<<"The impact we cause is so relatively minuscule to the scope of time.">> What scope of time are you referring to? Hook holes and rope grooves are one thing as the erosive nature of canyons will eventually smooth it out. Accelerated soil loss from hoards of people all following different paths through a cryptobiotic soil bed is much more dramatic. Plants then bugs then birds, etc will all disappear; and this can be seen in the course of only a few years. The human scope of time should be our focus.
<<"To not enjoy a canyon that was create here on earth just because of impact is not a very good case".>> While I believe that we can minimize our impact and still allow many people the opportunity to enjoy the beauty of a wide variety of these places, I also feel that some very unique places should be off limits to everyone, simply for the sake of their untainted existence. I strongly disagree with notion that everything on this planet is here for human exploitation. Just because we don’t “use” something doesn’t mean it has no value. — In Yahoo Canyons Group, “titanstairs”
It can be otherwise because individuals are responsible for themselves. In canyons and life. I hate seeing damage to canyons and rope marks as bad as anyone but I also feel it is a necessary evil to a certain extent. To not enjoy a canyon that was create here on earth just because of impact is not a very good case. And it is also very short term mindset. How long before mojo steps naturally disappear or hook holes diminish. The impact we cause is so relatively minuscule to the scope of time.
Use but don’t abuse is what I believe not only in canyons but in most things in life. That relates to cars, rec vehicles, gear, etc.
Thank you Tom and others taking the responsibility but the only blame I place in you is showing us how to enjoy nature and what it has to offer us.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “TomJones”
No. He did not imply it, he stated it. You make it sound tawdry…
If you make the choice to publish a canyon, then you have responsibility for the people you DRAW to that canyon, and for their actions.
How could it be otherwise?
Tom
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “titanstairs”
So are you implying that if someone publicizes a canyon they are responsible for all that follow. Or are you implying that the canyons are only reserved for a select few who know its there. I guess I don’t quite understand what you are trying to say
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “davewyo1”
I would point out two things for the general conversation:
1. Ghosting techniques have not been worked out to the extent that the terminology may suggest. Perhaps further work will eliminate many of the problems, but at this time sand bag, sand trap, water trap, and like techniques are causing a certain amount of rope grooves.
2. If you are the one to popularize a canyon, in a short while you will be able to go back and see rope grooves which you can consider to be a direct result of your actions.
Dave
>
Ice
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Adam C” wrote: Dan, I was told by an NPS ranger that Capitol Reef NP also has a no new bolt policy. Last May, after a ranger heard I was in Shinob, she inquired about bolts; seems they aren’t happy about newer ones showing up, same for Cassidy Cyn.
If you mean in the past 15 years, than yeah, it’s a new policy.
New bolts are prohibited in Capitol Reef NP
Below are CRNP’s policy/regulation:
Technical Rock Climbing and Canyoneering
Definitions:
Technical Rock Climbing is defined as ascending or descending a rock formation utilizing rock climbing equipment.
Canyoneering is defined as cross country travel involving occasional ascending or descending of a rock formation utilizing rock climbing equipment.
Free Climbing and Clean Aid Climbing are minimum impact approaches that employ stoppers, nuts and camming devices, rather than fixed pitons or bolts, for protection or direct support. These are climbing aids, which are removable and do not damage the rock.
Permits are not required for rock climbing or canyoneering; however, if the climbing or canyoneering includes an overnight stay, then a backcountry use permit is required. Climbers or canyoneers are encouraged to use minimum impact camping and climbing practices.
Climbing and canyoneering within Capitol Reef National Park shall be either free climbing or clean aid climbing, except as described below:
No new climbing hardware may be left in a fixed location; however, if an existing bolt or other hardware item is unsafe, it may be replaced. This will limit all climbing to existing routes or new routes not requiring placement of fixed anchors.
Protection may not be placed with the use of a hammer except to replace existing belay and rappel anchors and bolts on existing routes, or for emergency self-rescue.
If an existing software item (sling, runner, etc.) is unsafe, it may be replaced.
Software that is left in place shall match the rock surface in color.
The intentional removal of lichen or plants from rock is prohibited.
The physical altering of rock faces such as by chiseling, glue reinforcement of existing holds, and gluing of new holds is prohibited.
The use of motorized power drills is prohibited.
Ropes may not be left in place unattended for more than 24 hours, and these ropes must be out of reach from the ground or other points accessible without technical climbing.
In addition to the areas identified as closed to the public in Section 1.5 (a)(1), technical rock climbing is prohibited in the following areas: On any arch or natural bridge within the boundaries of Capitol Reef National Park. Within 300 feet of an archeological site. Within 1/4 mile of nesting eagles, owls, hawks or falcons.
Adam C
Dan, I was told by an NPS ranger that Capitol Reef NP also has a no new bolt policy. Last May, after a ranger heard I was in Shinob, she inquired about bolts; seems they aren’t happy about newer ones showing up, same for Cassidy Cyn. Also I know a concern from other NPS managers is the visual eyesore(mainly to non-canyoneers) that is poorly chosen webbing color and placement. — In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Dan” wrote:
It’s also interesting to note that at least some land managers have completely forbidden the placement of bolts. I’m thinking specifically of Grand Canyon, where I’m most familiar with the regs.
Of course, in GC, you have almost zero chance of leaving a rope groove, since the rock is so hard.
It’d be interesting to hear the real concerns of land managers, instead of the unsourced rumors we often see posted.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Neil” wrote:
Hank,
Can you imagine the thread … “Placement of ‘appropriate’ bolt stations sought to eliminate rope damage. Land managers threaten closures.” >
Luke Galyan
Good point Jenny. Everyone comming to agreement isn’t the major issue. Everyone agreeing isn’t going to happen. The important thing is to bring the views of people around us to the surface so we can have discussion and learn what each others boundaries and sore spots might be. And the discussion can be a way for some of us to have our views challenged which is healthy if handled with the right attitude.
So I second the Thanks to Adam for crackin the lid. Luke
Sent from my phone
Jenny jenny.carverbc@gmail.com> wrote:
>Adam, >Worms don’t do well without air and light, even canned ones. Thanks for cracking open the lid! >Jenny
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Adam C” wrote: >
> Wow! Now we’re getting DEEEEP into it. I kind of figured things might go this way. What a can of worms I opened.
Dan
It’s also interesting to note that at least some land managers have completely forbidden the placement of bolts. I’m thinking specifically of Grand Canyon, where I’m most familiar with the regs.
Of course, in GC, you have almost zero chance of leaving a rope groove, since the rock is so hard.
It’d be interesting to hear the real concerns of land managers, instead of the unsourced rumors we often see posted.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Neil” wrote:
Hank,
Can you imagine the thread … “Placement of ‘appropriate’ bolt stations sought to eliminate rope damage. Land managers threaten closures.”
Neil
Hank,
Can you imagine the thread … “Placement of ‘appropriate’ bolt stations sought to eliminate rope damage. Land managers threaten closures.”
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, hank moon wrote:
If / when rope grooves get on land managers’ radars, could they > potentially be used to justify access restrictions? It seems that > flimsier pretexts have been used in the past…
Randi
Valid points Hank, and another good reason to avoid them! Not to mention they are UGLY and another step away from “pristine”.
— On Wed, 10/3/12, hank moon onkaluna@gmail.com> wrote:
From: hank moon onkaluna@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [from Canyons Group] Re: undisclosed canyons To: Yahoo Canyons Group Date: Wednesday, October 3, 2012, 10:48 AM
ÂÂ
If / when rope grooves get on land managers’ radars, could they potentially be used to justify access restrictions? It seems that flimsier pretexts have been used in the past…
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Randi advntr_inxs@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hahaha – we are all so self important to think that rope grooves, bolts, > and even hook holes really matter in the grand scheme of things? Sandstone > is SAND!
Unsightly. > A Bummer. > Good things to avoid when/where possible.
But way up there on the list of concerns? > Grandstanding.
hank moon
If / when rope grooves get on land managers’ radars, could they potentially be used to justify access restrictions? It seems that flimsier pretexts have been used in the past…
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Randi advntr_inxs@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hahaha – we are all so self important to think that rope grooves, bolts, > and even hook holes really matter in the grand scheme of things? Sandstone > is SAND!
Unsightly. > A Bummer. > Good things to avoid when/where possible.
But way up there on the list of concerns? > Grandstanding.
Randi
Hahaha – we are all so self important to think that rope grooves, bolts, and even hook holes really matter in the grand scheme of things? Sandstone is SAND!  Unsightly. A Bummer. Good things to avoid when/where possible.  But way up there on the list of concerns? Grandstanding.   — On Wed, 10/3/12, Adam C cynhermit@yahoo.com> wrote:
From: Adam C cynhermit@yahoo.com> Subject: [from Canyons Group] Re: undisclosed canyons To: Yahoo Canyons Group Date: Wednesday, October 3, 2012, 10:09 AM
ÂÂ
Wow! Now we’re getting DEEEEP into it. I kind of figured things might go this way. What a can of worms I opened.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “marlowequart” wrote:
Im not arguing one way or the other, seeing as how i dont have any “secret” knowledge my self, just some of my own questions I ask myself. How do rope grooves, bolt holes and use trails compare in environmental impact to the ammount of fossil fuel I burn to drive 5-10 hrs to be in nature? How about the food I eat while on the trail that was grown with water from a reservoir?? Also, i wonder what, if anything, the natives who lived on the land thought when they carved the moki steps or put their “grafitti” on the canyon walls.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “cynhermit” wrote:
What scope of time are you referring to?
Hook holes and rope grooves are one thing as the erosive nature of canyons will eventually smooth it out. Accelerated soil loss from hoards of people all following different paths through a cryptobiotic soil bed is much more dramatic. Plants then bugs then birds, etc will all disappear; and this can be seen in the course of only a few years.
The human scope of time should be our focus.
While I believe that we can minimize our impact and still allow many people the opportunity to enjoy the beauty of a wide variety of these places, I also feel that some very unique places should be off limits to everyone, simply for the sake of their untainted existence. I strongly disagree with notion that everything on this planet is here for human exploitation. Just because we don’t “use” something doesn’t mean it has no value.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “titanstairs” wrote:
It can be otherwise because individuals are responsible for themselves. In canyons and life. I hate seeing damage to canyons and rope marks as bad as anyone but I also feel it is a necessary evil to a certain extent. To not enjoy a canyon that was create here on earth just because of impact is not a very good case. And it is also very short term mindset. How long before mojo steps naturally disappear or hook holes diminish. The impact we cause is so relatively minuscule to the scope of time.
Use but don’t abuse is what I believe not only in canyons but in most things in life. That relates to cars, rec vehicles, gear, etc.
Thank you Tom and others taking the responsibility but the only blame I place in you is showing us how to enjoy nature and what it has to offer us.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “TomJones” wrote:
No. He did not imply it, he stated it. You make it sound tawdry…
If you make the choice to publish a canyon, then you have responsibility for the people you DRAW to that canyon, and for their actions.
How could it be otherwise?
Tom
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “titanstairs” wrote:
So are you implying that if someone publicizes a canyon they are responsible for all that follow. Or are you implying that the canyons are only reserved for a select few who know its there. I guess I don’t quite understand what you are trying to say
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “davewyo1” wrote:
I would point out two things for the general conversation:
1. Ghosting techniques have not been worked out to the extent that the terminology may suggest. Perhaps further work will eliminate many of the problems, but at this time sand bag, sand trap, water trap, and like techniques are causing a certain amount of rope grooves.
2. If you are the one to popularize a canyon, in a short while you will be able to go back and see rope grooves which you can consider to be a direct result of your actions.
Dave
Jenny
Adam, Worms don’t do well without air and light, even canned ones. Thanks for cracking open the lid! Jenny
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Adam C” wrote:
Wow! Now we’re getting DEEEEP into it. I kind of figured things might go this way. What a can of worms I opened.
Adam C
Wow! Now we’re getting DEEEEP into it. I kind of figured things might go this way. What a can of worms I opened.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “marlowequart” wrote:
Im not arguing one way or the other, seeing as how i dont have any “secret” knowledge my self, just some of my own questions I ask myself. How do rope grooves, bolt holes and use trails compare in environmental impact to the ammount of fossil fuel I burn to drive 5-10 hrs to be in nature? How about the food I eat while on the trail that was grown with water from a reservoir?? Also, i wonder what, if anything, the natives who lived on the land thought when they carved the moki steps or put their “grafitti” on the canyon walls.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “cynhermit” wrote:
What scope of time are you referring to?
Hook holes and rope grooves are one thing as the erosive nature of canyons will eventually smooth it out. Accelerated soil loss from hoards of people all following different paths through a cryptobiotic soil bed is much more dramatic. Plants then bugs then birds, etc will all disappear; and this can be seen in the course of only a few years.
The human scope of time should be our focus.
While I believe that we can minimize our impact and still allow many people the opportunity to enjoy the beauty of a wide variety of these places, I also feel that some very unique places should be off limits to everyone, simply for the sake of their untainted existence. I strongly disagree with notion that everything on this planet is here for human exploitation. Just because we don’t “use” something doesn’t mean it has no value.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “titanstairs” wrote:
It can be otherwise because individuals are responsible for themselves. In canyons and life. I hate seeing damage to canyons and rope marks as bad as anyone but I also feel it is a necessary evil to a certain extent. To not enjoy a canyon that was create here on earth just because of impact is not a very good case. And it is also very short term mindset. How long before mojo steps naturally disappear or hook holes diminish. The impact we cause is so relatively minuscule to the scope of time.
Use but don’t abuse is what I believe not only in canyons but in most things in life. That relates to cars, rec vehicles, gear, etc.
Thank you Tom and others taking the responsibility but the only blame I place in you is showing us how to enjoy nature and what it has to offer us.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “TomJones” wrote:
No. He did not imply it, he stated it. You make it sound tawdry…
If you make the choice to publish a canyon, then you have responsibility for the people you DRAW to that canyon, and for their actions.
How could it be otherwise?
Tom
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “titanstairs” wrote:
So are you implying that if someone publicizes a canyon they are responsible for all that follow. Or are you implying that the canyons are only reserved for a select few who know its there. I guess I don’t quite understand what you are trying to say
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “davewyo1” wrote:
I would point out two things for the general conversation:
1. Ghosting techniques have not been worked out to the extent that the terminology may suggest. Perhaps further work will eliminate many of the problems, but at this time sand bag, sand trap, water trap, and like techniques are causing a certain amount of rope grooves.
2. If you are the one to popularize a canyon, in a short while you will be able to go back and see rope grooves which you can consider to be a direct result of your actions.
Dave
marlowequart
Im not arguing one way or the other, seeing as how i dont have any “secret” knowledge my self, just some of my own questions I ask myself. How do rope grooves, bolt holes and use trails compare in environmental impact to the ammount of fossil fuel I burn to drive 5-10 hrs to be in nature? How about the food I eat while on the trail that was grown with water from a reservoir?? Also, i wonder what, if anything, the natives who lived on the land thought when they carved the moki steps or put their “grafitti” on the canyon walls.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “cynhermit” wrote:
> Hook holes and rope grooves are one thing as the erosive nature of canyons will eventually smooth it out. Accelerated soil loss from hoards of people all following different paths through a cryptobiotic soil bed is much more dramatic. Plants then bugs then birds, etc will all disappear; and this can be seen in the course of only a few years. > The human scope of time should be our focus.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “titanstairs” wrote:
It can be otherwise because individuals are responsible for themselves. In canyons and life. I hate seeing damage to canyons and rope marks as bad as anyone but I also feel it is a necessary evil to a certain extent. To not enjoy a canyon that was create here on earth just because of impact is not a very good case. And it is also very short term mindset. How long before mojo steps naturally disappear or hook holes diminish. The impact we cause is so relatively minuscule to the scope of time.
Use but don’t abuse is what I believe not only in canyons but in most things in life. That relates to cars, rec vehicles, gear, etc.
Thank you Tom and others taking the responsibility but the only blame I place in you is showing us how to enjoy nature and what it has to offer us.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “TomJones” wrote:
No. He did not imply it, he stated it. You make it sound tawdry…
If you make the choice to publish a canyon, then you have responsibility for the people you DRAW to that canyon, and for their actions.
How could it be otherwise?
Tom
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “titanstairs” wrote:
So are you implying that if someone publicizes a canyon they are responsible for all that follow. Or are you implying that the canyons are only reserved for a select few who know its there. I guess I don’t quite understand what you are trying to say
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “davewyo1” wrote:
> I would point out two things for the general conversation:
1. Ghosting techniques have not been worked out to the extent that the terminology may suggest. Perhaps further work will eliminate many of the problems, but at this time sand bag, sand trap, water trap, and like techniques are causing a certain amount of rope grooves.
2. If you are the one to popularize a canyon, in a short while you will be able to go back and see rope grooves which you can consider to be a direct result of your actions.
Dave
Randi
Great post (and position) Kuenn ~ : ) Thanks!
— On Tue, 10/2/12, kuenn_k2 kuenn@bellsouth.net> wrote:
From: kuenn_k2 kuenn@bellsouth.net> Subject: [from Canyons Group] Re: undisclosed canyons To: Yahoo Canyons Group Date: Tuesday, October 2, 2012, 11:15 PM
ÂÂ
For the sake of posting yet another opinion as well as keeping this marathon post from fading…
To me the question is not so much one of responsibility as it is obligation; an obligation to share the hazards that are inherent in order to experience the splendor. Willing participants then make a conscious decision to purchase peril at the expense of safety based on the author’s narrative. Is George Mallory, Hillary or Norgay responsible for the deaths on top of the world this year any more than Lewis and Clark are responsible for the deforestation of the great Northwest? What these pioneers did was prove that it was possible. Mallory was not granted the luxury of posting his last trip report and yet it didn’t deter the next generation of thrill seekers, some may even claim his disappearance advanced the cause. Is that posthumous liability?
I’m most grateful for those who willingly share their success stories, well knowing that it came at no small cost to them so that those of us with less time, talent or means can “reap where we have not sown”.
I’ll gladly buy the book and do my level best to be a good steward of their discovery.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “RAM” wrote:
I agree with Tom. What is wrong with owning responsibility for things? > It should make one more careful (sociopaths excepted) about the consequences and Ramifications of one’s choices. That said, I am way (weeks) behind on the group posts and will comment further tomorrow, I hope. Tom and I hold many canyons off the radar. Most of them are canyons shared with us and agreements which we are honoring. Just as these gals and fellas honor ours. Yet Tom has shared more new canyons than anyone who accuses him of being a selfish keeper of secrets. A paradox? And has anyone done ALL the beta’s canyons out there yet? Didn’t think so. And being as big a secret keeper as anyone (lots of different reasons-will touch on that) I will open my first post on the subject informing that I will post a new canyon for you all right after pressing send…to go with the one Tom (Eyedropper) posted a few days back.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “TomJones” wrote:
Totally serious.
How could it be otherwise?
Of course, I believe in more than 100% responsibility. The people who visit the canyon are also 100% responsible for their actions. But I am too, for BRINGING these people to this particular canyon.
So, the trails on the sandpile next to Spry from Canyoneers – those are my fault, very much so. Not sure the current trail on there is from canyoneers. Also, it has been a long time since I sent people toward the sandpile, so my current culpability is small, if canyoneers.
However, while I did not FD Spry, I was the first to publish it. So all the grooves and wear and tear in the canyon are on my head. I feel somewhat bad about it, but not real bad. From those grooves, you can see how a guy would want to keep a canyon off the radar to keep this kind of wear and tear from occurring.
Tom
Luke Galyan
Yup, plenty of stuff published to keep people busy for a long time. That does not imply that publishing should stop or that publishing should continue. It simply says we currently have a lot to choose from.
Why publish more? There is no “need” to publish more. But there is also no “need” to stop publishing. To publish or not to publish is a personal choice so I can only answer for me. I enjoy writing the beta and have been doing it for my personal use long before I knew what canyoneering was. I enjoy knowing that other people get value from the sharing of that information. Obviously even you like to publish to some extent. Why do you do it? Just the cash earned from book and gear sales or do you also share because it feels good to provide something of value to people? Or something else?
Why spread the traffic out farther? I don’t have an answer for that really. But I have no issues with spreading it out.
Your questions hinted that you felt there are enough canyons published already and no more needs to be published. Yet you are deciding what unpublished canyons to let out in a book or your latest raves (some exceptions – I get it). You have your reasons for these. Others can publish canyons where they wish for their own reasons as well. And their reasons do not need to match yours.
Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds? So if I’m consistent I have a little mind? Wha?
And I would like to point out that this conversation is decidedly turning to that middle ground I said could be argued forever, especially if inconsistency is acceptable.
Adams question was if he should share a secret. The original point in my reply to him that opened all this up was – secret or share or middle ground.
Secret and keeping your mouth shut……. no problems since no one knows.
Sharing what you know in any form or amount you like and willing to share any aspect of it when asked……no problem since everyone is allowed access to that info.
Something in the middle causes all this fuss. Look how long this thread is getting. Middle ground issues that can fragment into seperate conversations and each able to stand on its own and spawn weeks of arguing in this forum. Show don’t tell, pic and story telling sans location, sharing with certain conditions, publish or not publish and all the arguments that can stem from those over why it should be kept on the down low.
Amazing how it all keeps comming back to that middle ground where ideas from both sides get twisted up and argued among people with varuing views and values. If you mix and match concepts at various times and in various combinations you can pretty much argue your way into doing what ever you want while your neighbor does the same.
Even if you and I were to be in total agreement on this subject matter, there will be many others who feel differently. Maybe that is why the agree to disagree is a pretty good thing. It suggests respect for views that do not mirror yours.
I highly doubt there will ever be a unanimous concensus here. The issues will rage on and clicks of people will continue to huddle together based on common views. Its just the way we humans seem to do everything from preschool toy sharing, to highschool popularity, to religious wars, to the highest governments. Pretty happy place huh?
Luke
Sent from my phone
TomJones ratagonia@gmail.com> wrote:
>Spearhead is listed in the current edition, released in 2006.
The canyons that were not published that came out in the first edition include:
– Spearhead >- Hammerhead >- Right Fork Direct >- Grotto Canyon >- Refrigerator
These last two are in the category “I did it so you don’t have to”.
There will be a couple of un-published canyons in the second edition, when it comes out, but I have not decided which ones. I have a list of about 10 that I need to do, and I will put in the book those that I think are worthy, and that don’t have access issues.
> “Are there not available/published enough canyons to keep most people busy for many, many years? Why publish more? Why spread the traffic out further?”
I asked the question in all seriousness. Do you have an answer to that question, Luke? I would like to hear it.
I have an answer when I release canyons, though you may not like it, and/or you may find it inconsistent with my other statements and argumentation. I can only point to that quotation from that famous canyoneer from Massachusetts: Ralph Waldo Emerson:
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, > adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
Tom
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Luke” wrote: >
> Just checkin’ >
> Spearhead is on your latest raves with info isn’t it and I have a failed attempt listed on my site that gives detailed approach info. So nothing new there. >
> No other new Zion stuff that hasn’t been released elsewhere planned for the book? >
> It is the “some exceptions” that stands out when compared to your question of: >
> “Are there not available/published enough canyons to keep most people busy for many, many years? Why publish more? Why spread the traffic out further?” >
> Just wanted to point out the “nuance” there. >
> And in all seriousness I am looking forward to picking up a copy when it is out. >
> Thanks >
> Luke >
kuenn_k2
For the sake of posting yet another opinion as well as keeping this marathon post from fading…
To me the question is not so much one of responsibility as it is obligation; an obligation to share the hazards that are inherent in order to experience the splendor. Willing participants then make a conscious decision to purchase peril at the expense of safety based on the author’s narrative. Is George Mallory, Hillary or Norgay responsible for the deaths on top of the world this year any more than Lewis and Clark are responsible for the deforestation of the great Northwest? What these pioneers did was prove that it was possible. Mallory was not granted the luxury of posting his last trip report and yet it didn’t deter the next generation of thrill seekers, some may even claim his disappearance advanced the cause. Is that posthumous liability?
I’m most grateful for those who willingly share their success stories, well knowing that it came at no small cost to them so that those of us with less time, talent or means can “reap where we have not sown”.
I’ll gladly buy the book and do my level best to be a good steward of their discovery.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “RAM” wrote:
I agree with Tom. What is wrong with owning responsibility for things? > It should make one more careful (sociopaths excepted) about the consequences and Ramifications of one’s choices. That said, I am way (weeks) behind on the group posts and will comment further tomorrow, I hope. Tom and I hold many canyons off the radar. Most of them are canyons shared with us and agreements which we are honoring. Just as these gals and fellas honor ours. Yet Tom has shared more new canyons than anyone who accuses him of being a selfish keeper of secrets. A paradox? And has anyone done ALL the beta’s canyons out there yet? Didn’t think so. And being as big a secret keeper as anyone (lots of different reasons-will touch on that) I will open my first post on the subject informing that I will post a new canyon for you all right after pressing send…to go with the one Tom (Eyedropper) posted a few days back.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “TomJones” wrote:
Totally serious.
How could it be otherwise?
Of course, I believe in more than 100% responsibility. The people who visit the canyon are also 100% responsible for their actions. But I am too, for BRINGING these people to this particular canyon.
So, the trails on the sandpile next to Spry from Canyoneers – those are my fault, very much so. Not sure the current trail on there is from canyoneers. Also, it has been a long time since I sent people toward the sandpile, so my current culpability is small, if canyoneers.
However, while I did not FD Spry, I was the first to publish it. So all the grooves and wear and tear in the canyon are on my head. I feel somewhat bad about it, but not real bad. From those grooves, you can see how a guy would want to keep a canyon off the radar to keep this kind of wear and tear from occurring.
Tom
TomJones
Spearhead is listed in the current edition, released in 2006.
The canyons that were not published that came out in the first edition include:
– Spearhead – Hammerhead – Right Fork Direct – Grotto Canyon – Refrigerator
These last two are in the category “I did it so you don’t have to”.
There will be a couple of un-published canyons in the second edition, when it comes out, but I have not decided which ones. I have a list of about 10 that I need to do, and I will put in the book those that I think are worthy, and that don’t have access issues.
> “Are there not available/published enough canyons to keep most people busy for many, many years? Why publish more? Why spread the traffic out further?”
I asked the question in all seriousness. Do you have an answer to that question, Luke? I would like to hear it.
I have an answer when I release canyons, though you may not like it, and/or you may find it inconsistent with my other statements and argumentation. I can only point to that quotation from that famous canyoneer from Massachusetts: Ralph Waldo Emerson:
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
Tom
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Luke” wrote:
Just checkin’
Spearhead is on your latest raves with info isn’t it and I have a failed attempt listed on my site that gives detailed approach info. So nothing new there.
No other new Zion stuff that hasn’t been released elsewhere planned for the book?
It is the “some exceptions” that stands out when compared to your question of:
“Are there not available/published enough canyons to keep most people busy for many, many years? Why publish more? Why spread the traffic out further?”
Just wanted to point out the “nuance” there.
And in all seriousness I am looking forward to picking up a copy when it is out.
Thanks
Luke
neil wilkinson
Yes, Abby and it is also about power and control sometimes.
Neil
Tue Oct 2, 2012 1:06 pm (PDT) . Posted by:”Abby Snow” abby_snow50
“The controversy about protecting canyons through secrecy doesn’t seem to stem from the cut-and-dry regulations. I think it’s about concern gray areas of ethics that there isn’t consensus/knowledge on: about rope groves, bolting vs. natural anchors, and ghosting vs. leaving anchors. Canyoneers have different levels of awareness and skill on  these issues”Â
Luke
Just checkin’
Spearhead is on your latest raves with info isn’t it and I have a failed attempt listed on my site that gives detailed approach info. So nothing new there.
No other new Zion stuff that hasn’t been released elsewhere planned for the book?
It is the “some exceptions” that stands out when compared to your question of.
“Are there not available/published enough canyons to keep most people busy for many, many years? Why publish more? Why spread the traffic out further?”
Just wanted to point out the “nuance” there.
And in all seriousness I am looking forward to picking up a copy when it is out.
Thanks
Luke
From: Yahoo Canyons Group [mailto:Yahoo Canyons Group] On Behalf Of TomJones Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 7:15 PM To: Yahoo Canyons Group Subject: [from Canyons Group] Re: undisclosed canyons
New edition Zion book – probably delayed until Spring 2014, as I have other things I need to work on.
Hanksville area book – then pushed to Spring 2015.
You do know, Luke, that in these books I generally do not reveal canyons that have not been published elsewhere. Some exceptions… Spearhead canyon for instance has gotten really popular, kinda ruined really, standing in queues for the rappels… (just kidding).
Tom
— In Yahoo Canyons Group , “Luke” wrote:
Tom when is that new book to be released any way?
Luke
From: Yahoo Canyons Group [mailto:Yahoo Canyons Group ] On Behalf Of > TomJones > Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 5:09 PM > To: Yahoo Canyons Group secret/broad-banded ‘debate’-
The best mix is probably some of this / some of that. I am not drawn to > release ALL canyons, just as I am not drawn to ‘hold close to my chest’ ALL > canyons. Some canyons are especially delicate – these I tend to withhold. > Some are particularly robust – these I tend to publish.
Even if I was in a holding mood, Spry would have been released because it > was so obvious, being in the middle of Zion and visible to many, many > people. Pretty amazing, actually, it was not published before then.
In general, in managing land, esp. Wilderness lands, Managers like to > concentrate use as much as possible. The greatest impact is by the first > traveler, and impacts go down from there. So given the choice of placing a > traveler in a canyon that gets 10 visits a year or one that gets 100 visits > a year, a person seeking the least impact would put that traveler in the > 100-visit canyon.
Are there not available/published enough canyons to keep most people busy > for many, many years? Why publish more? Why spread the traffic out further?
Tom
— In Yahoo Canyons Group , > “titanstairs” wrote:
It can be otherwise because individuals are responsible for themselves. In > canyons and life. I hate seeing damage to canyons and rope marks as bad as > anyone but I also feel it is a necessary evil to a certain extent. To not > enjoy a canyon that was create here on earth just because of impact is not a > very good case. And it is also very short term mindset. How long before mojo > steps naturally disappear or hook holes diminish. The impact we cause is so > relatively minuscule to the scope of time.
Use but don’t abuse is what I believe not only in canyons but in most > things in life. That relates to cars, rec vehicles, gear, etc.
Thank you Tom and others taking the responsibility but the only blame I > place in you is showing us how to enjoy nature and what it has to offer us.
>
TomJones
New edition Zion book – probably delayed until Spring 2014, as I have other things I need to work on.
Hanksville area book – then pushed to Spring 2015.
You do know, Luke, that in these books I generally do not reveal canyons that have not been published elsewhere. Some exceptions… Spearhead canyon for instance has gotten really popular, kinda ruined really, standing in queues for the rappels… (just kidding).
Tom
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “Luke” wrote:
Tom when is that new book to be released any way?
Luke
From: Yahoo Canyons Group [mailto:Yahoo Canyons Group] On Behalf Of > TomJones > Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 5:09 PM > To: Yahoo Canyons Group
Subject: [from Canyons Group] Re: undisclosed canyons
I think this points to what I feel is an important nuance of the > secret/broad-banded ‘debate’-
The best mix is probably some of this / some of that. I am not drawn to > release ALL canyons, just as I am not drawn to ‘hold close to my chest’ ALL > canyons. Some canyons are especially delicate – these I tend to withhold. > Some are particularly robust – these I tend to publish.
Even if I was in a holding mood, Spry would have been released because it > was so obvious, being in the middle of Zion and visible to many, many > people. Pretty amazing, actually, it was not published before then.
In general, in managing land, esp. Wilderness lands, Managers like to > concentrate use as much as possible. The greatest impact is by the first > traveler, and impacts go down from there. So given the choice of placing a > traveler in a canyon that gets 10 visits a year or one that gets 100 visits > a year, a person seeking the least impact would put that traveler in the > 100-visit canyon.
Are there not available/published enough canyons to keep most people busy > for many, many years? Why publish more? Why spread the traffic out further?
Tom
— In Yahoo Canyons Group , > “titanstairs” wrote:
It can be otherwise because individuals are responsible for themselves. In > canyons and life. I hate seeing damage to canyons and rope marks as bad as > anyone but I also feel it is a necessary evil to a certain extent. To not > enjoy a canyon that was create here on earth just because of impact is not a > very good case. And it is also very short term mindset. How long before mojo > steps naturally disappear or hook holes diminish. The impact we cause is so > relatively minuscule to the scope of time.
Use but don’t abuse is what I believe not only in canyons but in most > things in life. That relates to cars, rec vehicles, gear, etc.
Thank you Tom and others taking the responsibility but the only blame I > place in you is showing us how to enjoy nature and what it has to offer us.
>
Luke
Tom when is that new book to be released any way?
Luke
From: Yahoo Canyons Group [mailto:Yahoo Canyons Group] On Behalf Of TomJones Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 5:09 PM To: Yahoo Canyons Group Subject: [from Canyons Group] Re: undisclosed canyons
I think this points to what I feel is an important nuance of the secret/broad-banded ‘debate’-
The best mix is probably some of this / some of that. I am not drawn to release ALL canyons, just as I am not drawn to ‘hold close to my chest’ ALL canyons. Some canyons are especially delicate – these I tend to withhold. Some are particularly robust – these I tend to publish.
Even if I was in a holding mood, Spry would have been released because it was so obvious, being in the middle of Zion and visible to many, many people. Pretty amazing, actually, it was not published before then.
In general, in managing land, esp. Wilderness lands, Managers like to concentrate use as much as possible. The greatest impact is by the first traveler, and impacts go down from there. So given the choice of placing a traveler in a canyon that gets 10 visits a year or one that gets 100 visits a year, a person seeking the least impact would put that traveler in the 100-visit canyon.
Are there not available/published enough canyons to keep most people busy for many, many years? Why publish more? Why spread the traffic out further?
Tom
— In Yahoo Canyons Group , “titanstairs” wrote:
It can be otherwise because individuals are responsible for themselves. In canyons and life. I hate seeing damage to canyons and rope marks as bad as anyone but I also feel it is a necessary evil to a certain extent. To not enjoy a canyon that was create here on earth just because of impact is not a very good case. And it is also very short term mindset. How long before mojo steps naturally disappear or hook holes diminish. The impact we cause is so relatively minuscule to the scope of time.
Use but don’t abuse is what I believe not only in canyons but in most things in life. That relates to cars, rec vehicles, gear, etc.
Thank you Tom and others taking the responsibility but the only blame I place in you is showing us how to enjoy nature and what it has to offer us. >