everyone., including the NPS.

Same-same for Pandora's Box. It wore several different handles before the general community settled on Pandora's. I have to admit.... I'm curiously awaiting to see what name MK tries to hang on Pandora.... North Prong of the South Fork of the West Fork of Spring Canyon...

[stefan]

he's not getting involved with the history of those who have done these canyons first and including the names that they used in the process

Though Shane's post seem to idicate otherwise in his latest book, earlier he did hold the same views.

I know, but this likely has been out of pressure from many people, including you, nat, shane, me, and, i am sure, many others. however, i am sure the most he'll write is other names, nothing about who established/named them, which for the arguments you gave is more appropriate anyhow.

now just because MRK published them first do NOT mean everyone needs to conform to his names.

I disagree here. Maybe not need to conform, but should conform. Goes both ways, with him conforming the other way too.

uhh, so by conform i meant regularly use. for example, i ALWAYS refer to the mountain as DENALI, but i will acknowledge that legally it is named mckinley. are you saying i SHOULD call it mckinley? i don't think i need to, i think all i NEED to do is acknowledge it's legal name.

shane's maintaining the (arguably) most well know names for those canyons, and he's giving a more canyon-centric naming.

I disagree. East Fork Sevenmile name has been used for almost two decades. As far as I know, other than one group, no one heard or used the names HDH or GDJ until very recently. EFSM has been on my list and other canyoneers list for over a decade.

okay, whatever. but someone has descended and named those canyons before you and most. whether or not it's a FIRST descent doesn't matter, if you feel like they are names you should honor, so be it, if not, do as you wish....shane's the first to "publish" the routes and decided to honor the names. it's not the end all be all, but i suppose it's some sort of standard.

i'd be definitely interested in it as a source, AND you just *may* get people giving you more information than they previously have been willing to give, since YOUR information that you are broadcasting may be incomplete

I've already published several canyons on websites, have you seen the info?

some of it, yes, perhaps not all? i was more referring to the evolution of canyon names and threw it in as an aside, but if you'd like to list all of the sites you've put information i'd be interested in a comprehensive list.

of course, only to some extent though... i mean i think there could be equally meaningful or parallel reasons. i mean, okay, in the context of FF or "my fault" and "your fault" the reason was PURELY to hide the names.

To hide names of canyons that already had names.

yes and what's your point here? it wasn't as if it was to CHANGE the names of the canyons, it was simply show photos/video without directly revealing the canyons...i don't think there is any harm in that if one wants not to reveal the canyon or is asked not to.

again there are two forks of EFSM...they need different names to distinguish them...how one decides which way to go is their prerogative.

Left and right is simple enough, especially since the canyon has had a name for almost two decades. HDH may be a route, but are you refering to a "fork" or "route"? You say fork. When does a fork name become a route name? The line is blurred.

actually MRK dislikes left and right as you need to determine which is the reference orientation, looking up canyon or down canyon. i think it's simple enough to define it as facing towards the bifurcation, but someone needs to assume that and in some cases it may not be so clear.

Fork Route? i suppose in this case BOTH i guess i was saying that at the time shane published it, the two forks did NOT have names, so he named them. they could just as well be routes. in this case you could say they are one in the same. but of course MRK will come around and give them additional names as well, with the AKA. the line is definitely blurred, but i guess what i am saying is why worry about it so much.

As the complex increases in size, it becomes more blurred. Left and Right may work for EFSM, but not for the Robbers Roost Complex. North Middle Fork? Aaak. Don't like it.

agreed. yeah, that's why grand gulch has so many interesting names for canyons. the difference here is HOW these canyons are being named. i just don't see what is so different from how they were named in the past and how they are named today. people named them for people or something that was found in the canyon, or whatever...those names are as arbitrary and subjective as those given today. and by the way, i like the name mindbender.

not sure about the necessity of going to earliest known or published name. i don't think that one MUST do anything, but i think the preference is, at the LEAST, to mention the other "published" or " previously well known" names.

Whether MK, SA, or whom ever, I think the order of naming should go like this:

1. Historic or local names

2. USGS names

3. Previously published names

4. Previously known among canyoneers names

Then if you can't find any of the above, tag on your own name. Sometimes you can't, but there might have been a previous name. This would be unintentional renaming. Such is the case with Alcatraz vs earlier names and Starfish vs Keyhole. With HDH for example, if I didn't know it was the EFSM, I might tag on my own name out of ignorance. If something isn't known to the general public, it's hard to find out whom the "pioneers of the canyon" call it.

in general i agree with your protocol here, but perhaps, exceptions can be made when there is a need to define a complicated route or if the name is too cumbersome.

now HDH isn't the east fork of seven mile....it's the east fork of the east fork of seven mile... is that a NAME? not officially. now shane has established in print that one CAN call it HDH. if you had published it first, you might have called it something else. shane would still have put HDH on his website and maybe given a reference to where it came from and perhaps he'd mention your name as well. this is the way it is...time is the real test for which or how many names actually survive.

Actually, the only reason to worry about it is to avoid confusion. Other than that it doesn't really matter too much.

i agree. there is/can be confusion...as with many things in life. but, i'll admit, it makes for interesting conversation and delves somewhat into "history."

[stefan]

Same-same for Pandora's Box. It wore several different handles before the general community settled on Pandora's. I have to admit.... I'm curiously awaiting to see what name MK tries to hang on Pandora

i can tell you what he's naming it. i don't want to create problems and such, but he's actually giving it a reasonable name. i don't think he'd have a problem with me telling you all.

his current choice is either Meeks Mesa Slot [or Canyon], but it could change.

[Scott P]

Providing the history of a name/names has nothing to do with first descents.

Agreed, but stephan's question did, and I was answering.

Same-same for Pandora's Box. It wore several different handles before the general community settled on Pandora's.

I like Pandoras Box name. Out of curiousity, what were the old names?

uhh, so by conform i meant regularly use. for example, i ALWAYS refer to the mountain as DENALI, but i will acknowledge that legally it is named mckinley. are you saying i SHOULD call it mckinley?

Nope. It should have never been renamed McKinley in the first place.

okay, whatever. but someone has descended and named those canyons before you and most.

I've never decended those canyons, just scouted them out a long time ago.

whether or not it's a FIRST descent doesn't matter, if you feel like they are names you should honor, so be it, if not, do as you wish....shane's the first to "publish" the routes and decided to honor the names.

MK was first to publish the canyon. Shane was first to publish the "route", but you said fork (See below).

i

was more referring to the evolution of canyon names and threw it in as an aside, but if you'd like to list all of the sites you've put information i'd be interested in a comprehensive list.

Here are some:

http://www.summitpost.org/canyon/182...sor-Creek.html

http://www.summitpost.org/canyon/152...er-Canyon.html

http://www.summitpost.org/canyon/152...le-Canyon.html

http://www.summitpost.org/canyon/152...ddle-Fork.html

http://www.summitpost.org/canyon/152...ma-Canyon.html

http://www.summitpost.org/canyon/152...West-Fork.html

http://www.summitpost.org/canyon/151...outh-Fork.html

http://www.summitpost.org/canyon/151...ater-Draw.html

yes and what's your point here? it wasn't as if it was to CHANGE the names of the canyons, it was simply show photos/video without directly revealing the canyons...i don't think there is any harm in that if one wants not to reveal the canyon or is asked not to.

I didn't say there was harm here. The harm comes after the canyons are published and then it has three or four different names. Actually, I'm as guilty as the next man, and have renamed canyons.

My only point was that MK is not the only one doing it.

in general i agree with your protocol here, but perhaps, exceptions can be made when there is a need to define a complicated route or if the name is too cumbersome.

now HDH isn't the east fork of seven mile....it's the east fork of the east fork of seven mile... is that a NAME? not officially. now shane has established in print that one CAN call it HDH.

That's fine, but my post was about fork vs route. I'm still confused on your stance here. Is HDH the name of the fork, canyon, or route or a combination. If it is either of them, that is fine. In other words, should Shane put on his website "aka EFSM", for the "main fork", or would they be considered completely different canyons/forks/routes of the system?

In other words would EFSM just be the canyon below the confluence of HDH and GDJ, or would HDH and GDJ be just routes within EFSM which is the name of the canyon? Where does EFSM begin and end?

Actually, you guys are reading way too much into this. My one and only point is that MK is not the only one whom has ever renamed canyons. Even if you are both right on EFSM/HDH/GDJ, there are still other examples of others who have. I have too. There are many reasons why people have done so (ego, name fitting, secrecy, ignorance, etc). None of the tatics (any tactics/methods) in MK's book are new; they have all done before. MK is not the only, nor the first, nor the last to rename canyons or routes. SA has done the same thing, as have I, and other canyoneers. That was my only real point.

[Iceaxe]

I didn't say there was harm here. The harm comes after the canyons are published and then it has three or four different names. Actually, I'm as guilty as the next man, and have renamed canyons.

My only point was that MK is not the only one doing it.

Actually I believe MK is the only person currently guilty of it. At least purposely doing it. Everyone else currently publishing mass canyon routes and maps has a gentlemens agreement to use the popular/excepted name where possible. This agreement doesn't mean you can't vary, but it would be frowned upon if you renamed without a legit reason.

In my eyes renaming Pandora's to Meeks Mesa Slot is kinda pissing on the history of the canyon and those who came before......

So exactly how many years does a canyon have to maintain a local name before Kelsey considers it historical? Pandora is about 5 years old. Leprechaun is at least 20 years old.....

Double Stack, Fishmouth and Monarch Cave are 114 years old....

[stefan]

That's fine, but my post was about fork vs route. I'm still confused on your stance here. Is HDH the name of the fork, canyon, or route or a combination. If it is either of them, that is fine. In other words, should Shane put on his website "aka EFSM", for the "main fork", or would they be considered completely different canyons/forks/routes of the system?

In other words would EFSM just be the canyon below the confluence of HDH and GDJ, or would HDH and GDJ be just routes within EFSM which is the name of the canyon? Where does EFSM begin and end?

well, i made it confusing. okay, you want me to have a stance...here it is.

i think that East Fork of Sevenmile actually encompasses the east and west fork tributaries above the confluence and the canyon below the confluence, and in a similar way West Fork of Butler encompasses all 3 tributaries. That is, it defines ALL that is part of that fork.

Now for the upper tributaries. I think the WHOLE idea for route is to make a connection/parallel/metaphore with climbing, possibly to satisfy folk like you who have strong views on such topics.

but if you are gonna PRESS me for my stance, i would simply say this....in my head, i am ASSOCIATING those names HDH & GDJ with the SLOTS, not the entire forks and not the route. So in my mind, for example, the SLOT =MINDBENDER, but then you could go as far to say the MINDBENDER FORK OF ROBBERS ROOST CANYON. in this way, the name for the slot can be used as a reference for the fork one is talking about. Alcatraz is the slot, and it's in the Alcatraz fork of (north fork of) TCBC.

BUT i know you don't like that, so i don't push that angle with you, but this is how it works in my head, an i am sure it'll always be this way. concurrently i always know the other names that are used in their different contexts.

again, all of this is arbitrary...all names are, and when you start making rules, rules are either broken or are insufficient or change over time such that they create discrepancies with past names.

but when i think of all these names....i personally think of the slots themselves. there is a difference between descending a slot canyon and climbing a route. often the climbing route is an ambiguous line....in contrast with a slot which usually makes for a very well defined route. in this sense i think the analogy breaks down, but in a more abstract sense i think it holds.

[Scott P]

Actually I believe MK is the only person currently guilty of it. At least purposely doing it. Everyone else currently publishing mass canyon routes and maps has a gentlemens agreement to use the popular/excepted name where possible.

That's where we disagree. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one, but agree that MK should use the known names.

SA also did it. I urge you to check the following examples yourself:

Grotto Canyon vs Big Hole Wash (can't dispute a topo map)

Neon Canyon vs Caverns Hollow (a well known name for 50 years)

Icabod Canyon vs Sheep Canyon (SA even says this in his book that the locals call it Sheep Canyon)

Hydra vs Sheep Canyon (SA even says this in his book that the locals call it Sheep Canyon)

Ding and Dang vs 1st and 2nd (MK obviously published these first and even used the new names in his latest book)

So exactly how many years does a canyon have to maintain a local name before Kelsey considers it historical?

I don't know. Good question to ask him.

often the climbing route is an ambiguous line....in contrast with a slot which usually makes for a very well defined route

Exactly. That is why the line is blurred.

[Iceaxe]

SA also did it. I urge you to check the following examples yourself:

FORGET ABOUT SA.... he is ancient history! He has not published a canyoneering book in 10 years! Everything SA did 10 years ago is now history... what was done in the past is history....

I said MK is the only person currently who is intentionally changing names to something he makes up that I know of.

[stefan]

often the climbing route is an ambiguous line....in contrast with a slot which usually makes for a very well defined route

Exactly. That is why the line is blurred.

i realize that ... but, you can make the case for the justification of name for the "technical route/slot/canyon-section" in much the same way as the name for a climbing route....in this case it would be to specify the "slot" which is presenting *most* of the challenges and technical obstacles, i.e., that part of the canyon which is technical or semitechnical or whatever. anyway one defines it, scott, YOU are always gonna poke holes.

i don't think anyone's disagreeing with you that "the line is blurred," i guess the difference is whether you are comfortable with it or not. and sure, it can lead to confusion. i guess we're living in that "confusing" time as some of this stuff is getting named...time will decide which names will stick and then confusion will be less of a problem. don't you think it's kinda fun that you are witnessing the transient nature of this rather than thinking about it 50-100 years lafter the fact? confusion can be a good thing that mixes up the mundane...but as far as SAR goes, well, that's another matter altogether, confusion clearly isn't helpful in that case.

[Scott P]

I said MK is the only person currently who is intentionally changing names to something he makes up that I know of.

OK, I'll agree with that one. Currently.

Minus the trip report "fluff" for secrecy of course, hee hee.

i don't think anyone's disagreeing with you that "the line is blurred," i guess the difference is whether you are comfortable with it or not.

I'm comfortable with it. Remember my only point was that MK was not the only one to ever do so, and there are other reasons. Sort of like the picking thing. Another author suggested the same thing over 20 years ago. Nothing new there.

[Iceaxe]

Minus the trip report "fluff" for secrecy of course, hee hee.