Welcome to SP!  -
Areas & RangesMountains & RocksRoutesImagesArticlesTrip ReportsGearOtherPeoplePlans & PartnersWhat's NewForum

CLOSURES: GROTTO & CTP AREAS

Regional discussion and conditions reports for the Golden State. Please post partners requests and trip plans in the California Climbing Partners forum.
 

Postby The Chief » Mon May 17, 2010 2:38 am

andrewsolow wrote:Hopefully sanity will prevail because some sort of cooperative partnership is the only choice that makes any sense at CTP.


Knock Knock.... Hello...Have you read anything that I posted?
The Chief

 
Thanked: time in post

Postby inconsolable » Mon May 17, 2010 8:03 am

Andrewsolow, you are making a fool of yourself. Grow up. Or at least take the process offstage.

Admitting that authority has its perks is common sense. You don't have to love it, you don't have to admire the incumbent, but ignoring reality won't get you anywhere. Negotiate from rock bottom realism, & you may gain.

For this hiker/backpacker, it is heartening to hear a SP core member point out that wilderness areas are important to a spectrum of users. I value SP for the info I find here, for a shared love of granite, & vicarious thrills. I don't enjoy sophomoric displays of macho (or macha, for that matter). I, & other scramblers, am happy to join with serious folk who want to preserve our mountains, & our access to them.

No, I'm not a ranger or a LM or an authority figure of any sort. Have problems with bureaucracy, actually; which is one reason I go to the mountains.
User Avatar
inconsolable

 
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 8:38 pm
Location: California, United States
Thanked: 4 times in 4 posts

Postby The Chief » Mon May 17, 2010 2:53 pm

Andrew, please do not take this at all personal....

If the mannerisms in which you and your group approached this issue here with myself and others that questioned your position, are the same as the ones you have displayed towards the authorities at LMRA, then I clearly understand why there are Issues at CTP between climbers and the NPS at LMRA.

Shaking ones fist and constantly demanding to have your way, never works in issues such as these. Just doesn't. It only aggravates it all to the point where it will stalemate and the receiver of your demands will close their doors to you and basically tell you to fk off. That is the reality of the world we live in.

I most highly recommend that you all get yourselves a neutral mediator, ASAP! Someone that understands and has worked WITH the System before, not against it.


NUFF said.
The Chief

 
Thanked: time in post

Postby Rob » Mon May 17, 2010 3:21 pm

Ignore this trolling Andrew. This website isn't about rockclimbing anyway.

Thanks for trying though!!!
User Avatar
Rob

 
Posts: 1535
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2003 12:17 am
Location: Granada Hills, California, United States
Thanked: 43 times in 26 posts

Postby The Chief » Mon May 17, 2010 3:32 pm

Rob wrote:Ignore this trolling Andrew. This website isn't about rockclimbing anyway.

Thanks for trying though!!!


Rock Climbers demands and Williamson Rock.... worked/working well there, right Rob.


No where in the ACCESS FUNDS ROCK CLIMBING AREA MGMT MANUAL do I find any action policy as exemplified by Andrew or Gary here regarding the CTP issue.

Maybe I missed it Rob. Could you please point it out for us NON ROCK CLIMBERS where the ROCK CLIMBERS that put this tool together in order to handle issues such as the one at CTP dictate as Andrew & Gary do...please.
The Chief

 
Thanked: time in post

Postby The Chief » Tue May 18, 2010 4:06 pm

Andrew and Gary,

This new twist of potential Native American Treaties within the CTP area, now makes sense, unfortunately.

If the NA's indeed have any prior standing agreement of sorts, i.e. Treaty, within the confines of this entire area, it will in fact take presidence over any existing rules/regs. All it takes is one tribal member to formulate a complaint, formal or informal, and that is all she wrote. I just got off the phone with a friend who is a local USFS LEO, regarding this potential issue of NA Treaties on any Federal Lands. What happens behind the scenes/closed doors regarding this particular issue, needs not be made formally public. When the Order becomes official, it will most likely state a brief sentence that this was in fact the case. That is what he informed me as he has experience in these matters and has been involved in enforcing NA Treaty restrictions on designated Federal Lands.

It would indeed behoove you and the group to seek out if this in fact may be the case. It is Public Info and you being an investigator most certainly can acquire this info very easily and quite rapidly.

And just to remind you, revenue rights are big money to the local Tribes if there are any agreements/Treaties involved. Thus the Cell Phone Towers.

It really pays to be on tap and knowledgeable with all the ins and outs of the area in which one plays and establishes any climbing.... all of em.

Cases in point:

Canyon de Chelley Nat. Mon.

Shiprock

Monument Valley
The Chief

 
Thanked: time in post

Postby Guyzo » Thu May 20, 2010 2:57 am

Gary Schenk wrote:
Despite what The Chief is insinuating, no one here believes power drills should be used in a wilderness area.




I beg to differ.

GK :wink:
User Avatar
Guyzo

 
Posts: 2567
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 12:11 am
Location: Moorpark, California, United States
Thanked: 24 times in 13 posts

Previous

Return to California

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

© 2006-2013 SummitPost.org. All Rights Reserved.