Ship Rock 

I think this rock should be listed under Navajolands. The only problem with this is that this puts it under Arizona, but we already have Monument Valley under Navajolands and much of this is in Utah. How about raising Navajolands to the level of a state?

How about asking whether formations that are technically closed should be posted on the internet?

Those with the proper determination, experience, and contacts can get this beta elsewhere. The rest should probably climb somewhere else before they give us all a bad name.

A really important discussion here, guys. Much appreciated. Mountain Projectors?

I think its wise to mention somewhere on the page that this area has access issues. Much beyond that would border on censorship. Even if a cliff is off-limits, the history of the climbing on that formation is still interesting, potentially useful, and worth preserving.


Furthermore, if I recall Cammo's AAJ submissions correctly, he climbed Shiprock with permission from the land-owner. So is it "technicall closed"? Or, is access only available to a select few, a la Skytop at the Gunks?

I would certainly think twice about posting a pic of myself doing something that was explicitly illegal (like tresspassing), but I see no reason to believe that any such thing is happening here.

This page makes sense mainly because the New Mexico page already had a bunch of Ship Rock photos (which is why I think keeping Ship Rock in the New Mexico section is a good idea, rather than adding it to Arizona>Navajolands; most people associate this peak with New Mexico).

Here are some more links to Ship Rock climbing history:
www.lamountaineers.org/History/Topic_6.html
www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum/783372/Shiprock_Climbing_Hi>>>

Admittedly, I have questioned whether routes in the Navajo area should be posed onto this site. We know that some people are going to climb in these areas regardless of legality, but I wonder if having this information so readily available will increase the numbers of people climbing in these areas? Do we want to play a part in increased visitation to areas where climbing is technically not allowed?

That said, I have resisted commenting on, deleting, or changing anything on this area because as I have seen little controversy as things were posted. Additionally, I feel that George Perkin's access note that climbing is prohibited and that the information is posted mostly for historical purposes, is sufficient. Also, of course, I have really enjoyed reading the posts on this area; it is an area that is intriguing to me. So at this point there are no plans to delete, change, or censor anything.

I do agree with George, and don't think that Shiprock should be listed within the Navajolands of Arizona. As someone who lived in Gallup for a year, just off the Navajo reservation, I never associated it with Arizona. One option is that we could create a Navajo Reservation area in New Mexico, which would be easy enough. This would be especially relevant to Cam's new postings that he is putting in the Route 666 area, which are all on the reservation. Any votes for that?

Also, if there is consensus that the "route submission guidelines" are a little much, let me know. They can be removed. The reasons they were put that, I think, are pretty obvious. We were (and still do occasionally, unfortunately) getting some poor excuses for route descriptions and it became quite time consuming to fix everyone's submissions, and/or email them to have them fix them.

Wow! You guys are all so thoughtful about this stuff. I wish I were....my experience was pretty interesting and I wrote a piece about it many years ago that got various responses.

Here's a link to it: gorp.away.com/gorp/books/excerpts/ship.htm

[Cam, that's a very informative piece. I read it after I wrote the comments below, which would have been better informed had I read your words first. This page would be well served to have the relevant excerpts posted on the access section, and perhaps the whole piece down here in the comments]

I think that including questionable information 'for historical purposes' is a self-serving copout. Must everything be commemorated on the internet?

In my experience with climbing in off-limits areas- mostly in North Carolina, which has a lot of adventuresome climbing on private property- a certain amount of discretion was required. One had to know somebody to get beta, which meant that a vetting process of sorts was in effect. The beta-seeker had to be trusted not to screw things up for everyone, and the more experienced climbers might beg off, pleading ignorance, or suggest that the unworthy climb elsewhere until they were ready for that sort of thing. This is more than a little elitist, undoubtedly, but it also had the practical effect of keeping people who didn't know what they were doing from getting in over their heads and potentially angering (wealthy, litigious, and/or gun-toting) landowners or requiring a very public rescue.

So what sort of public service are we providing here by posting beta which is largely available through other, more discerning means, for 6 billion potential trespassers to read?

This question, in my mind, is more one of stewardship than censorship. Keeping this kind of stuff 'in the family' is self-serving, elitist, and far more likely to preserve even stealthy and illegal access to these formations than by blathering for all to hear about it on an utterly undiscriminating information source.

Me, I haven't climbed anything on the Navajo rez. Not out of principle or anything, just haven't wanted to badly enough. If and when I choose to do so, I will be more than happy to go through 'channels', possibly including asking permission. I believe that the continued possibility of this sort of ascent is more harmed than helped by the posting of Shiprock beta on the internet.

[edit: after reading Cammo's article]
Perhaps the single most important piece of information we could put on here, given the history of climbing on Shiprock, is the way to ask permission to climb on the formation and thereby avoid pissing off the locals-- who, it would seem, have for years watched a procession of inconsiderate folks sneak past then without so much as a 'hello' or a 'by-your-leave.' Given that it does appear possible to climb on the rez with proper permission, maybe it's okay to post away. My only practical suggestion for site admin is to post the access stuff up front, instead of making me choose to click on two different places to read it all.

I still enjoy getting all up in arms about stuff though. Flame on!

Maybe we should redirect this page to: www.mountainproject.com/v/wisconsin/shiprock_aka_shtrock/105>>>

Shiprock State Park?

Quentin,

Its on your tick list, huh? Did you read the posts above?

J, I'm pretty sure Quentin is Navajo (I'm sure if he reads this he'll speak for himself), so he might be situated a bit differently from the rest of us.

Charles,
Indeed that would be a perfectly reasonable explanation. My bad if that's the case.

I'm not sure why Shiprock is posted on Mountain Project seeing that it's off limits due to its sacred status among Navajos. Giving beta on climbing it is potentially insulting to both the Navajo and the Mtn Project users who are not cultural ignoramuses (I was going to use the term "idiot rednecks," but then I realized that that would have been angry, reactionary, and insensitive to a certain category of poor unintelligent uncultured white folks). FYI, I know someone who works on the Res who got the air let out of his tires for parking near Shiprock and leaving his vehicle unattended. You may fare better by asking a local herder for "permission," but would that change the fact that some Navajos would still find the act of climbing the formation an affront to their culture? I'm disappointed in Mtn Project and the administrators for including this page. Bad one, guys.

Snore...heard it before...

Don't climb it Dave.

There you go.

Jeremy

Thanks for the suggestion, Jeremy. I'll take it as well-meaning advice, though that's clearly not how it was intended.
You obviously missed my point. The thing I object to is publicizing something that oughtn't be publicized. Aside from my moral objection to climbing Shiprock in the first place (which I suspect a significant number of other people share, though maybe not the ones who spend most of their time lurking on climbing web sites), there's the point that sneaking or otherwise finagling one's way up a "restricted" peak should be left to individuals to work out on their own. Think of how much more satisfying it would be for someone who's interested in climbing Shiprock to look into the history for themselves (it's not too hard in this day and age of Google), scope out a route with minimal beta, and seek out some qualified person to ask for permission (subjective definition which people should work out for themselves), if that will allow them to climb it with a clear conscience.
I think this section should be removed, or perhaps edited down to a brief description of the formation along with a description of the ethical and legal controversies about climbing it. The rest should be left up to the imagination and organizational skills of those who are up to the task. At least that'll weed some of the yahoos out who will probably just make things worse for everyone.