Looks like a duck, walks like a duck

[Dane]

Being naive to the politics that are present on this BBS I have asked for help here and posted opinions.

 

My recent involvement at Dishman has pointed out things that I think need public airing.

 

Listed below is the condensed version of my communication with WCC and the Access Fund members to this point.

 

Andy Fitz as the regional rep for the AF and now a member of WCC: 3 unreturned phone calls and apologies for "loosing them" when face to face. Additionally the public request I stop representing any Spokane climbers on Dishman or speaking on Dishman in public because I have polarised the community.

 

That because I have an opinion and willing to state it in public.

 

Michael Lane...new regional rep for the Access Fund living in Spokane: "I think leaving Dishman "as is" is a worthwhile compromise to maintain access to Dishman". That includes bolted cracks, bolted on gym holds and retro bolted climbs.

 

Then Michael sends one of his employees to stir up the pot on CC.com knowing damn well exactly what was said at the Dishman BOD meeting since he was there and spoke.

 

Matt Perkins: "we haven't told the entire history of Dishman as of yet" and "it isn't as serious as some contend", all this from a single short conversation with the Dishman Land manager. BTW as recently as this morning the land manager disagrees with Matt's simplistic view point.

 

Let me clear that one up...Matt you are either lying at worse and mistaken at best. Either way when you aren't involved, how about waiting until you actually do know something worth posting. (same thing you have suggested to others here many times)

 

I asked both organizations over 4 months ago to get involved at Dishman. Never happened until a couple of weeks ago. And guess what, now they want to keep Dishman, "as is".

 

How about we start calling it like it really is...the Access Fund and the WCC are for bolting and access at any cost. Their advertising, mottos and public proclaimations be damned...looks like a duck, walks like a duck.

 

Take a look at their stance on "Infinite Bliss" for further edification.

 

I invite, Matt, Michael, Andy or anyone else to publically explain the differences between the public face and the obvious difference in their actions by the WCC and the AF.

[Alasdair]

The access funds severe pro bolt stance is the reason I will never join.

[Off_White]

Dane:

 

I don't have a problem with your clean up actions at Dishman, it seemed like a pretty reasonable middle of the road solution. The re-installation of the bolted on holds and retro-bolted crack climbs seems to have driven you over the edge. I understand and sympathize with your frustration and infuriation, but rather than racheting up the hyperbole on the issue, I think some sort of negotiation is in order, and may best be brokered by an outside less entrenched entity. I suspect it's likely that the AF/WCC recent interest in the issue is more due to the likely damaging nature of an escalating bolt war, rather than the smaller regional issue of recent abuses at Dishman. Having the discussion devolve into a belligerent cycle of "Fuck you" and "No, FUCK YOU", with it's physical iterations, will only result in the closure of the crag. I truly believe your position (no chipping, no bolt on holds, no retro-bolt next to reasonably protectable cracks) is supported by the vast majority of climbers (myself included), and I urge all to make their feelings known to both the Access Fund and the Washington Climbers Coalition. Remember that abusive diatribes only detract from the substance of your message.

 

Is Marty Bland out there reading things these days? I'd appreciate hearing from you, and I respecte your input in the earlier discussions of this issue. Your willingness to participate in dialogue is admirable.

[Dane]

No hyperbole, just the facts as they have been presented to me.

 

I'll leave this discussion for you to make up your own mind on what the AF and WCC represent.

[scott_harpell]

No hyperbole is necessary when people are chippin, bolting on holds and gluing holds.

[andyf]

(This is being posted to two threads, responding to Dane’s posts concerning the Access Fund and WCC.)

 

First, to be clear, as a personal matter I neither agree with nor condone bolted on holds (manufactured or natural), the intentional creation of holds, marking route names on the rock, or—as a general concept—placing bolts in terrain that can be easily protected with removable gear. Given free reign to change the world to suit my tastes, I also would love to erase any number of routes at Exit 38 and Frenchman Coulee that offend my personal aesthetic for route spacing, purity of line, and the general appearance of a natural space.

 

For most of the past ten years, however, I’ve volunteered my time to work on climbing issues. I was the Access Fund’s regional coordinator for Washington from 1995 until I resigned this summer; I was a member of the Access Fund’s board of directors from 1997-2003; and most recently, I’ve been active in helping to form the Washington Climbers Coalition. In those roles, I’ve largely kept my opinions as a climber to myself. Some might criticize this approach as “weak,” but I’ve always felt that in order to maximize my effectiveness, I needed to maintain an open channel to all climbers. Keeping that channel open hinges, in my mind, on not being perceived as having an “agenda” and on keeping my focus on issues that raise objective access concerns (as opposed to matters more confined to debate among climbers).

 

In the case of Dishman, I think the practices of bolting on holds, marking route names at the base, and chipping do raise objective access concerns. Having those practices take place at any crag—regardless of how much of a “shit pile” someone might consider it—may very well affect access at other crags. (A real world example: Climber conduct at Fossil Rock in the late 80s/early 90s created access problems at Little Si a few years later.) At a certain point bolting practices may also raise concerns, but the issue of whether a bolt next to a crack is “bad” while a bolt in a blank face may be “OK” is, in my direct experience, a question of that is of true significance to climbers only, unless a land manager or owner is forced into a pissing match between warring climbers.

 

Of course, just such a pissing match exists here, with the landowner now forced into the conflict. And, in one of life’s ironic twists, I’m sitting in the position of responding to a critical post from Dane when I agree on a personal level with most of his objections, I agree that the issues mentioned above raise objective access concerns, and I agree with Off White’s statement that the actions taken at the September 26 cleanup appear to be, in and of themselves, a “reasonable solution.” So what gives?

 

There is a distinction to be made between bad people and bad actions. I think this distinction has been confused at Dishman. I’ve never met the folks responsible for bolting on the holds, but I know people who know them, and it’s obvious to me from attending the August meeting in Spokane that the folks have a lot of friends. This “controversy” took a personal turn from the start. I think a large number of Spokane climbers on the “other side” of this issue from Dane are on the “other side” because of the manner in which this issue developed. In my opinion the resulting defensiveness and polarization has, to this point, precluded the “compromise” that I’ve felt was appropriate all along. That “compromise” is one that would have Dishman looking very much like, if not identical to, the way it looked at the end of September 26.

 

I participated in the conference call Dane has mentioned. Michael, Matt and I all shared our sense that we could make progress on the real issues at Dishman if the wind was taken out of the war of wills. I, for one, expressed my sense that the key to making such progress was for Dane to turn down the heat and allow a third party to step in. I still believe that today.

 

Bottom line: I don’t think the goals of the AF and WCC are any different than those of Dane at Dishman. I’m concerned, though, that if we stay on the current course, we’re headed toward a divided community, a closed cliff, and potential repercussions elsewhere.

 

I’m tempted to continue. I’m frustrated by the inference that I was unresponsive to Dane until a week or so ago; I’m frustrated by the suggestion that the AF, the WCC and I took no interest in Dishman until recently; and I’m frustrated by the way in which the AF and WCC have been characterized in a number of posts. I’ll fully admit to lapses in responsiveness to a number of folks over the past year (which is one of the reasons I resigned as a regional coordinator, probably a year too late), but I won’t admit to that in this case. The point of this post, though, is a call to depersonalize and de-escalate this situation, so I’ll let it go.

 

Peace,

 

Andy Fitz

[mattp]

Dane,

 

I am not lying and I don't think I misunderstand the issues here. A relatively small conflict fed by the actions of really only four or five people has erupted into a worse crisis. I'm not saying you don't raise important issues; you do. But it has become hard to see the issues.

 

Your statement that "the WCC and the AF are for access at any cost" and your insistence that we are protecting bolted on holds and chipping if we are not willing to actively promote your position is incorrect. We hope to encourage Spokane area climbers to resolve these issues without prolonged conflict.

Edited October 17, 2004 by mattp

[southernmtguide]

Dude, you are so wrong about my involvement here. I am an adult, with a free mind and spirit. I posted the questions on this board, directed to you in regards to the meeting on my on volition, not my boss's.

 

I asked what the results of the meeting were here in a public forum not to "stir up the pot" but to find out what your proposed course of action was to be, and how all climbers involved could get involved and provide input.I also do not consider asking you questions in this forum to be a "pissing match" as you stated. Just trying to figure out where you were taking us.

 

I did ask Michael to tell me about the meeting, and I heard his version. The reason I posted was because I thought the community should also know of the meeting, and the results.

 

I, as well as many others still do not know what your proposed solution to this mess is. Why dont you let everyone know what you want to see as an end result?

[Dru]

To clarify:

Dane did not call this a pissing match - Andy Fitz did.

[southernmtguide]

To clarify:

 

Dane did;

 

"Thanks Hero" thread.

 

Starts "Hey Gary,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?"

[Dru]

I stand corrected. I thought you meant just in this thread.

[southernmtguide]

No problem. I should have said that the reply was based on two seperate threads.

[Dane]

Andy said "the (Dishman) landowner (is) now forced into the conflict"

 

The Dishman land manager and I have been in contact in recent weeks. The Dishman land owner has not been forced into anything. I will repeat this again. "The Dishman land owner has been concerned by climber's actions that effect their property for over a year now."

 

To deny that or add some kind of spin to it is a fallacy on anyone's part and a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. I didn't drag the land manager out to Dishman, he had seen the damage done there by climbers and was very concerned long before I got involved.

 

Matt calls Dishman

A relatively small conflict fed by the actions of really only four or five people

 

He also said he would tell the real history of Dishman when appropriate. Aren't they all small conflicts until others get involed Matt? Dishman is just the tip of the iceburg no matter how you have managed to bury that here on CC.com or in the press.

 

The AF and WCC can thank their stars that the land manager at Dishman was also a climber and willing to fight his bosses on keeping the climbing area open.

 

If there is a split in the climbing community (and I think there is) on ethics and access it would seem to stem for the inability of the Access Fund and its representatives to willingly involve the land owners or managers quickly and then take a hard line stance on the obvious ethical issues when required.

 

I think there is a place for bolts. I don't think there is a place for bolt on holds, chipping, power bolting in a wilderness area or access at all costs. I think the land managers and land owners have the right to know both sides of the climbing communities interests and passions. To those of us who have taken a closer look at the AF and the WCC you appear to be pro bolting and all that implies.

 

Until the Access Fund and WCC has the courage to stand up in public and condemn those actions and actually become the good stewards of the land they claim to protect neither orgainzation will represent the majority of climbers.

 

By your suggestions we should all be singing "Kumbaya" while things like Infinate Bliss and Dishman stand in the climbing community at the opposition of Federal law and the property's owners disgust.