opinions wanted for impact opportunity

[Beck]

Opinions being solicited for lobbying opportunity about climbing and access issues aside from the Fee Demo Project.

 

What are some of the other main issues facing climbers here in the Northwest? How can we portray our image to get more funding thrown our way on climber friendly issues in the future?

 

Looking for responses that generally will encourage non climbing public to think of us as green, presentable, and worthy of being considered when they spend tourism forecasting dollars, etc....

 

 

just checking to see what people have to say... I got invited to some PR thing in a couple of weeks, so figured i'd ask everyone.

 

late in september i go for an afternoon tour aboard a 175' motor yacht with Sound Tourism and the Sound Environmental Project to go press the flesh and listen to Paul Shell talk about promoting tourism and the environment at the same time.two hour networking food fest or something as well will let me tell a lot of rather influential people about climbers in a good light.

 

anything constructive would be appreciated.

 

Edited September 15, 2003 by Beck

[Greg_W]

I think the first thing you should realize is that environmentalists do not like climbers and our "fouling" of the environment with chalk, bolts, slings, and our human presence period. Second, don't expect anything that is government-related to provide any benefit to climbing and/or climbers. The first thing a government agency does is figure out how they can control new entities and increase revenues through those entities.

 

I am not completely convinced that more government, or public, awareness of climbers and the climbing community is a good thing. There is something to be said for keeping a low profile and going about our activities.

 

A few comments:

1. "Get more funding thrown our way..."??? Don't think that that will happen, Beck. These politicos know that our demographic doesn't have a high degree of political involvement and/or votes. Thus, they won't waste time on an "interest group" that has little or no interest.

2. I don't want the non-climbing public to think of us at all. Out of sight, out of mind.

3. Sound Tourism and Sound Environmental? Again, if it has to do with government, it's a bad thing for us. Tourism? You want to bring MORE climbers here? That will only increase congestion, increase visibility, and cause both State and Federal agencies to figure out ways to get money from us.

 

I honestly can't see how this will benefit climbers and the climbing community. It sounds like it will benefit Beck, though.

[Beck]

thanks greg. I believe the access fund would generally disagree and many in the mountain guides and adventure travel industry would as well.

 

many organizations understand the value of promoting conservation. i want to continue to link climbers into the green model, from the nonclimbers perspective. this is nothing new or original on my part.

[lummox]

Beck said:

late in september i go for an afternoon tour aboard a 175' motor yacht with Sound Tourism and the Sound Environmental Project to go press the flesh and listen to Paul Shell talk about promoting tourism and the environment at the same time.two hour networking food fest or something as well will let me tell a lot of rather influential people about climbers in a good light.

you lost your credibility by lying bout other shit. how i know you aint bullshitting bout this?

[Beck]

you can come with if you're a qute climber girl as I don't have a date for the event yet.

or will pictures with Paul Shell and me rubbernecking suffice?

do you need to see my invitation?

 

I'm asking for input on what positive things to tell environmentally minded development groups about climbers.

 

there's going to be many chances to mention issues. One I'm trying to package is the Rainier permitting issue and keeping the mountains open to climbers. more input solicited from you guys and girls.

 

if it was a knitting party, I'd tell them how much climbers like warm socks and can they make some socks up for all us climbers out there.

if they were cooks, it'd be, do you know how much climbers love food? Do you want to come cook for climbers at a climbing party?

 

so, I'm trying to figure out how and what to say about climbing issues that engage environmental conservation, etc...

 

I'm going to try to refrain from spending any more time on this thread defending my character. here, im asking for opinions on issues. thanks!

[lI1|1!]

beck-

 

i confess that i have no idea what the question is so i don't know if this is an answer, but local avalanche forecasting has always suffered from underfunding. avalanches impact humans by closing the passes and killing backcountry skiers. the gummint seems mostly just concerned about keeping the passes open. how about hobnobbing about how many people bc ski in the PNW and use the forecasts to help at staying safe? my only fear is eyes will light about about how to get money out of bc skiers with park passes etc.

 

i think the problem with your posts like these about your "schmooze cruise" (buzz phrase copywrite lI1|1!) is it's the kind of schlock people head to the mountains to get away from.

[billcoe]

Greg_W said:

I think the first thing you should realize is that environmentalists do not like climbers and our "fouling" of the environment with chalk, bolts, slings, and our human presence period. Second, don't expect anything that is government-related to provide any benefit to climbing and/or climbers. The first thing a government agency does is figure out how they can control new entities and increase revenues through those entities.

 

I am not completely convinced that more government, or public, awareness of climbers and the climbing community is a good thing. There is something to be said for keeping a low profile and going about our activities.

 

A few comments:

1. "Get more funding thrown our way..."??? Don't think that that will happen, Beck. These politicos know that our demographic doesn't have a high degree of political involvement and/or votes. Thus, they won't waste time on an "interest group" that has little or no interest.

2. I don't want the non-climbing public to think of us at all. Out of sight, out of mind.

3. Sound Tourism and Sound Environmental? Again, if it has to do with government, it's a bad thing for us. Tourism? You want to bring MORE climbers here? That will only increase congestion, increase visibility, and cause both State and Federal agencies to figure out ways to get money from us.

 

I honestly can't see how this will benefit climbers and the climbing community. It sounds like it will benefit Beck, though.

 

 

Beck: Greg answered for me, except for the benefitting Beck part. Greg, right on the money dude.

[Beck]

avalanche funding, good idea. Snoqualamie at the Summit is one of the biggest sponsors for this sound tourism event, i will mention it.

 

keep the advice coming.

 

and not telling people climbers are there-

 

denial is not a bargaining chip of strength in diplomacy!

 

i will be talking to gov and industry leaders about green tourism, people. what should i tell them about climbers? Nothing??? I don't think so...

 

 

[cracked]

Beck, please leave climbers out of it. When there is a need, climbers will attract attention. Right now, though, there is no need. What will it do for us? In the past, bringing climbing into the limelight has done nothing positive. Don't do it. If you want to represent climbers, listen to them. I don't fully understand what you're trying to do, but from what I do understand, I don't like. I don't want or need a spokesperson for my climbing. Leave me out of it.

 

-Paul

[AlpineK]

I agree with GregW and Cracked and others. We want the government to not see us.

 

You may get to go on cruises with politician, but you are not and never will be the representative of climbers. You've appointed yourself, but we don't want you.

[Beck]

and thats your opinion, kurt.

 

thanks.

[Off_White]

You know, when I find myself agreeing with Greg_W, the phrase "broad based coalition" springs to mind.

[Fairweather]

Drop the "green" and "environmental". Not all climbers want to be associated with these two tags. I don't. Not all climbers are "environmentalists", even if they care about some environmental issues. And as Greg said, most environmentalists/associated government "planners" are control freaks, and hostile to user groups like climbers and mountain bikers.

[babnik]

Fairweather said:

Drop the "green" and "environmental". Not all climbers want to be associated with these two tags. I don't. Not all climbers are "environmentalists", even if they care about some environmental issues. And as Greg said, most environmentalists/associated government "planners" are control freaks, and hostile to user groups like climbers and mountain bikers.

 

ELF

[AlpineK]

Beck said:

and thats your opinion, kurt.

 

thanks.

 

It isn't my opinion that nobody appointed you.

 

As for my opinion about interacting with political types it looks like a bunch of folks on this thread agree with me.

[Beck]

that's okay kurt, you and them don't have to.

 

i'm asking for issues you guys are concerned about.

 

this isn't about me, it's about access issues and climbing.

thanks again!

[AlpineK]

Beck this is all about you and your big ego

 

If you were really into access you would be on a committee of the Access fund, but I bet they wouldn't let you be their representative.

[Beck]

boy, kurt, you're maybe on to something in regards to the Access Fund, I'm working WITH the Access Fund a bit nowadays- Andy Fitz and I go over to Leavenworth Thursday to meet with the FS and, (get this Kurt) go do some climbing!

 

and plan for 2004.

 

our next event is expressively not a big climbers party but thats all i can say about that right now...

 

its not ego, kurt, it is group spirit. you have got me confused with someone else i guess...

 

i think i will stick with the avalanche center funding. the summit at snoq is one of the biggest supporters of this event ,so avalanche center is a good spin off topic....

 

I will get a package and sound bites developed on this topic...

thanks you guys!!!

 

sample sound bite

"the state needs to get past our Eyman Angst and return to taking care of valuable resources like the avalanche center"

 

thanks again! Beck

 

 

[AlpineK]

I won't spoil the surprise about your big plans for spring, but I did read them and I felt like laughing and puking all at the same time.

[lummox]

Beck said:

our next event is expressively not a big climbers party but thats all i can say about that right now...

beck. you crack me up. silliness follows you like the toilet paper stuck to your shoe.

[erik]

removing the police and fees from recreation that is the only concern. i am out there to enjoy myself not be bothered by someone who could not become a real poice officer.

 

less government involvement. this is a private activity, not one for the government to install ideals and rules into.

 

guides and adventure travel companies do not count they are abusing the land for personal/financial gain.

 

beck, please do not attempt to assert yourself as our repersentive. i do not want one. i dont need someone conveying my lifestyle to others who do not understand or participate in it. and top roping with politicians does nothing, it is a poor repersentation of the sport. have them lead some gear routes, have them climb a mtn, a road side crag is not a fair repersentation of climbing as a whole.

 

 

[jon]

AlpineK said:

I won't spoil the surprise about your big plans for spring, but I did read them and I felt like laughing and puking all at the same time.

 

Kurt I'm getting you faded at Pub Club tonight so you will give a demonstration. Beck will promise to throw chairs again so it should be a rowdy time.

[Cpt.Caveman]

My thoughts along the same line.

 

removing the police and fees from recreation that is the only concern. i am out there to enjoy myself not be bothered by someone who could not become a real poice officer.

 

I agree.

 

less government involvement. this is a private activity, not one for the government to install ideals and rules into.

 

That's jut too simple an assumption. But I agree that we already have many regulations that are arguably full of shit. Some people need the rules and by that some others will undoubtedly suffer.

 

guides and adventure travel companies do not count they are abusing the land for personal/financial gain.

Financial yes. But dont we all climb for what most would call personal gain in one way or another?

[Jopa]

Personally, the last thing I want is for the Northwest to be portrayed as a climbing destination for tourists, at least not any more than it already is. I think keeping the scene on the down low is key. That goes for the politicos as well; the less they know and are involved the better. So if you want feedback to take to the table, then I would ask that you tell them to please let me be; I'll be just fine! I'm only speaking for myself here.

 

Thanks

[erik]

Cpt.Caveman said:

guides and adventure travel companies do not count they are abusing the land for personal/financial gain.

Financial yes. But dont we all climb for what most would call personal gain in one way or another?

 

very true. i will omit the personal gain. but limiting quota to public land so that a for profit operation can make a profit at the expense of the actual owner is b.s. for profit organizations should be the last ones in any permit grab and they should always allow non-guided not for profit groups and inviduals supercede their groups.