Capitalism and Indian Creek

What are people thoughts about the organization Friends of Indian Creek being sponsored by a company that is promoting,marketing and charging people to climb in Indian Creek. Is this a conflict of interest? Does it sound like one of george bush's acronyms for let me and my crew make some money at your expense? Just throwing it out their for debate. Here is a few links to put it in context:

moabdesertadventures.com/sp…

http://friendsofindiancreek.org/sponsors.php

Let me rephrase your question:

Does it bother you that some group that makes money off of Indian Creek is trying to give something back?

Sounds like no problem to me when phrased that way. Language is a powerful thing and a slight turn of phrase can subconsciously influence how a situation is viewed.

I looked at your other 4 comments on this site and saw that one was regarding Skinner and the other 3 were regarding Splitter Camps. Ones with opening Statements like:

"Splitter camps will ruin Indian Creek! Here's how."

OK, so you have a lot of focus on these things, and that's cool. I'm glad you are posting to try to figure out your feelings on the matter. Seriously. Mine are mixed.

But when it comes to charity, don't be too quick to judge so harshly or assume the worst. Charity has got to get the money somewhere. I see nothing unethical about giving.

You also forgot to mention Black Diamond, Petzel, Metolius, Trango, The American Alpine Club, the Access Fund...
BD, metolius, Petzel, and everyone else make money off of it. I bet you saw more $$$ in cams belay devices and harnesses at any busy cliff than splitter makes in a weekend. So they gain as well. But you seem so focused on Splitter Camps.

I visit the creek and I love the place, so I benefit from it. Is it a conflict of interest for me to send them cash?

Charging people to climb in Indian Creek and charging for a guiding service are two completely different things. It's not like they are charging a fee for every day of climbing in the Creek (like, say, a state park or national park would). They are charging for a service rendered. As for marketing, well, yeah, you have to market if you are any kind of company at all. What's wrong with marketing a series of clinics? I don't see any contradiction between supporting your business and supporting access. I know a lot of climbers get upset about large clinics like these, but I think they are honestly better for the sport. I don't have any direct experience with the Splitter Camps, but events like Red Rock Rendezvous, or the Ouray Ice Festival are killer times and help to introduce new people to the sport in a safe way who may not otherwise know how to go about it, as well as offer a place for more experienced climbers to meet up, learn new tricks, and futz around with all the latest gear.

Just my 2 cents.

The cool thing about capitalism is that by giving more money than they give, you can buy a bigger vote and influence the direction in a more positive way. I am half kidding, half not.

All I can say is POOP IN A BAG, be nice and respectful to fellow climbers, dont camp in non designated spots- I really dont think it is cool to camp below the fin even if it may be legit.

I have also seen groups of 10 non splitter camp people show up and gang bang a cliff with alot less respect than what I would assume a guided service would be offering.

I really appreciate seeing what the friends of indian creek have been doing with signs, wag bags, etc there because at this point that area left to the masses that go out there in the spring are going to mess it up not just from a climbing access point but ecologically.

also... just remember fat cracks need lovin too!

Let me rephrase your question: Does it bother you that some group that makes money off of Indian Creek is trying to give something back? Sounds like no problem to me when phrased that way.

Glad to see you are checking up on my posts on this site. That also reminds me of the current administration. To answer your question it
does to me. I think it is great to give something back but the bottom line is that they are bring more people who would not go down their on their own. This changes the type of people who will be down their and thus the atmosphere and causes more damage. This is the best part of I.C( I just read a post about someone who liked the camps because they got gormet food and free stuff and get to hang out with cool climbers). I go to the dessert partial to get away from the trappings of the real world. Don't get me wrong I believe in the american system, i just need a break from it every once in awhile. I wrote to Friends of indian creek to help support their effort when I found out about the spitter canps. I sent them a note but have have not gotten a response about if they think it is a conflict of interest. I wonder if they have not responded because they don't know how to answer it? They just put in toilet (Guided climbers don't like to poop in bags), I thought it was going to be just Poop bags? I guarantee pay camping is next and then reservation camping. This is the only way we have managed any recreation area in U.S.I would happily start a fund to pay these people to not guide in Indian Creek and to preserve the area.

mike1 wrote: They just put in toilet (Guided climbers don't like to poop in bags), I thought it was going to be just Poop bags? I guarantee pay camping is next and then reservation camping.

I don't like pooping in a bag and carrying it around. I have a medical condition and medications that can make my 'personal waste' a little harder to deal with than the average, so I like the toilet. I use the toilet every morning. I support its presence. I think there will be less poo laying around because of it. Furthermore, I helped pay for the toilet if you follow the money trail.

I also guarantee pay camping is next and then a reservation system. I said that when the plan first came out, years ago. That was before splitter camps were thought of though.

Consider this as well. Malcom is also a 'Trango' guy as well as a splitter camp guy. Does that mean that Trango should not give money to FOIC?

As for checking your earlier posts, I have an unusual memory for detail and I thought I recalled your name on those posts, so I went back to check them. Indeed, they were there. There should be no problem with accountability for them, so no matter how I know what you posted, it does not matter. One can easily go back through my history and see what I have posted over time to more readily understand my larger point of view.

What I have come to understand about yours is that you put more energy into this topic than all others, which is to say you are passionate about it. As well, I have been able to determine that there is a predisposition to the conclusion to your question by reading your past posts on the matter. It helps explain the way you framed the question.

But then again, I didn't say you were right or wrong. I just said I understodd where you were coming from a little better.

In my opinion, charity is a good thing. If money provided by splitter camps keeps the creek cleaner for others, then I'll just avoid those camps and leave it at that. If I see them doing something inconsiderate or unsavory, I'll take whatever actions I can to correct the problem. But I won't try to stop them from giving money to charity.

mike1 wrote: the bottom line is that they are bring more people who would not go down their on their own. This changes the type of people who will be down their and thus the atmosphere and causes more damage. This is the best part of I.C I go to the dessert partial to get away from the trappings of the real world. Don't get me wrong I believe in the american system, i just need a break from it every once in awhile.

You go to I.C. to get away from the trappings of the real world? Mike, this is your problem. You are thinking that I.C. is something that it is not. The desert (two s' can't grow in a desert) is a pretty damn big place with lots of splitter cracks, with lots of undeveloped places with splitter cracks. Go there, get away from the crowds, free yourself.

Personally, I think it is great that people who go to the 'desert' think Castleton Tower, Potash Rd., and Indian Creek. If the masses stay at those places, it means the desert is peaceful and quiet for the rest of us.

Funny as hell that you would go to I.C. to get away from people... it is a freakin internationally known, world class destination! Of course a place like that needs a toilet, regulated campgrounds, etc. Sheesh.

John J. Glime wrote: Funny as hell that you would go to I.C. to get away from people... it is a freakin internationally known, world class destination! Of course a place like that needs a toilet, regulated campgrounds, etc. Sheesh.

So FOIC/splitter camps are saying they are trying to preserve I.C. but you think they shouldn't ? This goes back to my original question. Is their motive really to preserve it or is it gain some control and manage it for their minority interests. In my mind there is some room for interpretation of their motives.

Please feel to spew and tell me more about my problems. I totally dig the advice. If you get a chance think about what I am saying.

Tony Bubb wrote: As well, I have been able to determine that there is a predisposition to the conclusion to your question by reading your past posts on the matter. It helps explain the way you framed the question. But then again, I didn't say you were right or wrong. I just said I understodd where you were coming from a little better.

Hey Tony,
Sorry to hear about your medical condition. That is a valid reason to have toilet. Yes, I am very passionate about Indian Creek and yes I am pursuing this topic with unusual vigor. I guess I am being a bit selfish because even two years ago I could find plenty of solitude at the creek. I am not a huge fan of crowds and have stopped climbing in other places because of them. I just hate to lose Indian Creek also. Many special memories. Hope you get yourself patched up.

well mike, i can understand and sympathize for you, but really, john j. g is making a lot of sense to me.

i think that we all climb to get away, and when you feel like a place that you could do that at becomes overrun with people, well that just plain sucks. then when you find out is an "organized" situation, well, that's just easier to hate, especailly considering that climbers are generally anti establishment (bless us all!) -

river running is the same, but worse, as there's lots more guided trips and "establishement" - difference is that the rivers can absorb many more people, and it is more common that someone you don't even know will be saving your ass.

so i'd say that i understand what you're saying, but i don't see much of a solution other than a complete monkey wrenching (impracticle). I think you'll have to get used to IC being overrun with people and find other places for solitude.

every time i've been there, i had nothing close to solitude, and being a denverite, there's a ton of good splitters between me and the creek anyways. so i don't really share your perspective.

however, take comfort in the reality of places like squamish, which even necessitates a rating system for routes that used to be "good" that don't get climbed enough to be clean anymore. point being, you may have lost indian creek lonley moments, but not every crag is like that.

have fun man - life is short.

John J. Glime wrote: You go to I.C. to get away from the trappings of the real world? Mike, this is your problem. (...) Funny as hell that you would go to I.C. to get away from people... it is a freakin internationally known, world class destination! Of course a place like that needs a toilet, regulated campgrounds, etc. Sheesh.

Odd, last few times I was there I went to:
Sparks Wall with Joseffa. We were alone until a pal drove by, recognized my car, and came up to see us.
Tenderloins Wall with Chris, Jo, and Mike. We were alone all day.
2nd Meat Wall with Chir, Jo and Mike. 2 other climbers from Boulder were there. We saw them a few times and traded ropes with them on one set of routes.

I don't go to Supercrack, Donnelly, or Battle of the Bulge anymore. Too crowded.

I'm drinking the Kool-aid Glime is serving up on this one..except by saying that JG, you are hinting there are other great desert areas...OF WHICH THERE ARE NOT...right Glime? Right? No other good stuff out there...stay in castle valley..potash and the Creek...that's where all the really great routes are...nothing left to see here...everything else is death choss...move it along people.

Come on Tony, most people stay at Supercrack and Donnelly, that's the way we like it. We don't need you telling them that there are actually other walls in the IC! Mike, I can understand part of where you are coming from, but I do not see how the splitter camps are significantly adding to this problem. The IC has been getting more and more crowded the last several years, and I have never run into a guided party while I was there. It seems more like you are imposing your values and mindset as to the type of people you want at your crag.

Mike, That's progress. People just keep moving into the Rocky Mountain West. If I took your approach I'd be saying:

Colorado is much more crowded than when I was a kid which was much more crowded than when my father was a kid which was much more crowded than when my grandfather was a kid. My grandfather is 101 now. So everyone who wasn't living here (or whose ancestor wasn't living here) 100 years ago, needs to go back to where they came from. There's too many malls, freeways, housing developments, Raiders/49ers/Dodgers/Red Wings bumper stickers and vehicles. The brown cloud is too big / thick / long. Go away! Take your east/west/south/north coast politics with you.

But then, there most likely wouldn't be a MP.com, or Access Fund (probably wouldn't need it, since everything used to be open), Trango, etc.

BTW, anyone can easily see what your postings are. Paranoid? ;-)

The situation in Indian Creek reminds me of a well documented theory known as the tragedy of the commons. This theory states that given a free yet scarce resource that is available to the general population (i.e. the commons), the resource will be used in the least efficient, and least sustainable manner until it is exhausted. People are greedy by nature and will take more than they can consume without regard for the community as a whole. The resource is diminished to the point of being unusable for everyone.

In a way, I see Indian Creek as this free resource. People are free to come and go as they please, use the area as they please, shit and piss in inappropriate places, leave food wrappers and tape everywhere, shortcut the approach trails, and generally leave it more �exhausted� than they found it. My hope is that no one is that much of an asshole, but to illustrate a point, every visiting climber, even those community-minded progressives, leave the place slightly diminished despite their best efforts. User groups such as Splitter Camps and others are no exception. Just the sheer volume of traffic to such a fragile environment has a detrimental effect. Though the real situation may not perfectly resemble the tragedy of the commons, I think there are nonetheless parallels that can offer valuable lessons.

One of the solutions to the tragedy of the commons is to introduce ownership into the system. An owner has a vested interest to look after the land and make decisions for its betterment. This is akin to having more regulation such as paid camping, mandatory usage fees, etc. The resource is no longer free and therefore the commons are more inclined to use it in a more economical and efficient manner. The owner, or land manager in this case, has the discretion to dole out use of the resource in a sustainable way such that it is not exhausted and everyone is better off.

Unfortunately, I see the introduction of ownership as somewhat of an inevitability at the creek. Despite the capitalistic endeavors of organizations like Splitter Camps and others, the creek will become more and more popular. Management and control of the area will become more of a necessity as the crowds and resulting impact grow. As noted earlier, climbers are generally anti-establishment and I feel the introduction of regulation and usage fees will greatly take away - or at least change - the feel of the place. But at the same time everyone as a whole may be better off. Capitalism by its very definition is characterized by change. Those unwilling or unable to change will be left behind (or forced to go climb obscure crags elsewhere). The process of creative destruction (Schumpeter anyone?) applies to markets the world over as much as it does to Indian Creek. Yeah, regulation sucks, but here it comes. Splitter Camps aren't necessarily to blame.

It's still pretty easy to get off the beaten path a the Creek, it's really not that hard. Walls with a bit of a hike and more obscure routes rairly have too many visitors. Indian Creek will sadly be a victum of it's own popularity, just like most good areas. I think the regualtion that Indian Creek is facing will actually be a good thing in the end, the free for all had to end sometime. Moab Desert Adventures and the Splitter Camps are just too easy of a target to attack. Yeah, they are probably making money off of their clinics, but come on man, it's not like they are making any real profit. I would honestly rather see those folks there than some of the fixtures of the past.

yup. capitalism's terrible. i bet the chi-coms don't have to put up with this kind of crap....or crap-houses.