Dr_Flash_Amazing Posted December 10, 2002 Share Posted December 10, 2002 It's all in the . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted December 10, 2002 Share Posted December 10, 2002 Thank you Jim! I look forword to what ever you can find out Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted December 10, 2002 Share Posted December 10, 2002 I'm sooooo sick of being played like a harp! All the Indians ever do is play us, man. We've been sooooo worked by them, and I'm personally tired tired tired. It's time to get the Indian off the white man's back! Don't you think so, JayB? Any group of people will play on the sympathies of those around them in order to secure a material or political advantage for themselves if given the chance to do so. I'm not saying that the Tribes are unique in this respect, but it would be naive to think that they never succumb to the temptation to milk sufferings in their past for advantages in the present, just as any other group of people would if given the chance to do so. So as far as being tired is concerned, yeah - I'm tired of being told that because I'm white I can't make principled objections to, or critical commentary of, anything the tribes wish to do without being told that I'm a racist or that I am somehow visiting an injustice on the Indians in the present that is analagous to the depridations they suffered in the past. Specific instances where this has happened: -Objecting to native whaling in WA. -Raising questions about the manner in which the Goshute Tribe in Skull Valley, Utah proposes to store high level nuclear waste on land that they own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted December 10, 2002 Share Posted December 10, 2002 Well, you may what to take some time and read the document in question at http://www.r5.fs.fed.us/ltbmu/management/projects/cave_rock/CR_Chap3.pdf . It’s actually written quite well, and after reading it I’m leaning towards the Tribes concerns. The place is well established in Tribal history, very special, and well documented. While I don’t believe in arbitrary restrictions on climbing, this one may have merit. And quite frankly, the Access Fund's argument is a bit lame. The history of climbing there doesn’t seem too sensitive to natural resource or Tribal values. Yea, yea climbers picked up a bunch of garbage, but there was extensive gardening in the cave and paving the cave floor and moving rocks around for “safety”. It’s not just an outdoor climbing gym. Not every rock feature has to become a yuppie playground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeclimb9 Posted December 10, 2002 Share Posted December 10, 2002 I just don't know anything about the facts. But the analogy of the Mormans [sic] is a stretch. The difference is that the US govenrnment [sic] has signed treaties with recognized Tribes that stipulate provisions for protection of sites of religious importance. Jim "I just don't know anything about the facts", please enlighten me on what treaty the Washoe have with the United States. And further explain how the religious ideals of a group within the US should impact public policy. If a woman touching a rock on public property is offensive to the Washoe, if a tatooed person walking on Main Street SLC is offensive to the LDS Church, if seeing a woman's legs in public is offensive to a Wahabite, what policy is best? At what point do one's claims to first amendment rights infringe on another's? What is, or is not permissable in public? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted December 10, 2002 Share Posted December 10, 2002 I downloaded that document, thank you are you insinuating that because I am a woman I am more likely to pave a floor or move a rock for safety??? because I primarily climb trad, and that kind of thing does not jive with my personal climbing ethic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted December 10, 2002 Share Posted December 10, 2002 and what freeclimb said Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted December 10, 2002 Share Posted December 10, 2002 Well I do know a bit more than my first post because I read the USFS document. I'd suggest you take the time to look at it. The US recognizes the involved Tribes as an independent nation. This is nothing new in Tribal relations, it's what allows Tribes to manage, or mis-manage their lands in a manner it sees fit. And a major background point here - the Mormons are under the rule of the US government (like it or not), the recognized Tribes are seperate nations. The US has government to government relations with these Tribes. I'm not involved with the project, so I don't know the minutia about these Tribes treaties. But you could find that info if you're really interested. Can't spoon feed you dude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted December 10, 2002 Share Posted December 10, 2002 (edited) Thanks for the link, Jim. After briefly scanning that report, I am inclined to agree with you that the tribe's history and practices seem well documented and I am prepared to accept the idea that climbing is more intrusive (to them) than a highway tunnel. But I'm not so sure the Access Fund shouldn't request that the rights/desires of climbers be taken into consideration in any U.S. government agency (Forest Service) management plan. After all, the Access Fund is a climber's advocacy organization and their job is to promote access -- not necessarily with a blinder to other groups needs -- but at least to ask that access be discussed. This may not be a situation where there is any workable compromise and it may have to be that climbing will either be allowed or it won't. I didn't notice anything about the spiritual use of the area being seasonal, for example, and there is no way the modern American climbing community would agree, for another example, that only males should climb there. But the Access Fund, in promoting a certain alternative that favors climbing access, is following their mission. Perhaps they should should have given at least some acknowledgment of the history of tribal usage at Cave Rock, but the balancing of priorities and claims and rights and such is to be undertaken by the Forest Service, not the Access Fund. Edited December 10, 2002 by mattp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted December 10, 2002 Share Posted December 10, 2002 Yea, usually these things can be figured out with sensible compromise. I don't know about this one, IMO, from reading the document. Maybe this is one that just isn't appropriate for mixing of the cultures. Ignoring a reasoned assessment is not going to help the Access Fund, or climbers get a responsible reputation. You win some, you lose some. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeclimb9 Posted December 10, 2002 Share Posted December 10, 2002 The place is well established in Tribal history, very special, and well documented. The report you linked to mentions a "scarcity of Native American artifacts" being recovered at Cave Rock. Additionally, it's the only Washoe site to have been examined. From what do you base your statement of "well established . . . very special, and well documented"? Also, the report mentions that "The appraisal of Washoe sentiments regarding Cave Rock does not represent a consensus opinion in the Washoe community." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted December 10, 2002 Share Posted December 10, 2002 You're being very selective in quoting the document. I'm going to pass on this one, got to ride home in the rain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeclimb9 Posted December 10, 2002 Share Posted December 10, 2002 Jim, And a major background point here - the Mormons are under the rule of the US government (like it or not), the recognized Tribes are seperate nations. The US has government to government relations with these Tribes. I'm not involved with the project, so I don't know the minutia about these Tribes treaties. But you could find that info if you're really interested. Can't spoon feed you dude. All Tribes are subject to "the rule of the US government (like it or not)". " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted December 10, 2002 Share Posted December 10, 2002 I have still not had time to read the document... but I will. from reading your posts jim I am a bit confused...Is Cave Rock on public land, or is this on land that is part of a reservation? As far as i understand the law, unless the government chosses to grant the land to the native people it is under u.s. law, and our nations laws must then be followed, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted December 10, 2002 Share Posted December 10, 2002 Muff – sorry for the confusion. You are correct that outside the reservation Tribal members must abide by the applicable land use law; and Cave Rock is on US Forest Service Land. I was merely commenting on JayB’s analogy he was making to Mormons and Native American Tribes. As always these threads wander. But the main thing that is different is that because there are established treaty rights the US government is obligated to consider Tribal claims regarding sacred sites, etc. Sometimes it’s very complicated – look at the Kennewick Man court case. Linked to the treaty rights are a number of US laws and Executive Orders regarding how Federal agencies must consult with Tribes on land use issues. While some folks (as viewed in this thread) have a strong opinion regarding these land use conflicts, which they are entitled to, there are a number of laws in addition to the Treaties that specify how these government (US) to government (Tribal) interactions take place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk Posted December 10, 2002 Share Posted December 10, 2002 (edited) Jim, thank you for the clerification. I appriciate the link to the document as well although realy I think I only read about 1/2 of it. It was verry ummm well dry Although i did read the geology and cultural parts wich were verry interesting to me. IMO from what I read, I think that the only real solution is for the native peoples to go on NOT LOOKING at cave rock and then when I climb it, it will not be offensive to them. I know that the issue is very complex and that it is verry heated emotionaly on all sides. I hope with all my heart that there is some kind of compramise on this issue. Edited December 10, 2002 by Muffy_The_Wanker_Sprayer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeclimb9 Posted December 30, 2002 Share Posted December 30, 2002 It seems the comment period has been extended. I recently received a postcard from Maribeth Gustafson, Forest Supervisor, informing me that the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit will accpet comments on the Cave Rock Management Pland Final Environmental Impact Statement until March 31, 2003. Write to John Maher jmaher@fs.fed.us in addition to The Honorable Scott McInnis Chair, Subcommittee of Forests and Forest Health United States House of Representatives 320 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515-0603 Fax: (202) 226-0622 http://www.house.gov/writerep/ The Honorable Jim Gibbons Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands United States House of Representatives 100 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515-2802 Fax: (202) 202-225-5679 mail.gibbons@mail.house.gov The Honorable Ann M. Veneman Secretary of Agriculture U.S. Department of Agriculture Washington, D.C. 20250 agsec@usda.gov Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 I have climbed at Cave Rock. I respect the rights in such a small area the natives have. If they ban it then they should be respected. There are a lot of bolts there (yes I clipped some) but if it is indian land that is already tarnished by a road going through it then think of the money they will demand for the "destruction" of a historical and other site they claim it is in the future. There are plenty of rocks around Tahoe that are better anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catbirdseat Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 By "Cliff-Dwellers of the SW" do you refer to the Anasazi? They are an extinct race. It would be hard to ask them how they feel about the rock. Their modern-day descendents are the Hopi, if I am correct. I have mixed feelings on this issue. I guess it all depends on how strong the feelings are in the tribe versus how good a climbing destination the rock is. I don't think that giving in on one crag will lead to loss of all climbing venues. That's silly. The tribes don't consider all rocks as holy places, although they do regard all of nature to be the manifestation of the Great Spirit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt.Caveman Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 The climbing destination is hyped by magazines and videos. I bet both groups would honor a ban. But to imply the money from the indians' casino as an alternate debatable income would one be an insult to them and two may or may not be true. It's one of those topics that can be debated forever. There are some nice cliffs for climbing in less than a 30 minute drive in both directions..... And GRANITE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fern Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 There is an article written by David Roberts in this month's Smithsonian magazine about the Cave Rock issue. It doesn't have much more depth than what is covered in this thread but there are some pretty pictures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.