Bogley

[CarpeyBiggs]

Quote: Why not publish the beta yourself, Matt, with precise instructions on anchor locations, placements, and techniques? I'm sure you'll find that most canyoneers will be more than happy to follow your directions. And there are other retrievable anchors besides the Slick that you could recommend.
Why would he? I can think of dozens of reasons why he shouldn't publish them. I can't think of many reasons why he should. Why do some people in the community feel like those who are out finding new canyons are under any obligation to share them? I don't ask to share Shane's wife, so why should I (or anyone else) share my unbeta-ed canyons?

The attempt at guilt tripping people for not providing beta is silly.

Quote: And this is *not* dumbing down the canyon - it's preserving it!
So why wouldn't we hold all beta-sprayers to this same ethic?

Quote: I think I can predict what you'll say....that this beta will detract from your business because people will not need to be guided in these canyons; however, I think you will find that your contribution to the community will help to project a more positive image for your business and result in more recommendations for your guiding and training services.
One of the important aspects of guiding a canyon is providing clients with an experience that is uncrowded and pristine. Matt not publishing his canyons has many variables to consider. One of those would be the fact that if he has clients in the canyons, running into other parties would significantly detract from the canyon experience, in my opinion. There is a lot of value in keeping the canyons pristine, both for the canyon's sake, and for his clients enjoyment. (IMHO, of course. Matt may have other reasons, and may not share my view. I'm just assuming)

Quote: I'm sure the other purveyors of beta will be happy to link to your site or include your instructions to help disseminate them. Ultimately, your beta would protect the canyons from further damage and help to placate the NPS.
Again, why don't we hold the other beta-sprayers to the same ethic?

Bottom line: I don't think Matt is completely without blame in the matter, nor do I think he is saying that he doesn't share some of the responsibility for protecting these canyons. It falls on the community in general. Whether Shane wants to publish these other canyons or not is his prerogative, but if he does, he holds a great deal of responsibility for educating folks on how to minimize impact in the canyon. And I am fairly certain that most of the folks now using these routes are getting their beta from Shane.

[Iceaxe]

ratagonia wrote: Shane spews about being a good environmental citizen, but he has had, and still has, an exciting opportunity to educate young, enthusiastic canyoneers in specific techniques to keep from F*****g up the canyon in a specific, very sensitive area. Instead, he dodges any responsibility with vague claims of ur, something - I can't really figure out what his claim is, other than its not HIS fault, when very, very clearly it is.

Shane's claim seems to be that because it is F*****g over my friend Matt, then it is all for the good. I see no reason why F*****g over members of the community, especially my friends, justifies assholian behaviour - perhaps Shane could enlighten us how the end justifies the means in this case.

Wow Tom.... Your post reads like someone eating a muffin talks. I'm not sure how your getting all that info.... but it's wrong.

I don't think I've dodge the responsibility. Over the years I have done as much as anyone to educate others in clean canyoneering ethics.

In regards to Teirdrop I just screwed up. I didn't realize the anchors would be so difficult for others, my group had little problem anchoring our rappels safely without causing damage.

I've published hundreds of canyons, a few have suffered major damage because of my publishing them. But for the most part it's pretty rare. I find that the canyoneering community is responsible and does a pretty good job of cleaning up after themselves. I have yet to personally see the damage that matt is talking about, but if I understand correctly it was caused by a few inconsiderate groups and not the community at large.

My whole take on this thread has been let's just fix the problem in Teirdrop and stop wasting time on finger pointing.

:cool2:

[stefan]

Iceaxe wrote:

My whole take on this thread has been let's just fix the problem in Teirdrop and stop wasting time on finger pointing.


folks who write guidebooks/guidesites all have differing perspectives on how and when to publish a route. some argue that one should do a route a few times and test it on others to see how they will do in it. the obvious reason for this is that it is sometimes really difficult to foresee how others will act. this can lead to writing a more sound, thorough, thought-out route description, which could eliminate at least some of the unforeseen problems.

it seems to me that PART OF the solution, is to have the solution (whatever it comes out to be) written up and presented on your site very clearly. i can understand your wanting to focus now on the solution. and while that's a very important topic, i think another very important topic is the responsibility and standards the community holds the guide authors to. you've preached an anti-bolt ethic and to minimize damage. so we know you have an interest in writing your guide so as to ensure that.
it seems that there are somewhere over 100 hikes on your site, so this isn't new to you.


i know you voiced some vague concerns about access issues in the park, and, of course, it's well known that arches has issues with impact of certain activities on the park, like climbing and canyoneering. given this kinda canyon is in arches, near moab, and relatively easy, it's more attractive to less experienced canyoneers, meaning that it's the kinda canyon that should raise red flags. and it could be argued that given that these hikes are in arches, there isn't the luxury of "screwing up" as there is a very real possibility that the park will respond adversely.

[Jaxx]

One point I thought of was that the people who knew about the anchors that Matt was using and reused them were probably people who had been guided through or got beta from those who were guided. I guess that is a bi-product of guiding people through canyons, they might come back later without the guide.

[ratagonia]

Jaxx wrote: One point I thought of was that the people who knew about the anchors that Matt was using and reused them were probably people who had been guided through or got beta from those who were guided. I guess that is a bi-product of guiding people through canyons, they might come back later without the guide.

Unlikely.

Most of the people that Matt takes canyoning have little interest in doing it on their own. They come out, get taken through by a professional, have a great day, and go on to do something else. So...

Unlikely.

Tom

[Jaxx]

ratagonia wrote: Unlikely.

Most of the people that Matt takes canyoning have little interest in doing it on their own. They come out, get taken through by a professional, have a great day, and go on to do something else. So...

Unlikely.

Tom

never say never. Oh wait you said unlikely...

[trackrunner]

After reading the beating Iceaxe has taken on here it remind me of this thread.
http://www.bogley.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3404&view=previous
Is Shane now the most controversial figure in canyoneering now? :lol8:
Sorry for the rubbing.

It has been published now it will never go away. Wait until it gets published to a wider audience in a new guide book. I vote lets come to an acceptable standard on the anchors.

[rockgremlin]

Hey Matt -

Just out of curiosity...on a percentage basis, how many of your clients are out-of-staters, who have had very little exposure to canyoneering in general?

I'm guessing these types constitute most of your business?