Thanks hero.

[Dane]

Not had anyone call me names since I was in jr. high. Happily the internet is such a safe place

 

I obviously post my own opinions but I have also stated the facts. If anyone actually involved wants to challenge my perspective of who has been involved and what has happened to this point feel free.

 

Credibility starts with using your own name and saying in person what you write on the Internet. I do both.

 

Andy deKlerk and Ear Wax wall? That is one story I had not yet heard.

[Roadstead1]

Nice Job Dane, Editing your posts so you don't look like a ASS. Back in the 80's Dane was the one that started the local bolt wars at Dishman. Now he wants to start it all over again. For the one person that knows my name but not the man, I have set over 200 studs this year, I help make new climbing areas not old ones.

[southernmtguide]

So, It has been 24 hours since a meeting between Dane and the Water District that owns the land at Dishman. Why no posting or reports as to what transpired there. I was under the impression that a proposal was being presented by Dane to the Water Disrict that would affect the future of access and climbing there.I dont understand why no one is talking about this, when everyone has been so prolific up to now.

 

On another note, my new Rock and Ice magazine hit the office, and I spent a few minutes trying to figure out the full page ad taken out in it that showed 4 pictures of what apears to be Dishman. What is the message? Who paid for this, and what is the point? Someone is really fueling the fires.

[Dane]

Been climbing myself.

 

Might ask the guy sitting 20 feet from your desk everyday what was said at the meeting as he spoke to the BOD as well.

 

 

[richard_noggin]

If you want to know who paid for the full page add in Rock and Ice check the web site under the add

Hope he doesn't go postal!!!!!!!

If I could fill Danes ego with money I would have more money than Bill Gates

[southernmtguide]

Well, I did ask the man "20 feet away from my desk" otherwise I would not have even known to ask about the "Meeting", seeing as it was not mentioned in any of your posts. That is something I really do not understand.

 

Why the secrecy in this meeting betwwen you and the Board of Directors of the Water District? If you truly have the best interests of Spokane climbing and climbers at heart, one would think that their would be some open, public dialog between you, and the Spokane climbing community that you have taken responsibility for represeting. What exactly did you present to the Board as a "Plan" for Dishman?

 

Granted, most on the participants on this board have no problem with the 3 points you have made in regards to your stance on ethics at Dishman. Those are yours and others opinions.

 

It is also cool that you have literaly put your money where your mouth is, and paid for a full page ad in Rock and Ice.

 

What I think you are missing is the fact that you, and you alone do not represent all of the climbers that utilise Dishman. It is not right that you think that you know what is best for all and keep everyone out of the loop so you can push forth your agenda, whatever that may be.

 

I know that right before the meeting, you asked the Access Fund Representative, the "man I sit 20 feet away from" not to present at the meeting, because his, and The Access Funds Mission Statement was at odds with what your new goups Mission Statement was.

 

Most climbers agree that The Access Fund is a voice of reason, and represents all climbers well, and has a good public voice. One that is not driven by ego, or hidden agendas.

 

So, I guess the point of this post is to ask that you to post an extract of what you presented to the Board of Directors on Monday, and open it up for discussion with any who really care.

[RuMR]

Dane,

 

When i opened the latest issue of RockandIce and see your bullshit goin on in a national publication AFTER you have had your say w/ the local community and land managers, i have to wonder exactly what your motivation is...

 

Oh, and that's a really LAME quote you put in there...the funny thing is i agree w/ your stances, but does the other side equal "evil"??? I think not...the only thing your paid ad does, is expose you as an egotistical asshole of a very high order...

 

Get a life...

 

Rudy Ruana

Edited October 13, 2004 by RuMR

[pu]

The notion that you must live in Spokane to give a damn about what goes on seems rather odd. For all we know Dane's ego could be what our solar system revolve's around. Does it matter? I believe that the issues are what matters. Bolting holds on the rock so that someone without the skills or strength can do the move seems as preposterous to me as paving the Snow Creek trail into the enchantments so that everyone can enjoy the wilderness.

As far as ego's go. IMO there is nothing wrong with an ego. It seems that it occasionally takes somebody with one to get stuff done. This may burst many of your bubbles but climbing is a very Macho sport and egotistical climbers are not an exception. I have worked in the gear industry for awhile and have spoken with many self proclaimed hard men/women.

Rumr, are you suggesting that Dane wants to be nominated Grand Czar of climbing? Maybe Dane wants to take over the world and control the rate at which we revolve around his ego?

It doesn't matter really. What matters are the issues of bolting holds onto climbs that are future testpieces and bolting easily protected cracks. Is establishing an ethic for an area a bad thing? Is recognizing that an ethic HAS ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED IN AN AREA wrong?

 

I have not yet seen this Rock and Ice ad. Maybe it was a little over the top. Maybe the quote was dumb. Who cares? Do You?

[RuMR]

excuse me, when did i say you had to be local???? WTF are you talking about??

 

I see his bullshit manuver as a chest beating of sorts...he had his clean up, had his discussion w/ the landowners and appeared to have garnered some consensus, so why drag some stupid fucks in boulder into the fray????? What could possibly be gained other than closing the whole fucking place down to any form of climbing, pure or not????? WHAT THE FUCK???!?!?!

 

Did you not see where i said i agree with his basic premises?? It just seems counterproductive to go to some stupid rag...

 

 

Edited October 13, 2004 by RuMR

[Dane]

Hey Gary, how about being a little less disingenuous.

 

First what you state as fact is not.

 

This is: I told Michael Lane (the new regional rep of the Access Fund, your climbing partner and boss) I was not comfortable with his views on Dishman, "leaving it as is, stautus quo" to maintain access. Which is why I went to the Access Fund National office and ended up on a 1 hour conference call which included members of the WCC and Lane to clarifiy the "access at all costs" is not acceptable. Hard as that was for them to spit out. Same reason the Access Fund and Lane were represented at the BOD meeting...I invited them. I am not willing to accept status quo at Dishman as it is today. The stated policy of the Access Fund and WCC is "access and enviromental protection as equal partners". At Dishman we have both issues. That is unusual I think. Climber's damaging the environment on private property is one of the major issues causing problems with access.

 

Pretty obvious who paid for the ad when you asked the question. You also know what was said at the BOD meeting. Lane may not have ageed with everything said and I made that point during the presentation but he heard it, as did Marty Bland and the representative from the Dishman Hills Natural Area because they too were invited. But they were NOT on the agenda either, through their own choosing. I was. Not my job to do theirs.

 

My concerns are these, as I and their land manager (and a good many of the BOD as well at the meeting) have stated.

 

Stop chipping

Stop adding bolts

Don't add gym holds to the wall

fix the damage that has been done

 

That and keeping the area open for climbiing.

 

I argued at the meeting that the area not be closed. Which some on the BOD suggested. (no one has ever had permission to actually climb there formally in the 24 years we have) That and the area have limited access to control the dumping and that the vast majority of bolts stay on the wall.

 

Nothing secret about any BOD meeting including this one. Nothing was going to be decided that night. Never expected it would. But access could have changed that night. I simply presented reasonable options and some finacial aid the BOD might choose to help deal with land use and climber issues. BOD meetings are not public forums, which is why I didn't mention it here. If you want to talk with them you call up the secretary and schedule yourself into the next meeting. Which I did. Lane, the ACCESS FUND and WCC all have the info I gave them to schedule their own time at the meetings if they care to.

 

I don't represent just myself or just my feelings at Dishman as DRRG. Nor do I or DRRG claim to represent everyone in the climbing community.

 

Neither I or DRRG will promote access to Dishman at all costs as some have proposed. I think the land owner has every right to know all the issues that climbing brings to them. Another point where I and some in the National organization's reps disagree.

 

The national organizations might well get involved. But you, Gary and Lane are admittily a transient population to Spokane by your own comments. I still have family and property in Spokane. Grady and Marty at least climbed at Dishman for years. As have I and my buddies. My take is the national organizations have ulterior motives in keeping Dishman open that have nothing to do with Dishman and the climbing environment there. At this point I think there is good reason to have more than the ACCESS Fund and WCC involved. If for no other reason than neither has done anything to this point and won't until access is denied is my take on it.

 

I'd rather be proactive.

 

My and DRRG concern is Dishman....nothing more and nothing less. I am willing to take my time and money to help the land owner preserve the area.

 

Truth is I would rather be climbing in my spare time and spend the money I am using for this bs for something more useful than climbers who have to ask, "what does the ad mean?". Be happy to hand this off to anyone who is willing to follow through with all concerns. No one has offered to this point

 

To explain the ad more clearly, I think what has happened at Dishman and what is happening elsewhwere on the rock is fucked up...people need to stand up and say so to those that do things like what is pictured imo.

 

No question a few don't agree with me, my opinions or my approach. That is fine. I don't agree with what has been done or said to this point by a good many. You don't like what I am doing about Dishman get off your ass and make your own voice heard. I think these issues are important at Dishman and at a National level. So do many other climbers. "Rock and Ice" clearly points that out in the current issue without my ad. Nice that we live in a country and play at a sport that welcomes all view points.

 

How about instead of a pissing match with me, do something useful and schedule your own meeeting with the BOD and then lets all wait to see what they come up with as a management plan at Dishman...and how we can all help?

 

Thankfully, I am done talking about it until then.

[MichaelLane]

Hi, All ...

 

We're now at the point where the fuel for this fire isn't ethics any longer, it’s now become ego ... from both sides of the argument. And when I say "both sides" I'm really referring to, maybe, three or four people who are split to represent the far ends of either side of this issue. Everyone else in the middle may have differing opinions of what's right and what's wrong, but it's only that fractional, little group which refuses to seek compromise, that continues raising the stakes and whipping the entire community into a frenzy over this cliff.

 

I’m the regional coordinator for The Access Fund and we, along with the Washington Climbers’ Coalition are eager to help the majority stuck in the middle to find a common position and to help present a reasonable, measured climbing policy to the landowners.

 

The Access Fund does not support “access at all costs” but we do recognize that every situation may require a unique approach with a long-term perspective. We have a dual mandate to preserve natural resources and to ensure climbers’ access. In order to accomplish this, a balance of ethics and style must often be reached. Sometimes, it takes time for all of this to become clear.

 

The problem with the Dishman situation is that the few people at either end of this situation have rushed headlong into battle over it without any measure of concern for anyone’s desires but their own agendas, whatever they may be.

 

From the start, this whole situation could have been avoided if each side had been willing to discuss positions, values, ideas and intentions. Now we’ve got a bolt war and the land owners are scared to death of the whole situation. Closure is clearly on the table.

 

Better late than never, though, as I, personally, don’t think it’s too late to salvage climbing at Dishman in a style that is acceptable to almost everyone who enjoys this cliff.

 

As I said, the Access Fund and the Washington Climbers Coalition are here to help. If you’re interested in starting fresh, please contact one of us listed below. We believe that a new dialogue and a common vision for climbing at Dishman from the Spokane climbing community as a whole may carry a substantial amount of weight with the land owners.

 

Climb safe.

 

--Michael Lane, Access Fund … afnorthwest[at]yahoo.com

--Matt Perkins, Washington Climbers’ Coalition … mattp[at]seanet.com

[Ireneo_Funes]

Right on, Michael & Matt.

 

Nice to see a little sanity on this subject.

[willstrickland]

You present a disingenuous argument as your opening salvo. Weak. Refusing to compromise would have been chopping every bolt added to a line after the FA, without raising the issue for discussion, and doing it in secret.

 

Then you say that you "are eager to help the majority stuck in the middle to find a common position and to help present a reasonable, measured climbing policy to the landowners"

 

Do you not consider this to be a "reasonable and measured policy":

 

Stop chipping

Stop adding bolts

Don't add gym holds to the wall

fix the damage that has been done

 

Seems like most people would agree that this is a fair policy. I don't doubt your interest and dedication, but your "title" and relation to the AF in no way lend more credibility to your position. In fact, I would expect advocacy groups to have a better understanding of the implications of setting precedent particularly with issues that have a high potential to inflame relationships with land managers and threaten closure. Surely a group titled the ACCESS fund understands the very real threats to access presented by chipping, wanton bolting, and artificial holds.

 

A "what's done is done" stance, in my mind, only encourages stealthy flaunting of the accepted standards or policies dictated by the land managers. (See Todd Skinner et al stealth bolting in Hueco circa early 90s).

[LUCKY]

In good faith could the person that bolted on the hold remove it, could the names under the routes in marker be removed,Let the climbers that climb at Dishman decide what stays and what goes as far as bolts, this would make the crag more appealing to most.

In good faith could Dane let the access issues that effect ALL of us be worked out by Lane and MattP.

Either side that can't handle that has a real EGO problem!

Don't shoot I'm an innocent bystander

LUCKY

[mattp]

Will,

 

Nowhere in Michael's post do I see where he said it was OK to do any of the things you complain about. I believe there is much less of a "conflict" here than it seems but we are holding off on presenting the entire history because it seems that to do so would only fuel the flames here.

 

I join Michael in asking all parties to take a big step back.

 

Meanwhile, you can take a look at our web page at WCC Website to read a little about what the Washington Climbers Coalition is trying to do. We have not made any specific statement on this matter, but you will see all over our page that we advocate thoughful communication between the parties involved in conflicts such as this. Heated arguments that "you are either on the right side or not" will not help at this point. Those arguments have already been made.

[Dane]

Micheal Lane, Access fund, in phone conversation to me 10/05/04.

"I think leaving Dishman "as is" would be a good compromise to maintain access."

 

Matt Perkins, WCC, in phone conversation related to me by the Water distict manager, 10/11/04.

"I do not condemn or support the bolting at Dishman."

 

Michael Lane:

We have a dual mandate to preserve natural resources and to ensure climbers’ access. In order to accomplish this, a balance of ethics and style must often be reached.

 

Matt:

I believe there is much less of a "conflict" here than it seems but we are holding off on presenting the entire history

 

Matt you had not been involved till last week and now you know the "entire" history but won't share it? That should be an amazing revelation.

 

I invited both The Access Fund and the WCC to this party in July. Couldn't get Matt or Andy involved or answer an email or phone call as late as last week. Now 4 months later they want to broker a compromise. Pardon me being a little suspect as to their intentions after being told by spokesmen in both camps.

 

"Dishman isn't big enough for us to get involved but access there may influence other areas of interest for us. That is important."

 

The Access Fund has done an incredible amount of good work.

The WCC is a new group and as yet untested. Both might well be able to help all sides involved. Adding intentional disinformation and insinuation to discredit any arguement isn't a help and very disheartening.

 

Trying to redirect the converstaion to "access" and something that is is comfortable and convenient to the AF and WCC isn't going to fly far.

 

How about a public policy statement from both the AF and WCC on the following?

 

chipping

retro bolting/ bolts on natural cracks

adding gym holds to natural rock

 

I was asked by the members of the WCC and AF to drop out of this public discussion. When either group acknowledges in public the real problems and then gives a reasonable solution on how to address them at Dishman, I will.

 

Till then, I am more inclined to take the land owner's side, wait for their answer, and then meet any reasonable requirement their BOD has to maintain climber access.

 

The land owner's only agenda is preserving their land in a natural state and limiting their liability. At least now, with no help from the AF or WCC, they can better judge how to do that for themselves. After 4 months and a number of discussions I still have no idea what the agendas are by some now offering to "help".

 

My intention was to leave the public discussion and wait for the the land owner's response.

 

My suggestion is start another thread and leave out the intentional disinformation and insinuation.

 

If the end result is the AF and the WCC came to the "rescue" and maintain access to Dishman, in its current condition, nothing will have been done.

 

 

[richard_noggin]

oops!

Edited October 15, 2004 by richard_noggin

[scott_harpell]

I just wanna get some clarification here. Does anyone here support

 

1) Bolting where there are protectable cracks nearby? (Bolting of convenience)

 

2) Gluing Holds?

 

3) Chipping Holds?

 

4) Bolting Plastic Gym Holds to the Wall?

 

If not, everyone shut up and take the shit down. What is so complicated about this? To hell with the AF trying to set precedence there because they want to be able to use dishman as a pawn in their game. Do any climbers agree with the aforementioned issues?

[chucK]

Scott,

I think it's obvious that some people reading this support all four above (with maybe the exception of 2). I'm not talking about the AF and WCC, but am talking about Dane's vociferous opponents in the early parts of this thread and previous Dishman threads. If I remember correctly they justified these things because Dishman was a trash heap, etc...

 

The people that replaced the chopped bolts and artificial hold may be reading this too. I'd suspect they endorse your 1-4.

 

I agree that 1-4 suck, but Dane already tried "taking that shit down" and that shit was almost instantly replaced. So, unfortunately it's not that simple.

Edited October 15, 2004 by chucK

[scott_harpell]

Now you people understand why I had my stance on bolts where I did. As a poster stated on ascentionist:

 

Welcome to the next generation.

 

Good luck trying to keep up with us.

 

You wonder why bolts get yanked? This is the attitude that anti bolters are fighting and hyperbolizing out stances is the only way we can combat our crags and mountains turning into one big piece of pusher plastic.

Edited October 15, 2004 by scott_harpell

[scott_harpell]

How you gonna find time to chop all those and start climbing as hard as the people who put them up?

[Rafael_H]

1. Out of curiosity, could anyone please tell me what the grade is for the climb with the artificial hold? And the other chipped ones too, please.

 

2. The route creation ethics is not a simple issue, as much as we'd like it to be. And the viewpoints do largely depend on experience, exposure and attitude towards climbing. Consensus on a specific issue is tough to come up with and ultimately, it all comes down to a measurable, tangible action. Voting is one of them.

So, to answer the question above, I join those who are against

1)convenience bolting

2)artificial (plastic) holds for any reason whatsoever

3)"dumbing down" of existing routes by any means or reasons whatsoever that alter the rock, or add to it (glueing).

 

(scoff, putting a bolt 8 feet above flat ground is a sign of inexperience and just stju-pidity, one better know before considering themselves a route developer)

 

And, as long as I am posting, Dane's posts in this thread have all been coherent, informative, logical and delivered a clear point. I personally sensed no egomaniacal notes. On the contrary, and to my greatest disapointment, the Access Fund posts were useless, not even right or wrong. I have been paying since 1999 and am sure AF does good things. But, yo, dude, don't get too arrogant out there, eh. Same for you, Matt P. Like "WE know what to do". Dane has done a good service by exposing and voicing, and on national level too. I have never seen anything like "Dishman treatment", way,way worse than Leland's "comfy" routes.

 

"How you gonna find time to chop all those and start...?" If I personally see "Dishman" type treatment at the local gems - it's not that hard to conjure up compact chop-chop tools, no dummies here.

 

Finally, it would help to drop jargon like "sporto" and the like, doesn't help. Bolts are easy to remove if trends change, but altered rock is lost forever.

 

Years ago I suggested special rating, like the euro E, but the logical opposite, say CH (for chicken). So bolts every 3 feet get CH10, and so on. Even cute icons could be developed...

[scott_harpell]

If being content with the status quo at dishman is the way the access fund and mattp's group are taking, you will find nothing but an enemy in me. That is the truth. The pictures I saw were grotesque and anyone suggesting that something not be done about this is NOT looking out for the interests of the climbing community that I grew up in and know.

 

I am not the voice of an antiquated minority soon to be extinguished by the enevitable change of the guard, but a 23 year old youngster that understands that the agenda of the AF is taking precedence over the "community" of whose wishes they are supposedly protecting.

[Billygoat]

Unless you own the rock, don't be chippin' holds or bolting plastic.

 

This ain't a daycare.

 

Grow up

[mattp]

As I thought I had indicated earler, nobody involved with the Access Fund or the Washington Climbers Coalition has suggested maintaining the status quo at Dishman. Quite to the contrary, we have consistently told Dane that we believe we could get a satisfactory resolution to his concerns if he would stop inflaming the issue. Two weeks ago, we held a conference telephone call involving two staff members from the Access Fund national office, the Washington Coordinator, and two of us from the Washington Climbers Coalition. In that call we repeated the same message and we specifically spoke about working to obtain removal of the offending holds - though we said we could not guarantee a particular result. Dane said he would rather cause the area to be closed than to allow a single offending hold remain.

 

In my telephone call with Mr. Squibb that Dane reports here, I said we were not at that time ready to make a statement but that if he would tell us what they wanted, the WCC would promote whatever management policy the property owners would request us promote.

 

We do not support chipping and bolting on holds, but I (for one) fear that Dane may only be making a bad situation worse.