Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
Lambone

Poll: Would you rat on a Wilderness Power Driller?

Rat on power Driller?  

429 members have voted

  1. 1. Rat on power Driller?

    • 1275
    • 1275


Recommended Posts

I'm not arguing that if you violate one law you have no business supporting the enforcement of others, Lammy. As I understood your arguments here and in the past, you have said you believe that the problem with violating wilderness regulations with a power drill is bad not because of the result - bolts and bolted climbing - but that it is bad primarily or at least in large part because it threatens to make climbers as a group look bad in the eyes of law enforcement officials. The argument I heard was that it might be a good idea to turn them in so the rangers understand that not all climbers are "bad apples.

 

Would you view it the same way when climbers make us look bad by playing hide and seek in camp 4, sneaking out of campgrounds without paying the camping fee, playing games with Larry the Tool over fee demo, building campfires during a fire ban, violating wilderness permit restrictions, or climbing on crags that are closed for nesting season?

 

Maybe so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In deciding whether or not to obey any law, really, though, one has to examine the reason for its enactment and then determine whether or not one supports that rationale. This is done on a case by case basis not once for all laws. That's why as Iambone states one can support smoking weed but not murder. Similarly one can argue for or against power drilling in wilderness and the proper response without one's position on that issue affecting one's stand on extended stays in Camp 4.

 

So in this case: the law or statute in contravention is the one related to motors in legislated "wilderness". Do you agree or disagree with the reasons for this law? If you agree, do you think calling the Tool in was the most justified action? If you disagree with banning motors in wilderness, do you support the powerdriller as a bold hero?

Etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Kurt's point that we are talking about selective enforcement has some validity. Off White tried to make this point, too, and was rebuffed but I think some of those who sound as if they advocate turning in someone who uses a power drill are quite willing to violate a permit regulation ... or to camp outside a designated area or stay longer than allowed in camp 4 or to raise hell with an obnoxious and illegal party in a campground when it suits their purposes ...

Bolts are permanent. Yells, screams, camping trampling of grass, etc are a totally different subject. THEY ARE NOT PERMANENT MARKS ON THE ENVIRONMENT. I concur with Caveman. Clear thread drift. Stick to the point. We are talking about a permanent change to a wilderness using motorized or mechanized tools. Let me give you an example of how the FS looks at the issue (from within recreation where the people tend to be pro-wilderness). When I was in the FS we built a bridge inside the wilderness. A bridge in my view violates the wilderness act too but that is thread drift. The point I am making is that we used hand tools and horses. No power tools or generators or gas powered anything. Putting up a line inside the wilderness and placing bolts on lead using hand tools only is the style I support. It allows this generation acces to some of the routes while, by sheer time constraints, leaves some for future generations who may be able to do it cleaner. Who would have predicted Stealth C-4, or TCU's, or epoxy, or dynamic ropes climbing in Chamonoix in the 1800's? Power drills allow too much too fast. Wilderness advocates I have worked with have always stated that wilderness BELONGS to future generations. Not just us. Or go tell John Muir he wouldn't be welcome on CC.COM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are most of you suggesting that the only reason to act at all is because it may affect your access at a later date? Forget about the law, and how this makes us look. It is really important (to most people I guess, since laws were passed) to have some areas immune to the form of progress that follows motorized and mechanized development. Violators should be stopped. Involve the law if you have to. I've broken too many laws myself to be comfortable asking for help from enforcement officials, but do what you gotta do...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are motors banned in wilderness anyways? The underlying reasons can be found in this here Ed Abbey quote:

 

The first issue that appears when we get into this matter, the most important issue and perhaps the only issue, is the one called accessibility. The Developers insist that the parks must be made fully accessible not only to people but also to their machines, that is, to automobiles, motorboats, etc. The Preservers argue, in principle at least, that wilderness and motors are incompatible and that the former can best be experienced, understood, and enjoyed when the machines are left behind where they belong -- on the superhighways and in the parking lots, on the reservoirs and in the marinas.

 

What does accessibility mean? Is there any spot on earth that men have not proved accessible by the simplest means -- feet and legs and heart? Even Mt. McKinley, even Everest, have been surmounted by men on foot. (Some of them, incidentally, rank amateurs, to the horror and indignation of the professional mountaineers.) The interior of the Grand Canyon, a fiercely hot and hostile abyss, is visited each summer by thousands and thousands of tourists of the most banal and unadventurous type, many of them on foot -- self-propelled, so to speak -- and the others on the backs of mules. Thousands climb each summer to the summit of Mt. Whitney, highest point in the forty-eight United States, while multitudes of others wander on foot or on horseback through the ranges of the Sierras, the Rockies, the Big Smokies, the Cascades and the mountains of New England. Still more hundreds and thousands float or paddle each year down the currents of the Salmon, the Snake, the Allagash, the Yampa, the Green, the Rio Grande, the Ozark, the St. Croix and those portions of the Colorado which have not yet been destroyed by the dam builders. And most significant, these hordes of nonmotorized tourists, hungry for a taste of the difficult, the original, the real, do not consist solely of people young and athletic but also of old folks, fat folks, pale-faced office clerks who don't know a rucksack from a haversack, and even children. The one thing they all have in common is the refusal to live always like sardines in a can -- they are determined to get outside of their motorcars for at least a few weeks each year.

 

This being the case, why is the Park Service generally so anxious to accommodate that other crowd, the indolent millions born on wheels and suckled on gasoline, who expect and demand paved highways to lead them in comfort, ease and safety into every nook and corner of the national parks? For the answer to that we must consider the character of what I call Industrial Tourism and the quality of the mechanized tourists -- the Wheelchair Explorers -- who are at once the consumers, the raw material and the victims of Industrial Tourism.

 

Industrial Tourism is a big business. It means money. It includes the motel and restaurant owners, the gasoline retailers, the oil corporations, the road-building contractors, the heavy equipment manufacturers, the state and federal engineering agencies and the sovereign, all-powerful automotive industry. These various interests are well organized, command more wealth than most modern nations, and are represented in Congress with a strength far greater than is justified in any constitutional or democratic sense. (Modern politics is expensive -- power follows money.) Through Congress the tourism industry can bring enormous pressure to bear upon such a slender reed in the executive branch as the poor old Park Service, a pressure which is also exerted on every other possible level -- local, state, regional -- and through advertising and the well-established habits of a wasteful nation.

 

When a new national park, national monument, national seashore, or whatever it may be called is set up, the various forces of Industrial Tourism, on all levels, immediately expect action -- meaning specifically a road-building program. Where trails or primitive dirt roads already exist, the Industry expects -- it hardly needs to ask -- that these be developed into modern paved highways. On the local level, for example, the first thing that the superintendent of a new park can anticipate being asked, when he attends his first meeting of the area's Chamber of Commerce, is not "Will roads be built?" hut rather "When does construction begin?" and "Why the delay?"

 

Accustomed to this sort of relentless pressure since its founding, it is little wonder that the Park Service, through a process of natural selection, has tended to evolve a type of administration which, far from resisting such pressure, has usually been more than willing to accommodate it, even to encourage it. Not from any peculiar moral weakness but simply because such well-adapted administrators are themselves believers in a policy of economic development. "Resource management" is the current term. Old foot trails may he neglected, back-country ranger stations left unmanned, and interpretive and protective services inadequately staffed, but the administrators know from long experience that millions for asphalt can always be found; Congress is always willing to appropriate money for more and bigger paved roads, anywhere -- particularly if they form loops. Loop drives are extremely popular with the petroleum industry -- they bring the motorist right back to the same gas station from which he started.

 

Great though it is, however, the power of the tourist business would not in itself be sufficient to shape Park Service policy. To all accusations of excessive development the administrators can reply, as they will if pressed hard enough, that they are giving the public what it wants, that their primary duty is to serve the public not preserve the wilds. "Parks are for people" is the public-relations slogan, which decoded means that the parks are for people-in-automobiles. Behind the slogan is the assumption that the majority of Americans, exactly like the managers of the tourist industry, expect and demand to see their national parks from the comfort, security, and convenience of their automobiles.

 

Is this assumption correct? Perhaps. Does that justify the continued and increasing erosion of the parks? It does not. Which brings me to the final aspect of the problem of Industrial Tourism: the Industrial Tourists themselves.

 

They work hard, these people. They roll up incredible mileages on their odometers, rack up state after state in two-week transcontinental motor marathons, knock off one national park after another, take millions of square yards of photographs, and endure patiently the most prolonged discomforts: the tedious traffic jams, the awful food of park cafeterias and roadside eateries, the nocturnal search for a place to sleep or camp, the dreary routine of One-Stop Service, the endless lines of creeping traffic, the smell of exhaust fumes, the ever-proliferating Rules & Regulations, the fees and the bills and the service charges, the boiling radiator and the flat tire and the vapor lock, the surly retorts of room clerks and traffic cops, the incessant jostling of the anxious crowds, the irritation and restlessness of their children, the worry of their wives, and the long drive home at night in a stream of racing cars against the lights of another stream racing in the opposite direction, passing now and then the obscure tangle, the shattered glass, the patrolman's lurid blinker light, of one more wreck.

 

Hard work. And risky. Too much for some, who have given up the struggle on the highways in exchange for an entirely different kind of vacationout in the open, on their own feet, following the quiet trail through forest and mountains, bedding down at evening under the stars, when and where they feel like it, at a time when the Industrial Tourists are still hunting for a place to park their automobiles.

 

Industrial Tourism is a threat to the national parks. But the chief victims of the system are the motorized tourists. They are being robbed and robbing themselves. So long as they are unwilling to crawl out of their cars they will not discover the treasures of the national parks and will never escape the stress and turmoil of the urban-suburban complexes which they had hoped, presumably, to leave behind for a while.

 

How to pry the tourists out of their automobiles, out of their back-breaking upholstered mechanized wheelchairs and onto their feet, onto the strange warmth and solidity of Mother Earth again? This is the problem which the Park Service should confront directly, not evasively, and which it cannot resolve by simply submitting and conforming to the automobile habit. The automobile, which began as a transportation convenience, has become a bloody tyrant (50,000 lives a year), and it is the responsibility of the Park Service, as well as that of every-one else concerned with preserving both wilderness and civilization, to begin a campaign of resistance. The auto-motive combine has almost succeeded in strangling our cities; we need not let it also destroy our national parks.

 

It will be objected that a constantly increasing population makes resistance and conservation a hopeless battle. This is true. Unless a way is found to stabilize the nation's population, the parks cannot be saved. Or anything else worth a damn. Wilderness preservation, like a hundred other good causes, will he forgotten under the overwhelming pressure of a struggle for mere survival and sanity in a completely urbanized, completely industrialized, ever more crowded environment. For my own part I would rather take my chances in a thermonuclear war than live in such a world.

 

Assuming, however, that population growth will be halted at a tolerable level before catastrophe does it for us, it remains permissible to talk about such things as the national parks. Having indulged myself in a number of harsh judgments upon the Park Service, the tourist industry, and the motoring public, I now feel entitled to make some constructive, practical, sensible proposals for the salvation of both parks and people.

 

(1) No more cars in national parks. Let the people walk. Or ride horses, bicycles, mules, wild pigs -- anything -- but keep the automobiles and the motorcycles and all their motorized relatives out. We have agreed not to drive our automobiles into cathedrals, concert halls, art museums, legislative assemblies, private bedrooms and the other sanctums of our culture; we should treat our national parks with the same deference, for they, too, are holy places. An increasingly pagan and hedonistic people (thank God!), we are learning finally that the forests and mountains and desert canyons are holier than our churches. Therefore let us behave accordingly.

 

Consider a concrete example and what could be done with it: Yosemite Valley in Yosemite National Park. At present a dusty milling confusion of motor vehicles and ponderous camping machinery, it could be returned to relative beauty and order by the simple expedient of requiring all visitors, at the park entrance, to lock up their automobiles and continue their tour on the seats of good workable bicycles supplied free of charge by the United States Government.

 

Let our people travel light and free on their bicycles -- nothing on the back but a shirt, nothing tied to the bike but a slicker, in case of rain. Their bedrolls, their backpacks, their tents, their food and cooking kits will be trucked in for them, free of charge, to the campground their choice in the Valley, by the Park Service. (Why not? The roads will still be there.) Once in the Valley they will find the concessioners waiting, ready to supply whatever needs might have been overlooked, or to furnish rooms and meals for those who don't want to camp out.

 

The same thing could be done at Grand Canyon or at Yellowstone or at any of our other shrines to the out-of-doors. There is no compelling reason, for example, why tourists need to drive their automobiles to the very brink of the Grand Canyon's south rim. They could walk that last mile. Better yet, the Park Service should build an enormous parking lot about ten miles south of Grand Canyon Village and another east of Desert View. At those points, as at Yosemite, our people could emerge from their steaming shells of steel and glass and climb upon horses or bicycles for the final leg of the journey. On the rim, as at present, the hotels and restaurants will remain to serve the physical needs of the park visitors. Trips along the rim would also be made on foot, on horseback, or -- utilizing the paved road which already exists -- on bicycles. For those willing to go all the way from one parking lot to the other, a distance of some sixty or seventy miles, we might provide bus service back to their cars, a service which would at the same time effect a convenient exchange of bicycles and/or horses between the two terminals.

 

What about children? What about the aged and infirm? Frankly, we need waste little sympathy on these two pressure groups. Children too small to ride bicycles and too heavy to be borne on their parents' backs need only wait a few years -- if they are not run over by automobiles they will grow into a lifetime of joyous adventure, if we save the parks and leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. The aged merit even less sympathy: after all they had the opportunity to see the country when it was still relatively unspoiled. However, we'll stretch a point for those too old or too sickly to mount a bicycle and let them ride the shuttle buses.

 

I can foresee complaints. The motorized tourists, reluctant to give up the old ways, will complain that they can't see enough without their automobiles to bear them swiftly (traffic permitting) through the parks. But this is nonsense. A man on foot, on horseback or on a bicycle will see more, feel more, enjoy more in one mile than the motorized tourists can in a hundred miles. Better to idle through one park in two weeks than try to race through a dozen in the same amount of time. Those who are familiar with both modes of travel know from ex perience that this is true; the rest have only to make the experiment to discover the same truth for themselves.

 

They will complain of physical hardship, these sons of the pioneers. Not for long; once they rediscover the pleasures of actually operating their own limbs and senses in a varied, spontaneous, voluntary style, they will complain instead of crawling back into a car; they may even object to retuming to desk and office and that dry-wall box on Mossy Brook Circle. The fires of revolt may be kindled -- which means hope for us all.

 

(2) No more new roads in national parks. After banning private automobiles the second step should be easy. Where paved roads are already in existence they will be reserved for the bicycles and essential in-park services, such as shuttle buses, the trucking of camping gear and concessioners' supplies. Where dirt roads already exist they too will be reserved for nonmotorized traffic. Plans for new roads can be discarded and in their place a program of trail-building begun, badly needed in some of the parks and in many of the national monuments. In mountainous areas it may be desirable to build emergency shelters along the trails and bike roads; in desert regions a water supply might have to be provided at certain points -- wells drilled and handpumps installed if feasible.

 

Once people are liberated from the confines of automobiles there will be a greatly increased interest in hiking, exploring, and back-country packtrips. Fortunately the parks, by the mere elimination of motor traffic, will come to seem far bigger than they are now -- there will be more room for more persons, an astonishing expansion of space. This follows from the interesting fact that a motorized vehicle, when not at rest, requires a volume of space far out of proportion to its size. To illustrate: imagine a lake approximately ten miles long and on the average one mile wide. A single motorboat could easily circumnavigate the lake in an hour; ten motorboats would begin to crowd it; twenty or thirty, all in operation, would dominate the lake to the exclusion of any other form of activity; and fifty would create the hazards, confusion, and turmoil that makes pleasure impossible. Suppose we banned motorboats and allowed only canoes and rowboats; we would see at once that the lake seemed ten or perhaps a hundred times bigger. The same thing holds true, to an even greater degree, for the automobile. Distance and space are functions of speed and time. Without expending a single dollar from the United States Treasury we could, if we wanted to, multiply the area of our national parks tenfold or a hundredfold -- simply by banning the private automobile. The next generation, all 250 million of them, would be grateful to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bug, I agree that bolts leave a permanent blemish in a way that violating a bird closure or a campground fee does not, and I think everyone here agrees that it may be rational to support a bolting ban but to think it is OK to violate a nesting season closure or to skip out on paying the camp fees (note my use of the word "may").

 

You seem to completely miss my point, though. I thought we were talking about whether we should rat on a rat and what our goals in doing so might be.

 

I've been talking to the rangers around here for many years, and I believe they are much more concerned about and have a more consistent problem with most of the other violations I listed than with wilderness power drilling. This doesn't justify power drilling or answer the question whether you should rat on a rat, but it is directly relevant to our discussion. If our goal is to convince rangers that we as climbers are law-abiding citizens, I believe we'd make more progress by working to promote and enforce compliance with respect the issues that they are most concerned with. If our goal is to draw attention to bolting issues or to support law enforcement with respect to these issues, than we'd make more progress by turning in the bolters but not the permit violators or whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would you view it the same way when climbers make us look bad by playing hide and seek in camp 4, sneaking out of campgrounds without paying the camping fee, playing games with Larry the Tool over fee demo, building campfires during a fire ban, violating wilderness permit restrictions, or climbing on crags that are closed for nesting season?

 

Maybe so.

 

Yes, would I go as far to turn them into the cops....eh, probly not. However with the Yosemite camping situation, I believe the Park Service is also part to blame for failing to provide enough affordable walk-in first-come-first-serve camping.

 

Still not sure If I would rat in the bolting circumstance either. It'd have to really affect me personaly before I did. I know if I had spent a long time climbing in an area in traditional style in accordance with the rules, and some yahoo with a bulldog came along and blasted bolts in a line that I had spent years training for in order to do it ground up by hand...I'd seriously consider it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If our goal is to convince rangers that we as climbers are law-abiding citizens, I believe we'd make more progress in working to promote and enforce compliance with the issues that they are most concerned with.

 

I call that a real good thread drift. We are talking about something that the rangers have not yet tried to enforce yet.

 

I call bullshit. I'm not trying to "convince" anyone I am law abiding. I never have and never will. You are confusing bolting regulations with some other motive it appears.

 

They are not concerned with at the moment bolting because they have not figured out how to regulate it effectively... Or wether or not it is worth trying to regulate.

 

ANOTHER neat trick by mattp on how to sneak in something to justify his own actions. I don't buy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

uh, seems to me they are pretty concerned with wilderness bolting....the California case being the most recent example. Am I wrong?

 

What is your stance on Wilderness Power Drilling Mattp?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
uh, seems to me they are pretty concerned with wilderness bolting....the California case being the most recent example. Am I wrong?

 

I would not call that regulating. More like tipped off and convenient... I suppose my choice of words is poor but the point is there still..

Edited by Cpt.Caveman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is your stance on Wilderness Power Drilling Mattp?

 

confused.gif do you have one? you sure ask alot of questions for one who doesn't seem to want to provide answers. It is a simple question really, a straightforwad answer would help me understand you points in this thread more clearly.

 

just an update from the front page - 37 out of 88 people would rat the driller out. 42%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you keep bringing this up, Lambone? I have explained why I avoid this discussion to you before, and i believe I've told you too that I have been specifically asked not to discuss this point with you or to discuss it on this board.

 

I think we can still discuss whether it is a good idea to rat on a rat though. But maybe not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey dude, I didn't ask you to come into this discussion. but now your here, so I'm just curious.

 

seems like if you were opposed to it, there wouldn't be any problem in sharing that information with us. and if your not opposed to people who use power drills in the wilderness, then well...yeah I think people should know about that too.

 

The discussion began with whether or not to turn in a power driller, but whether or not one belives power drilling is ok is the fundemantal issue at hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.... I know if I had spent a long time climbing in an area in traditional style in accordance with the rules, and some yahoo with a bulldog came along and blasted bolts in a line that I had spent years training for in order to do it ground up by hand ...I'd seriously consider it.

 

yelrotflmao.gifyelrotflmao.gifyelrotflmao.gif

 

have you ever done this??? that's what i thought... rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, but I have been a part of a group using a power drill to establish a route in a Wilderness area.

 

back when I was younger and clueless. You saying I am not entitled to my current opinion/veiwpoint?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether or not Lambone has done the example above is not completely relevant. I believe he was trying to convey a point of view or possible opinion.

 

To discount his comment because you don't believe it has merit based upon your remark brings nothing to the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"In a real wilderness you can drill and climb however you like because no one is there to care. Antarctica, the Karakoram, Baffin - walls have bolts." - Warren Hollinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK Matt, would I rat on a power-bolter in the wilderness? Yes. I'd do everything I legally could to disuade him through other means first though. And I would consider him a short sighted selfish asshole (none of us is immune to that title). Why is the power bolting ethics a viable thread subject when trampling grass and yelling into the night are not? Because wilderness bolting ethics have everything to to with bolting being ratted on. For instance,I would not rat on a person for bolting in the wilderness if he had actually only trampled the grass or violated the permit regulations. It is a question of the spirit of the law, not the letter. Anything permanent is technically illegal, even a bridge built by the FS. Using hand tools is slower and conveys a tradition of repect. The FS bridges were justified as a means to allow dispersed access and thereby reduce impacts to the most accessable areas. Bolting by hand is similar in that it allows the climbers to disperse (cracks or no cracks) but does not promote permanent, rapid developement of a limited resource. It seems like a reasonable compromise that allows current use and ensures reasonable conservation measures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True- but that also is taken out of contect Dru.

 

- did he use motorized drills from top down or in the wilderness areas at all? Probably not.

 

- Off subject - Does he still climb? I heard he got fucked up in the desert in the late 90s.

 

And nobody cares - not true necessarily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whether or not Lambone has done the example above is not completely relevant. I believe he was trying to convey a point of view or possible opinion.

 

To discount his comment because you don't believe it has merit based upon your remark brings nothing to the table.

I disagree completely...the point in bringing it up is that its hypothetical and hypocritical... funny thing when scott cosgrove/kurt smith actually went out and did something that they actually DID TRAIN for in an illegal fashion everybody (including YOU via your alter ego) ripped their shit...

 

and both of those guys are/were trad climbers that got up stuff ground up that would make most climbers cry for their moms...so you can't shit talk them on that front.

 

Training and sinking one's heart and soul into something is completely irrelevant to the discussion, PARTICULARLY if you don't even do it...stick to the facts...its either illegal or its not...if you like the law then defend it, if you don't then go ahead and try to change it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You disagree completely-

 

Fine

 

Everyone is a hypocrite. But those that have learned and tried to rectify it are probably better respected in some circles… What you seem to imply is that if someone has a reputation of a good trad climber they might also have a license to bolt in the wilderness. Hmm highly debatable.

 

Can’t talk shit to them on what front? You mean the one where they bolted in the wilderness? Am I suppose to respect them for that? Again you don’t make a good argument with solid points. Once again - What you seem to imply is that if someone has a reputation of a good trad climber they might also have a license to bolt in the wilderness

 

I wont even respond to your last statement because it makes YOU the hypocrite. And since you are apparently critiquing hypocrites I don’t want to make you look bad wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"In a real wilderness you can drill and climb however you like because no one is there to care. Antarctica, the Karakoram, Baffin - walls have bolts." - Warren Hollinger

Get real. The issue is about "wilderness" that we all go to. Start a different thread. It would be a fun one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I wont even respond to your last statement because it makes YOU the hypocrite. And since you are apparently critiquing hypocrites I don’t want to make you look bad "

 

hahahaha only a semi-touche there...I never claimed to have sunk my heart and soul into training for climbing; altough i can say that my career, relationship and family have suffered because of climbing...And, since i haven't stated my position on turning someone in, i'd like to see how i'm hypocritical...

 

also, by "shit talking to them on that front" i meant you can't go calling them (Cosgrove and Smith)c hickens and bolt clipping pussies alone, even though they power drilled a few anchors in a protected area...

 

 

I haven't implied any position other than "...stick to the facts...its either illegal or its not...if you like the law then defend it, if you don't then go ahead and try to change it... "

 

for a clearer interpretation of that, if its illegal, don't do it w/o making it legal first...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hahahaha only a semi-touche there...I never claimed to have sunk my heart and soul into training for climbing; altough i can say that my career, relationship and family have suffered because of climbing...And, since i haven't stated my position on turning someone in, i'd like to see how i'm hypocritical...

 

I wasnt talking about that part. I was talking about facts.

 

 

also, by "shit talking to them on that front" i meant you can't go calling them (Cosgrove and Smith)c hickens and bolt clipping pussies alone, even though they power drilled a few anchors in a protected area...

 

Nobody is using chicken or chicken bolt here. We're debating morals it seems to me. I don't see anyone implying sport climbers are pussies in an argument but yourself.

 

Again sticking to facts would be smart for you until you make more points. I give a c- with effort on that post. Good progress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is that the "wilderness" we are referring to is not what I would call a wilderness. It is an area that has been legally designated as "wilderness" in an attempt to provide something which is not actually found in the Lower 48 except in as few small areas. The issue here is whether the legal designation of a specific area as non-motorized is legitimate or not, and how you interpret that designation with respect to ratting out a driller.

 

Broadly, the four possible opinions here are:

 

I agree with the wilderness designation, and therefore would rat out the driller ...(for violating a law I agree with.)

 

I agree with the wilderness designation, but I would not rat out the driller (...because I think that climbers should settle this matter themselves without bringing in the Tool)

 

I disagree with the wilderness designation, and would not rat out the driller. (drilling, snowmobiling, dirtbikes, it's all good!)

 

I disagree with the wilderness designation, but would rat out the driller. (Although I don't agree with the law it should be respected? Or another reason)

 

See there are 4 options but Lammy only provided 2. So some of the people that appear to be voting the same way in Lammy's poll actually disagree with each other. I think that's where some of the confusion in this comes from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×