— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “restrac2000”
Those people who bemoan guide book writters because now there > favorite places will be more crowded forget the example of Glen Canyon > “the place no one knew” We need people to know of these places and > fight like hell for them or our WSA’
I think this issue deserves more than the simple rhetoric that has > been used by both sides of the debates for decades. Are there any > research projects on this? I think there are many of us who are > actually familiar with the specific situation that you voice. From my > reading of the history its not simply fair to label it (outside > marketing campaigns) as the “place that no one knew.” Might be more > accurate to label it the place David Brower didn’t know. There were > people recreating there at that point, people who knew it fondly. =
While there were people who “knew” Glen canyon, they were in the 100’s annually. For an advocate of more protection of lands, it is a logical argument that having more people who know of a place. More people who love the place, that you will have more people who will speak out for the place. The advocates for mining, cattle and other uses will be speaking out already. Perhaps I am responding to the word rhetoric. Perhaps like the word propaganda, it has a bad reputation that is not deserved with the word’s dictionary definition. I do know that the philosophy that having more folks knowing, is helpful one, sprang from one of Harv’s best friends and that he and others believe it with all their hearts and it is not a part of some cheap slogan champaign to further their side, in their desire to protect the land. Minor point and I hope I am not being too sensitive. One persons rhetoric is the next persons belief system. R
A.J.
> This idea has certainly reminded me of some naive and petty posts I have made–yet the group has largely responded to these with tolerance and/or goodwill, even when I deserved less. Maybe that’s because of my inexperience and unimportance, but based on those I have met because of this forum, it seems more likely that it’s because there are some generous people here. It’s been a great thing for me, and seems like it could be relevant for a while to come.
Jeff
Definitely a good forum, with good people. Most certainly relevaant, with lots of great topics and discussion most of the time. That’s why I came back….
A.J.
I agree with you Bill; they aren’t facts. And agree with Ram; people should be smart enough to make thier own decision about the statements. Now I’m off to lick some oreos…
> There is no way that I could conclude anything from what I’ve been > exposed to. First of all, I have no idea as to the percentage > of “Canyoneers” in Zion that are ACA trained vs. non ACA trained? > I > believe that ACA training is a GREAT thing as the popularity of > the “Sport” continues to grow. Like anything…the more training > and > experience one has, the less the chance of error. My only question > about the training would be if it might be prematurely instilling > a > confidence level that leads to “over-confidence” thus the > possibility > or should I say unnecessary risk?
That’s certainly one outcome, but likely that the over-confidence is more directly tied to one’s personality rather than a three day training class. Personally, I’d rather have over-confidence in someone with some training; rather than over-confidence in someone without training. At least then, hopefully they have more knowledge in the bag to maybe get themselves out of a bind. Who knows though, the end result is likely the same…
(BTW, since we are still discussing it, you would also have to see if the ACA folks get out more than the non-ACA ones to see if it’s simply a matter of injury per time units spent in the wilderness. That’s why 78% of statistics are made up on the spot.
j b
This idea has certainly reminded me of some naive and petty posts I have made–yet the group has largely responded to these with tolerance and/or goodwill, even when I deserved less. Maybe that’s because of my inexperience and unimportance, but based on those I have met because of this forum, it seems more likely that it’s because there are some generous people here. It’s been a great thing for me, and seems like it could be relevant for a while to come.
Jeff
—– Original Message —- I’ve finally been able to catch up a little on the canyons discussions, and I totally agree with you Youth. In my relatively short time on the canyons post, I’ve seen some pretty aggressive hostilities towards it’s members. Enough to make me leave for a couple of months while members got it off thier chests.
__________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Penny Martens
As a lifelong dunker, a slow count of 5 will render the Oreo properly saturated with milk to flood your mouth with soggy goodness without the cookie breaking and falling into the glass of milk. Make mine Double Stuffs, please. Penny
Bo
There is no way that I could conclude anything from what I’ve been exposed to. First of all, I have no idea as to the percentage of “Canyoneers” in Zion that are ACA trained vs. non ACA trained? I believe that ACA training is a GREAT thing as the popularity of the “Sport” continues to grow. Like anything…the more training and experience one has, the less the chance of error. My only question about the training would be if it might be prematurely instilling a confidence level that leads to “over-confidence” thus the possibility or should I say unnecessary risk?
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “A.J.” wrote:
> Not that it supports ANY theory or can be directed in any
direction, but with a very slow RESCUE season at Zion “TG”, the
last three callouts I responded to in “canyon related” incidents
ended in: one fatality and 2 carryout/rescue scenarios. Out of the
3 last “Majors”, 2 of the “victims” were ACA trained and one was
not. Now….to gain statistics from this would be unfair I
suppose? Might have been 3 fatalities if they were not trained?
Would need to factor in how many of ALL incidents were ACA trained, to > see if the accident rate was lower for ACA folks. Good luck with that > study. Of course, as an experienced SAR person (as I know you are) > knows; sometimes other factors influence a situation. Such as > hypothermia slowing or blurring the thought process and causing a > mistake to be made (as it seems to be the case in one of the “Majors” > which had a fatality…)
Just my opinion, > A.J. >
Bo
I guess I’ll just go have some more milk and oreos! Sorry to offend with facts. Do you wish some more? Maybe Zion is an isolated example? I just mentioned what I observed. Nothing more nothing less. I don’t keep track…I just notice. I certainly will keep names out of it to protect….my butt!
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, WB wrote: Except for Bo, thanks for at least posting some > facts to the debate however fragmentary. But it’s a start rather than > Harrrump!
Bo
I think we all should just sit down and enjoy a glass of milk with some oreos! It seems like nobody argues unless you bite into or unscrew the top and lick! And then…what does it matter? We all agree that it tastes good. Theres plenty of oreos and milk to be had.
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “adkramoo” wrote:
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, WB wrote:
Ya know, the onus is on the person making the claim to support > whether > it’s true or not. Especially when the claim is self- > serving.
As far as who cares, well I care about unsupported self-serving
statements being accepted as gospel truth when there’s no facts > to > support them. This list has a long history of statements by > prominent > people going relatively unchallenged while less- > privileged persons get > trashed for what they say or do.
I think I see steam rising from your forehead in California, all the > way here in Colorado. Easy does it guy. In the heat of the moment a > comment was thrown out. Could be called an opinion. Could be called > a boast. Could be called self serving. You called it on the table, > as you saw it. Tom thought it had truth to it. I took the thing > elsewhere, with my opinion that the networking and friendships > formed were a legacy. No one else choose to comment. It was an > awkward spot. People may have had many reasons for not commenting or > challenging it. I tend toward giving people more credit. They are > smart enough to decide if something is opinion or fact. The way it > played out hardly constituted an acceptance of the claim by our > public or a bias of management, in the present anyway….in my > opinion anyway 😉
It would be nice if opinions were labeled as opinions and facts > were
considered to be due supporting evidence, but I guess the > prevailing
opinion here based on the majority of the posts is that facts and
evidence are only required of the NPS when making regulations > about
Zion permits and if you are a prominent poster and agree with > other
prominent posters your opinions are beyond challenge.
Well, I am glad that your stepping forward to make sure that no one > is fooled or swayed by a cartel of prominent posting canyoneers, > hijacking the minds of the lurkers…. I was just trying to be > funny. Did that come off as sarcastic? Wasn’t the intention. It has > been my observation that the so called prominent posters can’t even > agree that the sun rises in the East! ;-)If I am allowed to include > myself in this mythical group, I might define them as bunch of > really small fish, in a really small pond. I think you made your > point though
> Ever seen Blazing Saddles? Remember in the Gov’s office where > Mel > Brooks gets everyone to say Harrump! And the campfire > scene? That’s > just about the same amount of facts that is being > brought up here, > about almost none. Except for Bo, thanks for at > least posting some > facts to the debate however fragmentary. But > it’s a start rather than
Harrrump!
> HARRUMPH!! > Great movie! and the same arguments keep “Coming and going, and > going and coming!” I’m Tired!! Classic! > Bill. I don’t think anyone bought the Brooklyn Bridge. HARRUMPH!!
With all due respect, the plural of anecdotes is still not facts.
> Agreed. Most if not all agree.
And if you think I’m being ungrateful to Rich kindly look through > the > archives and add up how many times I’ve commended Rich for > running the > free natural anchor classes.
You have indeed. A long and complex history of interactions between > several complex personalities
> Harrumph!> -Bill
LOL! That’s really funny. Thanx for the input > Ram >
Tom Jones
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, bruce silliman wrote:
1. I do not think it is self-serving in any way but just a > statement by Rich IMHO). >
Rich gave himself a pat on the back. I stated support for it as a legitimate pat on the back.
Self-administered pats on the back are usually considered self- serving (although it is not clear that giving one’s self an ego- boost is really that effective).
Therefore, yada yada yada, … somewhat akin to me saying no, the sun does not rise in the east, it rises south of east-south-east.
Plain talk – whether legitimate or not, it was self-serving.
Perhaps you are parsing the “is” – there being no convincing evidence that AT THIS VERY MOMENT, the statements made serve Mr. Carlson’s self interest (other than having his name bandied about on the Egroup, which may serve his interest).
Tongue in Cheek (because it serves MY interests…)
Tom
Tom
adkramoo
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, WB wrote: > Ya know, the onus is on the person making the claim to support whether > it’s true or not. Especially when the claim is self- serving. > As far as who cares, well I care about unsupported self-serving > statements being accepted as gospel truth when there’s no facts to > support them. This list has a long history of statements by prominent > people going relatively unchallenged while less- privileged persons get > trashed for what they say or do.
I think I see steam rising from your forehead in California, all the way here in Colorado. Easy does it guy. In the heat of the moment a comment was thrown out. Could be called an opinion. Could be called a boast. Could be called self serving. You called it on the table, as you saw it. Tom thought it had truth to it. I took the thing elsewhere, with my opinion that the networking and friendships formed were a legacy. No one else choose to comment. It was an awkward spot. People may have had many reasons for not commenting or challenging it. I tend toward giving people more credit. They are smart enough to decide if something is opinion or fact. The way it played out hardly constituted an acceptance of the claim by our public or a bias of management, in the present anyway….in my opinion anyway 😉
> It would be nice if opinions were labeled as opinions and facts were > considered to be due supporting evidence, but I guess the prevailing > opinion here based on the majority of the posts is that facts and > evidence are only required of the NPS when making regulations about > Zion permits and if you are a prominent poster and agree with other > prominent posters your opinions are beyond challenge.
Well, I am glad that your stepping forward to make sure that no one is fooled or swayed by a cartel of prominent posting canyoneers, hijacking the minds of the lurkers…. I was just trying to be funny. Did that come off as sarcastic? Wasn’t the intention. It has been my observation that the so called prominent posters can’t even agree that the sun rises in the East! ;-)If I am allowed to include myself in this mythical group, I might define them as bunch of really small fish, in a really small pond. I think you made your point though
> Ever seen Blazing Saddles? Remember in the Gov’s office where Mel > Brooks gets everyone to say Harrump! And the campfire scene? That’s > just about the same amount of facts that is being brought up here, > about almost none. Except for Bo, thanks for at least posting some > facts to the debate however fragmentary. But it’s a start rather than > Harrrump!
HARRUMPH!! Great movie! and the same arguments keep “Coming and going, and going and coming!” I’m Tired!! Classic! Bill. I don’t think anyone bought the Brooklyn Bridge. HARRUMPH!!
> With all due respect, the plural of anecdotes is still not facts.
Agreed. Most if not all agree.
> And if you think I’m being ungrateful to Rich kindly look through the > archives and add up how many times I’ve commended Rich for running the > free natural anchor classes.
You have indeed. A long and complex history of interactions between several complex personalities
> Harrumph!> -Bill
LOL! That’s really funny. Thanx for the input Ram
bruce silliman
WB,
I would answer you this way:
1. I do not think it is self-serving in any way but just a statement by Rich IMHO).
2. If one could go back and see the training section of the ACA website one would find that over the course of the 3 years that I’ve been involved in the sport, that Rich has put on courses almost continuously from January to October each of those years ( I guess he kind of takes it easy in November and December). I am not privy to the number of people that attended those classes but I bet it numbers in the hundreds if not approaching 1,000. Nothing to question about that. Whether that equates to the majority of trained canyoneers I do not know.
I too thank Rich for his dedication to the sport and his offerings of many free courses that take up his time.
bruce from bryce
To: canyons@yahoogroups.comFrom: listservew2@gmail.comDate: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:18:34 -0800Subject: Re: [from Canyons Group] Re: Zion Backcountry Management Plan Approved
On Jan 15, 2008, at 9:53 AM, A.J. wrote:>> But has anyone ever studied with even the paltry available facts>> (gathered from less than reliable sources) between the general>> canyoneering population (non-ACA) and their accident/death rate>> vs. ACA-influenced canyoneers and their accident/death rate? And>> then published the data, sources and analysis?>> As Ram mentioned, expensive and time consuming; likely not to happen> unless you want to take it on? Maybe you take offense to> the “Lion’s Share” part of Rich’s statement? What does a Lion’s> share constitute anyway? Really though, who cares?Ya know, the onus is on the person making the claim to support whether it’s true or not. Especially when the claim is self-serving.As far as who cares, well I care about unsupported self-serving statements being accepted as gospel truth when there’s no facts to support them. This list has a long history of statements by prominent people going relatively unchallenged while less-privileged persons get trashed for what they say or do.I actually care about whether things said here are true or not. This is a sport where reality matters. People read things here and go out and modify their behavior because of what they read here. Opinions and actions that don’t exactly track with reality can easily lead to injury or death.It would be nice if opinions were labeled as opinions and facts were considered to be due supporting evidence, but I guess the prevailing opinion here based on the majority of the posts is that facts and evidence are only required of the NPS when making regulations about Zion permits and if you are a prominent poster and agree with other prominent posters your opinions are beyond challenge.Ever seen Blazing Saddles? Remember in the Gov’s office where Mel Brooks gets everyone to say Harrump! And the campfire scene? That’s just about the same amount of facts that is being brought up here, about almost none. Except for Bo, thanks for at least posting some facts to the debate however fragmentary. But it’s a start rather than Harrrump!> From my experience with the folks I’ve met in the canyons; many of> them have had some ACA exposure. Those that did have exhibited some> good techniques and skills. I’ve seen Rich offer many free classes> and selfless acts; and I applaud him for making a difference.> Whether it is, or is not, a “Lion’s Share”, it’s still commendable.> Thanks for your efforts Rich.With all due respect, the plural of anecdotes is still not facts.And if you think I’m being ungrateful to Rich kindly look through the archives and add up how many times I’ve commended Rich for running the free natural anchor classes.Harrumph!-Bill
_______________ Make distant family not so distant with Windows Vista® + Windows Live™. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/digitallife/keepintouch.mspx?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_CPC_VideoChat_distantfamily_012008
WB
On Jan 15, 2008, at 9:53 AM, A.J. wrote:
>> But has anyone ever studied with even the paltry available facts >> (gathered from less than reliable sources) between the general >> canyoneering population (non-ACA) and their accident/death rate >> vs. ACA-influenced canyoneers and their accident/death rate? And >> then published the data, sources and analysis?
As Ram mentioned, expensive and time consuming; likely not to happen > unless you want to take it on? Maybe you take offense to > the “Lion’s Share” part of Rich’s statement? What does a Lion’s > share constitute anyway? Really though, who cares?
Ya know, the onus is on the person making the claim to support whether it’s true or not. Especially when the claim is self-serving.
As far as who cares, well I care about unsupported self-serving statements being accepted as gospel truth when there’s no facts to support them. This list has a long history of statements by prominent people going relatively unchallenged while less-privileged persons get trashed for what they say or do.
I actually care about whether things said here are true or not. This is a sport where reality matters. People read things here and go out and modify their behavior because of what they read here. Opinions and actions that don’t exactly track with reality can easily lead to injury or death.
It would be nice if opinions were labeled as opinions and facts were considered to be due supporting evidence, but I guess the prevailing opinion here based on the majority of the posts is that facts and evidence are only required of the NPS when making regulations about Zion permits and if you are a prominent poster and agree with other prominent posters your opinions are beyond challenge.
Ever seen Blazing Saddles? Remember in the Gov’s office where Mel Brooks gets everyone to say Harrump! And the campfire scene? That’s just about the same amount of facts that is being brought up here, about almost none. Except for Bo, thanks for at least posting some facts to the debate however fragmentary. But it’s a start rather than Harrrump!
> From my experience with the folks I’ve met in the canyons; many of > them have had some ACA exposure. Those that did have exhibited some > good techniques and skills. I’ve seen Rich offer many free classes > and selfless acts; and I applaud him for making a difference. > Whether it is, or is not, a “Lion’s Share”, it’s still commendable. > Thanks for your efforts Rich.
With all due respect, the plural of anecdotes is still not facts.
And if you think I’m being ungrateful to Rich kindly look through the archives and add up how many times I’ve commended Rich for running the free natural anchor classes.
Harrumph!
-Bill
A.J.
> Not that it supports ANY theory or can be directed in any > direction, but with a very slow RESCUE season at Zion “TG”, the > last three callouts I responded to in “canyon related” incidents > ended in: one fatality and 2 carryout/rescue scenarios. Out of the > 3 last “Majors”, 2 of the “victims” were ACA trained and one was > not. Now….to gain statistics from this would be unfair I > suppose? Might have been 3 fatalities if they were not trained?
Would need to factor in how many of ALL incidents were ACA trained, to see if the accident rate was lower for ACA folks. Good luck with that study. Of course, as an experienced SAR person (as I know you are) knows; sometimes other factors influence a situation. Such as hypothermia slowing or blurring the thought process and causing a mistake to be made (as it seems to be the case in one of the “Majors” which had a fatality…)
Just my opinion, A.J.
A.J.
> But has anyone ever studied with even the paltry available facts > (gathered from less than reliable sources) between the general > canyoneering population (non-ACA) and their accident/death rate > vs. ACA-influenced canyoneers and their accident/death rate? And > then published the data, sources and analysis?
As Ram mentioned, expensive and time consuming; likely not to happen unless you want to take it on? Maybe you take offense to the “Lion’s Share” part of Rich’s statement? What does a Lion’s share constitute anyway? Really though, who cares?
From my experience with the folks I’ve met in the canyons; many of them have had some ACA exposure. Those that did have exhibited some good techniques and skills. I’ve seen Rich offer many free classes and selfless acts; and I applaud him for making a difference. Whether it is, or is not, a “Lion’s Share”, it’s still commendable. Thanks for your efforts Rich.
A.J.
I’ve finally been able to catch up a little on the canyons discussions, and I totally agree with you Youth. In my relatively short time on the canyons post, I’ve seen some pretty aggressive hostilities towards it’s members. Enough to make me leave for a couple of months while members got it off thier chests.
I completely followed your statements, from the original post by Scott; and I totally agree with your thought process. This and the ACA forums are probably the largest concentration of canyoneers. Like it or not, statements by the percieved “leaders” will have an impact on the community. While I’m another canyoneer who would love to see the permit system in Zion change (I, like Ram, like to maximize my vacation time with big days one after another) and have been majorly disappointed on many occasions by the current system; I feel that circumventing the system will just cause harm in the future for even more folks; likely the entire community.
Look at the climb by Dean Potter in Arches as a recent example of someone utilizing a “loophole”. Because of that one climb (granted, it was highly publicized, which was the big mistake), climbing access was restricted in the entire park. It’s certainly not a good idea to promote bypassing it, or IMHO even using loopholes. That said, I totally understand the frustration felt by many; so I felt it was a wise statement from Youth to say that if you do feel that there is a need to not use the system; so be it. I agree with Ram that it isn’t at a Boston Tea Party level; but I do think it can have an impact. So I agree with Youth, just don’t broadcast it. It’s not going to do anything positive. Do you honestly think that if the NPS see people not following the rules that they are going to think, “Gee, maybe the rules aren’t fair then?” Very doubtful.
The way we are going to change the system is by using our growing community, thought and science to try to adapt the system. It’s politics though, so yes, many times it doesn’t make sense and it’s hurtful to those who try so hard to make a change and don’t see results. I can understand that; and as a person who did my best by talking to Ray, writing letters, and promoting the writing of letters; I feel saddened and a little hurt by the current result as well. However, there are plenty more canyons out there. I’ll hit Zion here and there, but will likely concentrate on areas outside the park; and will continue to write letters with the reasons why I’m doing so.
Take care, A.J.
restrac2000
— In Yahoo Canyons Group, “adkramoo” wrote:
>Perhaps I am responding to the word rhetoric. > Perhaps like the word propaganda, it has a bad reputation that is not > deserved with the word’s dictionary definition. For an advocate of more protection of lands, it is a logical > argument that having more people who know of a place. More people who > love the place, that you will have more people who will speak out for > the place.
Not negative in use or definition. I used it more as the terms of the idea once it has hit the public discourse, often presented as “logical” though accompanied with little evidence to support. It may be a valid idea, it has been used for quite a while and there are people who believe in it deeply. But in Harv’s response it was labeled with the idea that we might bemoan the idea of guidebooks or more people because we have forgotten the past. I have not forgotten the past. I believe that for me to have a higher stake in the “logic” of “more people = good” than I need to hear a greater discourse on the negative effects of such strategy. Such negative impacts exist, I have no doubt about that. How they balance out with the benefits of such strategy is where I am uncertain. I just haven’t been persuaded enough to believe in its proposed logic yet, especially with the modern problems with wilderness management (problems that didn’t exist when the strategy was first applied in the mid to late 1900’s). It was an important and successful tool then yet I believe the context has changed enough to be reconsidered by some of us, and not simply because we have forgotten the past.
I never called such strategy cheap, instead I intentionally called it deep-rooted, which I think is a fair conclusion (and I hope not a value judgment) from the histories of many environmental organizations.
I think constructively analyzing the implications of variables that affect wilderness experiences (i.e. guidebooks and more people) is a beneficial process for us, specifically in regards to Zion. Tom was part of a panel during the first Canyoneering Conference a few years back and brought up some intriguing ideas on the subject. Such dialog might be important as the canyons we utilize continue to see more pressure in the upcoming years. It is beneficial for me in analyzing the benefits of supporting various organizations that advocate outcomes I desire.
Youth
P.S. – Such strategies have long term implications outside recreation. Studies have shown “wilderness” to be a main theme for Americans when choosing locations to live and work. As exposure increases to such areas a lot more than the wilderness changes. A myriad of lifestyle and economic changes happen to those regions. I think of Torrey, Utah or the current land prices in places like Boulder, Utah. Changes that many of us recognize to provide inherent benefits but not without some harm.