Jump to content

Thanks hero.


Dane
 Share

Recommended Posts

I wanted to be the first to personally congradulate the idiots who went back to Dishman yesterday and rebolted the cracks and added the old artificial foot hold.

 

Make sure you introduce yourself to me.

 

Good work dumbshit! You have just guaranteed the closure of Dishman to all climbing in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 91
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I was not at the clean-up last weekend, as I was climbing in Leavenworth with my family, nor have I ever climbed at Dishman until today. I went there today mainly out of curiosity, and to see what all the fuss was about. I have to say that I was impressed with what I climbed, and the area in general.Dishman is a special urban crag that needs to be kept open. I do not know much about the history of this particular crag, nor do I know any of the "players" in this situation. I do know from past experiences that if the climbers of Spokane can not come to terms, then the crag's future is in jeporady.

 

Someone that can be non-judgmental and act as a mediator needs to step up, and broker a deal that all can live with. Obviously this is an emotionaly charged issue, that has a lot of people up in arms. I propose that nothing gets chopped or added untill all can get together and see if some accord can be arranged. Whoever re-bolted the crag needs to step up and admit and justify what they have done.

Do not let this get more out of hand than it is at present. Thoughts?

http://www.cascadeclimbers.com/plab/showphoto.php?photo=7618&sort=1&cat=503&page=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The land owner has been comtemplating closing the area to all climbing because of the chipping, additional bolting and the bolted on gym holds that have appeared over the last year or so. The cleanup last week on the wall and in the area was appreciated by them. But the land owner thought more bolts should come off the wall and the top rope anchors should be reinstalled after last weeks efforts.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During the cleanup last Sunday, a dozen or so folks cleaned up at least two tons of garbage, hauled out 2 old car/truck hulks, and established a temporary barrier (temporary in regard to working with landowners to put in a permanent gate) to help keep folks from being able to dump trash in the parking and climbing areas. After these initial cleanup efforts were done, removed were the artificial holds and bolts next to protectable cracks.

 

No one showed up at the cleanup among those present at the REI meet (when it was agreed to do a cleanup) who spoke out in favor of the chipping, artificial hold gluing, crack-bolting, and route names written on the wall in semi-permanent marker--all of which (I shouldn't have to add) are obviously NOT considered ethical by consensus of the general climbing community. The idea of the cleanup was to get folks together for those who will take responsibility for the crag. The hope has been for the entire climbing community to work together with the landowner and public agencies.

 

So someone (or more) already dismantled the temporary vehicle barrier, rebolted the cracks, and bolted back on to the rock an artificial gym hold. Yes, unfortunately one of the rewards for cowardly, irresponsible acts may well be to have the crag closed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has there been any contact with those that were at the REI Meeting that had been in favor of the bolts, etc. since the discovery of the re-bolting? From the reports that were both posted online and from people that had been present, I thought the majority of those individuals were also in favor of cleaning up Dishman as well. Perhaps they can help persuade whomever re-bolted the routes to clean up their mess. And I do mean mess in a most literal way. What I saw yesterday was new bolts placed inches away from broken studs. Even the most clueless person happening upon this crag will be able to sense that something insidious is happening at this crag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like George Bush has taught us well enough that when we try to forcefully impose our will on others, it never works. Rather than compromise or continue to work together, the majority tried to arrogantly impose their belief system upon those who see the world differently, and now we have bolts next to chopped bolts. What next, war? Killing? Or just everyone loses with the closing of the rock. Rather than merely dick measuring, perhaps we can try to understand the position and the values of the other side. Perhaps we can come to agreement before we act, no matter how self-righteous we feel in our supreme set of ethics. This is a rock folks, not religion. Peace, compromise, brotherhood folks. Talk not chop.

Eric Christianson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's Funny Becose they acted like is was a Religion and not rock. I think they were glad that most climbers were gone for the weekend climbing. They had no one that could pitch a Bitch about what they were doing. It was just like the first meeting at REI Lies and Deception, He must of felt like GOD at the Crag with his 12 followers ready to do his will. I have never said that what had happen was good. But I will say that what was done on Sunday 26, was not good and now look what you have started! LET THE WAR BEGIN. wave.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that it is wrong, immoral, and downright blasphemy to have views contrary to Dane. Doesn’t anyone recognize the parallels between Dane’s holier-than-thou rhetoric and that of our illustrious president? People are not going to be bullied into accepting Dane’s self-righteous ethical stance, so if you want to avoid the “war”, it has to be done with education and conversation. The fact that 12 people from one side agreed on a “compromise,” does not make it a compromise. You were told long ago that if you chop, they will redrill, but then everyone is talking and none of you are listening. You can argue the chicken/egg dilemma of who’s fault it is, or you can act like the adult and just stop for a while. In the scope of the worlds problems, whether those bolts stay up for a period of time while this issue is discussed really only offends those whose egos are now tied into the battle.

 

Cut the John Wayne, George Bush, Religious Right crap, quit measuring your dicks, and start talking. Quit bashing people who disagree with you, and you will probably find that there are more people with contrary views than you think. I often talk to people who like the bolts, even the bolts near the cracks, but do not want to throw their views into the public forum to be trashed by the traditionalist zealots. Perhaps before we chop and drill another set of holes, we could stop the playground bullying and try to start a conversation with the parties. Not just a conversation with the 12 people who agree with you, but with those who disagree. Perhaps listening to their views, rather than merely screaming your views louder.

 

I do not condone the rebolting, and I certainly do not condone the chopping of someone else’s bolts. It seems to me that both are equally – equally - as guilty of acting on behalf of others, many of whom do not appoint you folks as their supreme leaders. How about we just stop acting and think. Think, talk, then act. Peace, not war; Understanding, not intolerance; Brotherhood, not subjugation.

EC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chipping, retrobolting, bolts next to cracks, and bolted-on gym holds are now, and have always been, unacceptable.

 

There are obvious exceptions in the retro and bolts next to cracks categories. The instances at Dishman are not among them.

 

Understanding works both ways, and from the interactions I've seen on this specific matter, the parties reposnsible for the retro/chip jobs do not understand or are not willing to concede that these practices are unacceptable to 90 plus percent of the climbing community, and more importantly not acceptable to the land manager.

 

The arguments have been heard and they are this:

 

1. It's too inconvenient to take a couple of pieces of gear to pro a crack, we want to just carry some draws for afterwork clippin.

 

2. Nobody could climb the route without this (fill in the blank: chipped hold, gym hold).

 

Convenience and laziness is not an excuse to flaunt the wishes of the land manager and the majority of the user group. What is physically possible is not for those unable to accomplish something to determine. It is impossible for me to run a 4 minute mile, does that make it impossible for everyone else? Should we shorten the track so I can run it in 4? I have seen plenty of "impossible" boulder problems sit idle for a decade only to be unlocked by a 17 yr old mutant. What purpose does a bolt you can clip two moves off the ground serve?

 

Your ridiculous incantations of Bush and the religious right are not helping your argument. In fact, they are revealing you to be a disingenuous ranter. Good day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like George Bush has taught us well enough that when we try to forcefully impose our will on others, it never works. Rather than compromise or continue to work together, the majority tried to arrogantly impose their belief system upon those who see the world differently, and now we have bolts next to chopped bolts. What next, war? Killing? Or just everyone loses with the closing of the rock. Rather than merely dick measuring, perhaps we can try to understand the position and the values of the other side. Perhaps we can come to agreement before we act, no matter how self-righteous we feel in our supreme set of ethics. This is a rock folks, not religion. Peace, compromise, brotherhood folks. Talk not chop.

Eric Christianson

 

 

With your George Bush comparison, keep in mind that he had no popular support; there is plenty of popular support against bolting cracks, chipping holds, and plastic bolt-ons.

 

 

But, since you talk about the values of the "other side", maybe you can expand on this theme?

 

Can you let us know what the values are?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Eric get a clue.

 

The first 9 bolts that were chopped were on crack climbs I did easily (sheesh they are 5.8 /5.9 for chrimney sake) on natural pro 20 years ago. Then two more bolts were chopped from climbs many have done over the last 15 years that had additional bolts added in the last couple of years.

 

Finally the gym holds that were removed from the wall isn't a religion or a ethical debate it is just stupid done on a piece of granite in a natural environment.

 

You want to say it is tit for tat...sorry dude, it aint. Adding bolts to lines climbed years ago or adding bolts to routes aready bolted is BS. Gym holds is as I said, "is stupid".

 

The majority of retro bolting at Dishman I agreed with, it simply was needed. What was chopped, need to be, simple as that.

 

You want to make comparisons make realistic ones. What we really have is one or two guys going against a 40 year old climbing tradition and totally outside the norm of climbing ethics today. They are forcing their idiotic standards on us and any future climber.

 

You are willing to accept that standard...I am not.

More importantly neither is the land owner.

 

The excuse originally used for this mess on the bolting side, after adding 200+ bolts to a crag that for years had just under 50, is it was a "urban garbage heap". That was untrue and they knew it. They were unwilling to show for a cleanup even after they set and agreed to the date in a public meeting.

 

Slothrop is partly correct, they didn't show up for the date of "their" cleanup. They did show up for the REI meeting, represented by an attorney of all things. But there was no compromise made there. No compromise because the bolters involved wouldn't budge on what they had done to an already to a 25 year old sport climbing area.

 

I hate the term sport climber and trad climber. I have clipped enough pro and bolts that I'm not looking for a label. I just climb. I have seldom wanted to interfer with anyone else's climbing.

 

Some have gotten a case of the ass because they think this is a sport/trad debate. It isn't. What really is happening here is a small group of vandals are trashing your rock resources.

 

I find it hard to belive that anyone who has ever climbed outside would stand for what has been done at Dishman being repeated at your local crag. For no other reason that respect for the rock and future climbers.

 

I see this as a simple disagreement. You either accept chipped holds on natural rock, bolting crack climbs and adding a gym holds to real rock or you don't.

 

I don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Dane’s holier-than-thou rhetoric...

... or you can act like the adult and just stop for a while...

Cut the John Wayne, George Bush, Religious Right crap, quit measuring your dicks, and start talking. Quit bashing people who disagree with you...

 

quit bashing.... reminds of a little fable about a pot and a black kettle

 

Quit bashing people who disagree with you, and you will probably find that there are more people with contrary views than you think. I often talk to people who like the bolts, even the bolts near the cracks, but do not want to throw their views into the public forum to be trashed by the traditionalist zealots.

 

The fact that Dishman is mostly 5.hard, the turnout in support for this crag has been small, by Minni clean-up standards. If these actions happened at Minni, You'd need the arena to hold the crowd and I think the crowd would be overwhelmingly against the 'sporto' ethic....go bolt up dihedral and see what happens.... Didn't you see the results of Dane's poll ?? Eric, we run in mostly the same circles and I don't know how you could think that there are more out there that condone this stuff. Like you I am also not pleased with the 'consensus' garnered for the chopping decision (though I think the actions taken were proper and restrained) Dane, the sportos beleived they were lured to the REI meeting under false pretenses and were angry and it is understandable(but not excusable)they would not show up for the clean up....maybe better communication would have helped that on your part. In that way, Eric is right.

I do not condone the rebolting, and I certainly do not condone the chopping of someone else’s bolts. It seems to me that both are equally – equally - as guilty of acting on behalf of others, many of whom do not appoint you folks as their supreme leaders.

 

EC, you claim to appoint equal responsibility here but your tone and charges are all leveled at Dane with only token criticism of the sportos.

 

Dane has let the bolts stay for many months while he tried to stoke the fires to stir up interest in the crag....and a poll trying to find consensus. The sportos rebolted in just a few days

 

Dane got all interested parties together to at least attempt to build consensus. One or two sportos simply put things back the way they like em

 

Dane organized and gave of his own valuable free time to clean the place up, giving something to the crag instead of just taking from it (to me that is what ownership is all about...investing in a place not just 'using' it. The sportos didn't bother to help with any clean-up

 

Most importantly, Dane has consulted the land-owners on what their wishes for THEIR property to be. Did the sportos consult before they bolted/chopped or rebolted ??

 

Equal, I think not. While not perfect, one side has acted far more responsibly here than the other and I think it just shows your bias to not recognize that !

 

and to Roadstead....you excuse the sportos for being too busy out climbing to help clean-up....don't you think all those clean-up folks would rather have been out climbing also ?!!?

 

btw thanks for all your hard work out at McLellan, I love the place once the skeeters die.

 

Dane, thanks for your stand and your efforts.

 

- Kevin Klim,

an appreciative Spokane climber who doesn't want to see Minni 'fixed' like Dishman was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a heads up. The land owner and land manager have been discussing all the options available to them for over a year. About the same time that the local activists started adding bolts and stopped talking to the land manager when confronted about the new holds and additional bolts. This was a trival issue that those involved should have solved long ago.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The venom being spewed from the traditionalist zealots is counterproductive to coming to an eventual understanding and agreement to the issue at hand. You talk about how “responsibly” Dane has acted, yet he has continued to belittle anyone who disagrees with him, and chopped bolts; how is that responsible behavior? How has that accomplished anything more than getting another set of holes drilled into the rock?

 

Don’t accuse me of bias Kevin merely because I do not agree with you. My only agenda here is toward peace and understanding. I personally do not care about the rock at Dishman, and am beginning to agree with whomever suggested blowing the face off the rock and starting over. The rock currently has too many egos and too much pride attached, and therefore I view it as a nearly unhealable wound on the climbing community. My “bias” is not toward the “sporto’s”, as most of my friends are on the other side of the argument. My sole agenda is toward healing in the climbing community, which cannot begin until the John Waynes’ of the world quit seeking conquest and start seeking understanding and compromise. Both sides of this argument add value to the climbing community, yet one side continues to try to silence opposing views and opposing ethics (George Bush come to mind yet?) Nor does the fact that the vocal majority agrees with you make you right (religious right come to mind yet?). If you would approach them in more of an open fashion, you might find that some of those with whom you climb disagree with you; yes, we do climb in the same circle and they have told me this. Nor does being “right” solve the issue, until those who disagree or have differing views can be either educated or persuaded into compromise.

 

Peace, brotherhood, understanding. Less war, more negotiation.

 

EC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The venom being spewed from the traditionalist zealots is counterproductive to coming to an eventual understanding and agreement to the issue at hand."

 

And just what is the issue at hand from your perspective Eric? Please justify the chipped olds, bolts in 20 year old crack climbs and gym holds bolted to the wall. Are those tactics the norm in your climbing. Are they accepted in climbing as a whole, sport or trad?

 

You want peace, brotherhood and understanding. I would like to hear how you see these issues being resolved.

 

Remember the land manager's issue with these three items were stated to Grady face to face a year ago and then promptly ignored. My involvement came months later.

 

Let's be honest this isn't an issue between trad climbers and sport climbers.

 

aae.sized.jpg

 

aao.sized.jpg

 

aak.sized.jpg

 

aau.sized.jpg

 

aax.sized.jpg

 

aaf.sized.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great post Dane. I would think that step one would be to bring out the otherside in a forum where they are not being attacked, and ask them what they would see as a compromise. The key is to promote open and honest discussion in a forum where all can discuss views and ideas without persecution. Perhaps it is too late, but it would seem the logical step. I would note from the latest threads that I have read that the otherside seems to have been driven underground.

 

Perhaps the second step would be to clearly identify and state the issues, then we can see which ones are agreed to, which ones are close, and which ones remain contentious. The issues would seem to me to be 1. who decides when to bolt or not (possibly too vague of an issue); 2. bolting cracks; 3. retrobolting. Are there other issues that you want addressed?

 

After the parties conduct open discussion and the issues are identified, step three may be trying to come up with possible compromises, or it may simply be to agree to disagree, yet come up with some plan for peace. To do this, both sides will have to show eachother tolerance, respect, and patience. Let’s argue ideas, not personalities. I would assume that both sides would also have to agree to a cease-fire in the chop/rebolt war.

 

I personally do not know the parties on the bolting side, nor even how to make contact with them, but perhaps can enlist the help of Marty whom I have met. Marty, if you are out there, can you help me try to avert a war that will someday lead to chopped bolts on the dihedral?

 

What do you say guys, stop fighting, call an end to the rhetoric, show eachother respect, and try to conduct a peaceful forum? All we risk is failure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can chant peace and love all you want but there is no compromise to bolting artificial holds on rock. I fully agree that a bolt/chop war is a lose-lose situation, with the resource suffering the consequence. But trying to understand a group of climbers who bolt holds onto rock is a waste of everyone's time. There comes a point when we have to stand up for the future of climbing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other side of this issue I have had extensive and friendly converstions with Marty Bland, Russ Shutz and Brian Raymond (the choosen representative of their group) and others involved. I continue to have contact with Marty and Brian, both for opinions and to give them continual updates on what I and others are doing.

 

I have encouraged Marty and Brian (and those they represented at the REI meeting) to be involved and stay involved at all levels including the discussions and suggestions. They set the clean up date at the REI meeting and all involved agreed to show. There was little discusssion past that date on either side until the cleanup.

 

Of course one side of the issue failed to show. That makes communication really difficult.

 

One of the first reasons given for what has been done on the wall at Dishman was "the area is a garbage dump". I have been told that from people who should know better. I hear the photos I post don't give a realistic perception of the Dishman trash heap even today.

 

None of that is true of course. Dishman is and has been one of the most unique and beautiful places to sport climb in Washington or any where else for that matter. That says a lot in my book. It can easily be even better with a little care and effort.

 

Secondly, there is the arguement that I claim the right of ownership of routes I did the first ascents of 24 years ago. And that "ownership" is a dated idea and the newest generation of climbers is free to alter climbs as they see fit.

 

Let me clear that up. I don't claim ownership of any route at Dishman. Although I do think the first ascent ethic should be respected on any climb short of being unsafe. Much of what I first climbed needed additional bolts to be climbed safety. Nice that someone took the time and effort to make those climbs safer. No problem with retro bolted climbs at Dishman that had the need. 5.8 and 5.9 cracks or even a easy 5.11 that can be protected with little effort don't need bolts to make them safe.

 

Third, "this wasn't a problem till Dane made it one".

 

Known at least to Grady, the land owner has been unhappy for over a year at the current state of development at Dishman.

 

I have pointed it out to the climbing community. The land owner certainly knew and climbers involved have known (or should have known) for awhile now. All of this was unknown to me until late this fall.

 

I could go on and debunk the litany of reasons that have been used to justify what has been done at Dishman but let me put those three to rest.

 

What are the specific issues at Dishman?

Simple?

 

These are the concerns recently voiced to me by the land manager and the issues that threaten climber access to Dishman rocks

 

1. chipped holds

2. bolted on gym holds

3. excessive bolting

 

 

These are the only real discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been following the plight of Dishman for a while now, and although I've quit paying attention to a certain keyboard jockey's longwinded and deceitful rants I couldn't help but bringing his name up at Minne yesterday while bouldering.

 

At Minne I ran into friend who is a little older and more travelled than I am, we began talking about all the hub-ub that a certain loudmouth prick has been stirring up lately, this was all very entertaining to my friend who used to live on the west side and climb at Index often.

 

This friend remembers when Dane Burns and someone named Andy Declerk were chipping holds under a veil of secrecy at an Index cliff called the "Ear Wax Wall".

 

Now, I thought this was just too juicy a scoop to keep under my hat. I'm sure dane will categorically deny these chipping charges, but to those in the know, dane's words have become too suspect to believe, either in part or in full.

 

mountainninja

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ad homi·nem adv.

 

Usage Note: As the principal meaning of the preposition ad suggests, the homo of ad hominem was originally the person to whom an argument was addressed, not its subject. The phrase denoted an argument designed to appeal to the listener's emotions rather than to reason, as in the sentence The Republicans' evocation of pity for the small farmer struggling to maintain his property is a purely ad hominem argument for reducing inheritance taxes. This usage appears to be waning; only 37 percent of the Usage Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: Ad hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak. Ninety percent of the Panel finds this sentence acceptable. The expression now also has a looser use in referring to any personal attack, whether or not it is part of an argument, as in It isn't in the best interests of the nation for the press to attack him in this personal, ad hominem way. This use is acceptable to 65 percent of the Panel. ·Ad hominem has also recently acquired a use as a noun denoting personal attacks, as in “Notwithstanding all the ad hominem, Gingrich insists that he and Panetta can work together” (Washington Post). This usage may raise some eyebrows, though it appears to be gaining ground in journalistic style. ·A modern coinage patterned on ad hominem is ad feminam, as in “Its treatment of Nabokov and its ad feminam attack on his wife Vera often border on character assassination” (Simon Karlinsky). Though some would argue that this neologism is unnecessary because the Latin word homo refers to humans generically, rather than to the male sex, in some contexts ad feminam has a more specific meaning than ad hominem, being used to describe attacks on women as women or because they are women, as in “Their recourse... to ad feminam attacks evidences the chilly climate for women's leadership on campus” (Donna M. Riley).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share




×
×
  • Create New...