— In Yahoo Canyons Group, j b
I have never been fortunate enough to take a long 7-14 day canyon trip like this. My Zion trips fall firmly into the 2-3 day category you mentioned in a previous post, so in this sense at least perhaps I am more “normal” than those to whom you are alluding. >
It seems for the most part Zion is getting closer to meeting those needs. Am I wrong in remembering that we can now obtain permits with 48 hours advance (I could be)? That would now allow us to theoretically descend a short canyon the day of waiting in line and then do longer canyons the next two days. I do believe longer notice would be beneficial, though I would also be curious to see any correlation between SAR rescues and permit dates. Is there any correlation between proximity of permit date and accuracy in rescue location (more just a curiosity than point)?
>But for “normal” old me, I enjoy seeing other people in the backcountry. In fact I can’t think of a single time when the presence of other recreators marred a backcountry experience. (Front country is another matter.)
I hope I alluded that you are in the norm on that. My point was that as stakeholders (or whatever term you apply) we must recognize that every component of a management system will not meet our personal desires. For me I have to recognize that most people do not want as few of social encounters that I prefer and that constructive feedback directed at the NPS is accurate in that arena. That has been a loss I must forfeit for the realities of the permit system. The system initially meets community and resource needs, not personal desires.
Acquiring > permits is an expensive waste of my time, and returns nothing on my investment as far as I can see. I can imagine only two exceptions: 1)if permit fees help fund the SAR team; and 2)if permits shield the park from expensive liability lawsuits whose cost must of course be borne by the taxpayer. Even in these cases I would still feel that the system needs drastic overhaul. > Jeff
Thanks for the input. Never intended to challenge the disenfranchised opinion of the permit system. Also never meant for the quotations to be calling people names, was actually hinting at the ambiguous and multi-faceted definitions of the term. Unfortunately all such terms seem to carry negative connotations, lesser of evils I guess.
Phillip
Tom Jones
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “gajslk” wrote: > Thanks, Gordon, for taking the “you’re being uncivil” heat off of me. Perhaps you, too, are particularly rascible today or this week.
While I often disagree with Phillip on matters of policy, I have never found his posts particularly aloof, intimidating, or difficult to decifer – but obviously your experience is different. Vive la Difference! Please feel free to express your opinions, as long as you do so civily – which seems a challenge for you this week. English is Phillip’s first language.
In this case, he called me out on a particular over-the-top statement that was, I admit, out of line. There is hardly any true statement that can be made about all National Park Employees. Certainly some have the attitudes I attributed to them in general, but also quite certainly the majority do not wield their (assumed) authority with an iron fist.
Tom
gajslk
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, W Reid White wrote:
Hi Gordon,
Wow – it’s funny how folks read things into words on a forum. While I’ll > agree that Phillip has a rambling style (guilty myself), I disagree that his > sentence structure seems designed to obfusticate. Far more importantly, > when I read him, it feels like he goes out of his way (most of the time) to > be deferential and NONintimidating. Granted, we all have our days, our > hot-buttons and our limits – but a designed attempt to be intimidating is > something I can’t apply to Philip. That said on the basis of his e-mails > here, not on the basis of knowing him (although I do). > Yeah, I might have gone a little over the top here, but I’d read Philip’s gratuitous attack on Tom before I posted and it pissed me off. I was taught that the goal of written English was to communicate. Some things are important: identify your audience, never to use two words when one will do, avoid passive sentence construction. Hell, actually write in sentences!(Sorry) There’s a lot more to eloquence than exercising your vocabulary and creating seventy-word sentences. Trying to decode Philip’s posts gives me a headache. His writing style gives me the feeling that he has an extremely high opinion of himself and a low opinion of his audience. His deference seems to come with a large dose of superiority. I resent that, but maybe I’m being too sensitive. I meant my apology if English is his second language – it’s really hard to write well in a language not your own and I could be way off the mark.
Gordon
Tim Hoover
If you really thought that then you have been woefully underdressed for the outings.
— Eric Godfrey ericgodfrey@gmail.com> wrote:
I think it is unreasonable to expect an open forum
like this to be as polite as a ladies tea party. A
thick skin should be part of every canyoneer’s
qualifications for an open discussion forum like > this.
WHAT???!!! I thought this WAS the ladies tea party > forum… Oops, > guess I came to the wrong place 🙁
—
When you post, please change the Subject > appropriately, to make reading and searching easier. > You can use the following abbreviations: TRIP = > Trip Report; BETA = Canyon Beta; PARTNER = Partner > and/or Rides; ETHICS = Ethics; TECH = Technical > Questions and Tips; BIZ = E Group Business; SALE = > Stuff for Sale. Please use a Tilde ~ after the > abbreviation, so we know you are coding for us, such > as:
Subject: BIZ~ New Abbreviation List – working?
To change your delivery options, go to the Canyons > Egroup page on yahoo: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canyons/
> This will require logging into Yahoo. Click on the > "Edit My > Membership" link, and change your > delivery option. Press "Save > Changes".
DAILY DIGEST OPTION will deliver one email > to you each day summarizing that day’s messages.
WEB ONLY OPTION will not deliver email; you > must visit the web site to view messages. > Groups Links
>
Eric Godfrey
> I think it is unreasonable to expect an open forum > like this to be as polite as a ladies tea party. A > thick skin should be part of every canyoneer’s > qualifications for an open discussion forum like this.
WHAT???!!! I thought this WAS the ladies tea party forum… Oops, guess I came to the wrong place 🙁
Tim Hoover
— Bill Elliott belliott@ruraltel.net> wrote:
> I don’t know the guy called “Ram” but his recent > remarks about being > considerate of the sensibilities and feelings of > others struck a chord. . . .
Of course we can continue to have and articulate > differing opinions, but > those opinions can be uttered in a civil fashion. > We shouldn’t have to get > thicker skins just because we belong to this group. > Personally, I yearn for > this group to be a warm and friendly place that > allows me to escape the > callous rigor of daily life.
I am now yours to flagellate with the whip of > internet words.
Bill >
First of all Bill, Ram is not a single individual, it is an acronym for “Random Association of Members” so don’t feel too bad. You didn’t actually think a single person got out as often and posted as much as this so-called “Ram” did you?
As to your other point – yes it’s true that the posts are sometimes less civil than one might prefer. However, bear in mind that the people who post represent a rather large cross section of the canyoneering community. As such, not everyone gets along well with everyone else. I’m not sure that the format of e-mailing is really so responsible for the lack of civility. I think a lot of rather harsh words would, indeed be exchanged in face-to-face encounters between certain individuals. Luckily most people tend to hang around those they are compatible with in person and so the issue tends to be moot.
I think it is unreasonable to expect an open forum like this to be as polite as a ladies tea party. A thick skin should be part of every canyoneer’s qualifications for an open discussion forum like this.
Personally, I’d rather have someone tell me exactly what they think of me so I know where I stand. Makes it that much easier to avoid wasting time (and e-mail replies) with those you would rather avoid.
Tim
nick smith
Wow, the dead horse on this issue is now decomposing.
W Reid White
Howdy Ram,
Well spoken!
Happy Trails, Reid
_____
From: Yahoo Canyons Group [mailto:Yahoo Canyons Group] On Behalf Of adkramoo Sent: Wednesday, 09 April 2008 11.23 To: Yahoo Canyons Group Subject: [from Canyons Group] Re: A Zion Ranger Encounter
> — In canyons@yahoogroups .com, “restrac2000” wrote:
Remember, its the idea, not the person or people…… The people who I have found to be generally kind, warm and generous of spirit, away from the impersonal world of the typed word. I hope we find ways to assume the good intentions of each other and be courteous, even when our views differ sharply. Pretty please, with canyons on top? Ram
.
W Reid White
Hi Gordon,
Wow – it’s funny how folks read things into words on a forum. While I’ll agree that Phillip has a rambling style (guilty myself), I disagree that his sentence structure seems designed to obfusticate. Far more importantly, when I read him, it feels like he goes out of his way (most of the time) to be deferential and NONintimidating. Granted, we all have our days, our hot-buttons and our limits – but a designed attempt to be intimidating is something I can’t apply to Philip. That said on the basis of his e-mails here, not on the basis of knowing him (although I do).
Happy Trails, Reid
_____
From: Yahoo Canyons Group [mailto:Yahoo Canyons Group] On Behalf Of gajslk Sent: Wednesday, 09 April 2008 10.27 To: Yahoo Canyons Group Subject: [from Canyons Group] Re: A Zion Ranger Encounter
I don’t know. I’ve never read a statement from you that was either simple or direct. Your vocabulary and sentence construction appears to me to be designed to obscure issues and intimidate your readers. To be quite honest, I generally skim your posts because there’s so much filler and so little meat. If English is not your first language, I apologize in advance for my interpretation..
.
Bill Elliott
I don’t know the guy called “Ram” but his recent remarks about being considerate of the sensibilities and feelings of others struck a chord. I have started these comments at least twice in the last six months, but fearing that folks might sting from a little self-serving pontification I have deleted each message before sending it. This one will be sent.
I joined this group because I enjoy canyoneering. I want to learn more about the sport, become better acquainted with the friends I have acquired and forge new friendships. Gratuitous bickering between group members is not something I contemplated.
Just because there might be a feeling of invisibility as we merrily peck away at our keyboards does not mean we have a right to be rude and impolite. People who ordinarily behave quite civilly sometimes forget that the target of their internet vitriol is another person. My vocation is filled with strife, enmity and pettiness. I want those conditions to be absent from my hobbies.
Some of the comments I have read by members of this group can be characterized as fighting words. Why then can the same comments achieve a degree of acceptability purely because they are made on the internet? Is it because of the inherently impersonal nature of the medium?
Certainly the informal personal interaction I witnessed at the rendezvous last fall and during trips through canyons with group members is entirely different from the impersonal words sometimes occasionally found in this group’s messages.
As we mature, most of us eventually develop a sense of what is appropriate to say at a meeting, during a phone call with a colleague or in a business letter. But some of us apply different rules of social practice to e-mail and internet communications, resorting to childish behavior that goes a long way toward destroying any sense of community that might have been previously developed. I tend to conclude that informal personal interaction is simply difficult to achieve in an electronic fashion.
This group is truly a community of individuals who have a common interest. Why can’t we, as members of this group, agree to be more courteous, applying the same rules of social practice and posting only those comments and statements that we would express in a face to face encounter?
Of course we can continue to have and articulate differing opinions, but those opinions can be uttered in a civil fashion. We shouldn’t have to get thicker skins just because we belong to this group. Personally, I yearn for this group to be a warm and friendly place that allows me to escape the callous rigor of daily life.
I am now yours to flagellate with the whip of internet words.
Bill
A.J.
> I don’t know. I’ve never read a statement from you that was either > simple or direct. Your vocabulary and sentence construction appears > to me to be designed to obscure issues and intimidate your readers. > To be quite honest, I generally skim your posts because there’s so > much filler and so little meat. If English is not your first > language, I apologize in advance for my interpretation..
Gordon
I find his posts to be rather eloquent. No need for a personal attack, I think he’s just stating his view; and trying his best to do it as politically correct as possible, and I commend him for that.
Personally, I agree with him. Even though it’s not “legal”, I’d rather be asked for my permit at the parking lot than have an encounter with a ranger in the backcountry. I like the feeling of isolation in the backcountry; and a ranger asking for my permit in the backcountry would seriously detract from my personal wilderness experience; YMMV. (Actually, I’d rather not have to deal with a ranger at all, and don’t really like the permit system; which is why I’m only in Zion once or so a year… I also suffer from Ram syndrome; trying to fit many big days in one after another. I wrote with my suggestion of getting a kiosk in that we could use to check the weather, and print our permit after hours. It didn’t happen, so there are plenty of other canyons out there…)
Each person must make thier own choices as to what’s right for them, and it’s fair to state your point and why you feel that way. Just because a person doesn’t agree with someone else’s viewpoint, doesn’t mean that someone else’s viewpoint is wrong…
Take care, A.J.
adkramoo
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “gajslk” wrote: > — In Yahoo Canyons Group, “restrac2000” wrote:
Wow! I don’t remember the last time I made the suggestion that folks might consider finding ways to be more generous toward each other. So many times we have had disagreements and they can and do become heated, yet we manage to be considerate of the sensibilities and feeling of those we are sparring with. Ahhh, but the heat of battle can blur those lines. Perhaps here we have slipped over the line a tad toward the personal. Remember, its the idea, not the person or people…… The people who I have found to be generally kind, warm and generous of spirit, away from the impersonal world of the typed word. I hope we find ways to assume the good intentions of each other and be courteous, even when our views differ sharply Pretty please, with canyons on top? Ram
gajslk
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “restrac2000” wrote:
I do find the appeal for better characterization fairly ironic, Tom. > I consider your interactions on this forum fairly notorious for > antagonistic, tongue-in-cheek, gross exaggerations of statements. > Nonetheless the tendency to twist names in fairly inflammatory manners > when the person holds views other than yours. Or the tendency for the > President (not sure of correct term there) of the ZCC to vocalize such > gross generalizations/interpretations about the NPS on an open forum > such as this. Yet, the irony does not negate the constructive > feedback. Much obliged. >
I find this paragraph more than fairly ironic. Thanks for the laugh Philip.
Gordon
gajslk
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “restrac2000” wrote:
I am curious how people read intention from such simple, direct > statements. I was challenged by that when I read Tom’s interpretation > of the Ranger’s “Can I see your permit” as “You are a liar.” This is > something I am challenged by. > I don’t know. I’ve never read a statement from you that was either simple or direct. Your vocabulary and sentence construction appears to me to be designed to obscure issues and intimidate your readers. To be quite honest, I generally skim your posts because there’s so much filler and so little meat. If English is not your first language, I apologize in advance for my interpretation..
Gordon
I have reread my thread and see know just reason for your > interpretation mentioned above. No references to said thread. Topic > mentioned was “waiting in line=safety issue,” nothing to do with > illegal descents. If I was rehashing any topic it was my stubborn > tendency to engage the idea that we are responsible for ourselves in > such rigid environments. That we must constantly analyze risk > personally and unfortunately remain flexible in a rigid environment. > That “the waiting in line risk” is best analyzed as the overall risk > we mitigate in this sport on a day to day basis. I actually think I > managed to present this in a fair, respectful manner. I am vulnerable > to constructive observations/feedback on this topic. What I will not > stand vulnerable to is the antagonism of such threads as listed above. > We are a community that has varying opinions, that is obvious, there > is no evidence that we benefit from belittling any of those opinions > (even the minority that I appear to be a voice of).
> Personally, I hope that the ranger from hell that caused this thread
to be started gets hold of Philips’ chain. I’d pay to watch.
Gordon
Why the antagonism and malice? Serious question…
Another rehashed theme…the tendency to isolate and antagonize > controversial opinions. I have been part of that process, watched > many others on this forum succumb. Though this does not invalidate the > productive dialog that can come from these threads I do believe it > erodes at some of the progress we make as a community. Interesting > behavior that I believe has little constructive benefit, and likely > negative repercussions to any cause it is associated with. IMHO.
Phillip >
restrac2000
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Tom Jones” wrote: the tendency for the President (not sure of correct term there)
of the ZCC to vocalize such gross generalizations/interpretations
about the NPS on an open forum such as this.
Chairman. Please state exactly what you object to, for perhaps > further discussion of appropriateness, if you wish to clarify this > point.
Tom >
You were appealing for a revision of my gross generalization of revising the entire permit system (though I would argue saying “many vocal members of this group” support removal of the permit system isn’t gross, but I do not have the time to peruse the database for support of that idea so I must concede)…in that light how does the gross generalization “National Park Staff thinks that THEY own, manage and CONTROL the Park” make any more sense or any less a mis-characterization? Not saying you aren’t allowed to state such gross generalizations…but you adamantly (“PLEASE”) asked me to abide by certain ground rules so I think it is only fair to point out the irony. I have known many NPS Staff who would be shocked at such a representation and the tone of such a statement.
Phillip
restrac2000
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “adkramoo” wrote: > Sorry that you are feeling attacked.
Definitely some tossing about on this subject. Not feeling attacked from anyone other than the author of the post I was replying to. Then I venture to say that it is not so much a feeling, but an obvious antagonism (dare say malicious assault). It is easy to misplace words on forums such as this but it is another to interact in manners that I witness by the said poster. There is the occasional foul and stepping over the line, then there is the intentional jump across. Unproductive and uncalled for, IMHO. No harm taken from others. There will always be some discomfort with such controversies, I just let my line be known every now and again.
Phillip
adkramoo
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “restrac2000” wrote: > Another rehashed theme…the tendency to isolate and antagonize > controversial opinions. I have been part of that process, watched > many others on this forum succumb. Though this does not invalidate the > productive dialog that can come from these threads I do believe it > erodes at some of the progress we make as a community. Interesting > behavior that I believe has little constructive benefit, and likely > negative repercussions to any cause it is associated with. IMHO. > Phillip
Sorry that you are feeling attacked. It is tough standing up for a belief and having no one along side to cover one’s back, in engaging in discussion. I believe others share your view, but for whatever reason, are not partaking. I suppose it is human for folks to find competition, rather than exchange in hashing things out. As it may be deep seated, this human need to belong and thus have the “US” and “THEM” defining many of our encounters and interactions. I see no established pattern of a consistent “group” of folks that take others to task. I do see some folks “getting it” pretty hard sometimes, but feel the roles we all play rotate around depending on the issue. When I find myself “manning the fort” alone, I try not to take it personally, even when some of the language thrown my way could be interpreted as less than kind. You are a valued member of the community even on the days, perhaps especially on the days you represent the minority. Put on the thick skin and sally forth! R
beadysee
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Tom Jones” wrote: > Subway? Narrows Day Use?
Sorry, thought the discussion was focused on technical canyoneering permits.
Still, I’d be for getting rid of it for the Subway and Narrows top down through hike too. Seems silly, ’cause there is no limit to hiking up into the narrows.
Let the parking lots limit the numbers. And, folks who are willing to hike further, should be allowed.
Seems a silly thing to waste park resources on, this permit stuff.
-Brian in SLC
Tom Jones
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “beadysee” wrote:
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Tom Jones” wrote:
Do not mischaracterize. Other than Wade, I have not heard anyone > call for removing the permit system entirely.
I did. Wrote several letters to that effect, in fact.
Serves no purpose for day use.
Should be the same as climbing in Zion. And the Tetons too, now > (the GTNP came to that conclusion as well).
-Brian in SLC > Subway? Narrows Day Use?
Tom
Tom Jones
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “restrac2000” wrote:
I do find the appeal for better characterization fairly ironic, > Tom. I consider your interactions on this forum fairly notorious > for antagonistic, tongue-in-cheek, gross exaggerations of > statements. Nonetheless the tendency to twist names in fairly > inflammatory manners when the person holds views other than yours.
Please provide one or two examples, so I may apologize for them explicitly.
> Or the tendency for the President (not sure of correct term there) > of the ZCC to vocalize such gross generalizations/interpretations > about the NPS on an open forum such as this.
Chairman. Please state exactly what you object to, for perhaps further discussion of appropriateness, if you wish to clarify this point.
Tom