More Tensleep Drama

J T wrote:

Taylor, where do you stand on this situation? As someone who is on the board during a controversial point in TS, I think a lot of those following this drama would like to know your stance as well as the BCC’s stance on the matter. I, personally, am tired of Louie, and all parties sweet talking and making such PC statements about what’s going on but then acting completely different. I have attended the developers meetings and it is very frustrating watch Louie talk in circles and sweet talk his way out of certain situations. 

I don’t agree with chopping bolts, but if that will stop his “comfortizing” maybe it’s for the best. As for the padlocks, I honestly do not see how anyone can get pissed about that comparatively. 

My personal stance is the same stance that I've represented on behalf of the BCC. I don't agree with the actions of certain individuals over the past few years, but I also believe retrospective, destructive punishment is a bad solution. We've worked day in day out (think volunteering for 20+ hours some weeks) to bring the community to a productive solution that will prevent actions such as this in the future. Myself, the BCC, and the Access Fund don't support the route removal activity last week, and we hope it doesn't escalate beyond what has happened to this point. Please check out our most recent statement from last night regarding the issue:

The Board of the Bighorn Climbers' Coalition has been hard at work this year moderating discussions relating to ethical route development in Ten Sleep Canyon and the rest of our region. The BCC's goal is to facilitate the creation of a guidance document that puts in to place a set of standards route developers can follow when equipping a new line. This document will include specific standards for levels of "comfortization", cleaning, hardware selection, and the many other facets of opening up a new sport climb. By working within our community to develop these guidelines, we are opening up this guidance document for your input at our monthly Round Table Meetings. Upon completion, the guidance document shall be integrated into the long-term Climbing Management Plan for Ten Sleep Canyon, a collaborative effort between the BCC and the US Forest Service.

In the past week, the BCC has been made aware of a large, coordinated route removal effort in Ten Sleep Canyon. The BCC and our members view this action as a diversion from the productive nature of our previous meetings. Route removal most commonly results in significant damage to the climbing resource and can leave behind dangerous routes. Not only does the BCC not support these actions, but the Access Fund has released official statements on the negative effects of route removal (see below). The BCC also opposes the action of these individuals as they did not represent the intent of the climbing community as a whole. Route removal was voted down at one of our prior Round Table Meetings, and the community chose to move forward with the guidance document rather than take retrospective action.

It is our hope and expectation that their actions are not repeated. Internal conversations with the parties involved will continue, and the Board of the Bighorn Climbers' Coalition will continue to move forward with developing a solution that prevents a situation like this in the future.

Additionally, a meeting on July 9 with the Supervisor of the Bighorn National Forest confirmed that our plan to develop the guidance document and integrate it into the Climbing Management Plan has the full support of the USFS. The Powder River Ranger District is very aware of the issue and the recent actions taken by this group of individuals.
If you have any questions or concerns, please reach out to us directly.

Access Fund Stance on Route Removal, Manufacturing, and more: https://www.accessfund.org/pages/access-fund-stance

This issue is on the top of our pile, and has been for about a year and a half. We're doing everything in our power to work with the USFS, Access Fund, local climbers, and all parties involved to develop a productive resolution. The BCC has done our best to maintain a clear and consistent message without falling into the drama of the online conversation. If you're interested in being a part of the solution, please attend our next meeting in Ten Sleep, July 20. We are planning to take an initial crack at creating the above referenced Guideline (some of which has already been drafted). Details will be posted in the coming days.

Taylor Spiegelberg wrote:

My personal stance is the same stance that I've represented on behalf of the BCC. I don't agree with the actions of certain individuals over the past few years, but I also believe retrospective, destructive punishment is a bad solution. We've worked day in day out (think volunteering for 20+ hours some weeks) to bring the community to a productive solution that will prevent actions such as this in the future. Myself, the BCC, and the Access Fund don't support the route removal activity last week, and we hope it doesn't escalate beyond what has happened to this point. Please check out our most recent statement from last night regarding the issue:

The Board of the Bighorn Climbers' Coalition has been hard at work this year moderating discussions relating to ethical route development in Ten Sleep Canyon and the rest of our region. The BCC's goal is to facilitate the creation of a guidance document that puts in to place a set of standards route developers can follow when equipping a new line. This document will include specific standards for levels of "comfortization", cleaning, hardware selection, and the many other facets of opening up a new sport climb. By working within our community to develop these guidelines, we are opening up this guidance document for your input at our monthly Round Table Meetings. Upon completion, the guidance document shall be integrated into the long-term Climbing Management Plan for Ten Sleep Canyon, a collaborative effort between the BCC and the US Forest Service.

In the past week, the BCC has been made aware of a large, coordinated route removal effort in Ten Sleep Canyon. The BCC and our members view this action as a diversion from the productive nature of our previous meetings. Route removal most commonly results in significant damage to the climbing resource and can leave behind dangerous routes. Not only does the BCC not support these actions, but the Access Fund has released official statements on the negative effects of route removal (see below). The BCC also opposes the action of these individuals as they did not represent the intent of the climbing community as a whole. Route removal was voted down at one of our prior Round Table Meetings, and the community chose to move forward with the guidance document rather than take retrospective action.

It is our hope and expectation that their actions are not repeated. Internal conversations with the parties involved will continue, and the Board of the Bighorn Climbers' Coalition will continue to move forward with developing a solution that prevents a situation like this in the future.

Additionally, a meeting on July 9 with the Supervisor of the Bighorn National Forest confirmed that our plan to develop the guidance document and integrate it into the Climbing Management Plan has the full support of the USFS. The Powder River Ranger District is very aware of the issue and the recent actions taken by this group of individuals.
If you have any questions or concerns, please reach out to us directly.

Access Fund Stance on Route Removal, Manufacturing, and more: https://www.accessfund.org/pages/access-fund-stance

This issue is on the top of our pile, and has been for about a year and a half. We're doing everything in our power to work with the USFS, Access Fund, local climbers, and all parties involved to develop a productive resolution. The BCC has done our best to maintain a clear and consistent message without falling into the drama of the online conversation. If you're interested in being a part of the solution, please attend our next meeting in Ten Sleep, July 20. We are planning to take an initial crack at creating the above referenced Guideline (some of which has already been drafted). Details will be posted in the coming days.

Thanks for the write up. I'm not a local, never even been to Wyoming, please don't hate.

Everyone should appreciate the effort that the BCC is putting in to this issue as it is really important, not only to Ten Sleep, but also to the greater climbing community as many people have previously expressed. I'm surprised and kind of unnerved that the local organization is so outspoken about the vigilante action, but does not seem to have the same kind of direct response to the initial perpetrators of route manufacturing that are clearly upsetting a lot of people. Maybe my brain is forgetting a post from earlier in the thread explaining an official response to aggressive manufacturing, but damn, why does it seem like only the community is upset about this and no larger organizations?

Okay that's my under-educated outsider opinion, go back to banging your heads together like the Bighorns you are.

kudos for the crew.when bolts were chopped up here,everyone knew who and why.read the cerro torre story,and what MONTANA climbers had to say about leaving travestys unresolved....

Dr. Ake wrote:

Thanks for the write up. I'm not a local, never even been to Wyoming, please don't hate.

Everyone should appreciate the effort that the BCC is putting in to this issue as it is really important, not only to Ten Sleep, but also to the greater climbing community as many people have previously expressed. I'm surprised and kind of unnerved that the local organization is so outspoken about the vigilante action, but does not seem to have the same kind of direct response to the initial perpetrators of route manufacturing that are clearly upsetting a lot of people. Maybe my brain is forgetting a post from earlier in the thread explaining an official response to aggressive manufacturing, but damn, why does it seem like only the community is upset about this and no larger organizations?

Okay that's my under-educated outsider opinion, go back to banging your heads together like the Bighorns you are.

When route manufacture came into the public eye (primarily on social media) after we attempted to solve the situation locally last year, we released the following, as well as other positions on the topic. We put as much time into that conversation as the latest flare-up.

I'm not a lawyer and I'm kind of stupid, so someone explain to me how BCC's stance of essentially "once it is chipped and bolted leave it as is with no punishment for the chipper" is any less stupid than "once a store is vandalized don't fix anything and let the known perps continue to vandalize."

Or maybe more up Taylor's alley "once a mine has polluted don't try to clean anything up for future generations and let the company continue to pollute." Is that the EPA's stance these days? Wouldn't surprise me.

I mean, this IS a business interest for Gluey, isn't it? Aren't his actions a direct attempt to generate more profit?

Climbers have been chipping, drilling and ruining Ten Sleep rock for years!   This is not the first time or place where climber have had to take action to protect and stop the permanent destruction of rock.  The Ten Sleep 18 "action" speaks LOUDER than words.   

So couple questions...

1) when did Gluey do this?
2) BCC took a "strong stance" on manufacturing routes a year ago
3) but Mrs Anderson only resigned a few months ago?

Sound's like a Big Horn of Sheep Shit to me.

A board that allowed the wife of someone who has vandalised a crag to remain in her seat well after this came to light, until she resigned herself due to overwhelming conflicts of interest, has no credibility or backbone.

Taylor Spiegelberg wrote:

My personal stance is the same stance that I've represented on behalf of the BCC. I don't agree with the actions of certain individuals over the past few years, but I also believe retrospective, destructive punishment is a bad solution. We've worked day in day out (think volunteering for 20+ hours some weeks) to bring the community to a productive solution that will prevent actions such as this in the future. Myself, the BCC, and the Access Fund don't support the route removal activity last week, and we hope it doesn't escalate beyond what has happened to this point. Please check out our most recent statement from last night regarding the issue:

The Board of the Bighorn Climbers' Coalition has been hard at work this year moderating discussions relating to ethical route development in Ten Sleep Canyon and the rest of our region. The BCC's goal is to facilitate the creation of a guidance document that puts in to place a set of standards route developers can follow when equipping a new line. This document will include specific standards for levels of "comfortization", cleaning, hardware selection, and the many other facets of opening up a new sport climb. By working within our community to develop these guidelines, we are opening up this guidance document for your input at our monthly Round Table Meetings. Upon completion, the guidance document shall be integrated into the long-term Climbing Management Plan for Ten Sleep Canyon, a collaborative effort between the BCC and the US Forest Service.

In the past week, the BCC has been made aware of a large, coordinated route removal effort in Ten Sleep Canyon. The BCC and our members view this action as a diversion from the productive nature of our previous meetings. Route removal most commonly results in significant damage to the climbing resource and can leave behind dangerous routes. Not only does the BCC not support these actions, but the Access Fund has released official statements on the negative effects of route removal (see below). The BCC also opposes the action of these individuals as they did not represent the intent of the climbing community as a whole. Route removal was voted down at one of our prior Round Table Meetings, and the community chose to move forward with the guidance document rather than take retrospective action.

It is our hope and expectation that their actions are not repeated. Internal conversations with the parties involved will continue, and the Board of the Bighorn Climbers' Coalition will continue to move forward with developing a solution that prevents a situation like this in the future.

Additionally, a meeting on July 9 with the Supervisor of the Bighorn National Forest confirmed that our plan to develop the guidance document and integrate it into the Climbing Management Plan has the full support of the USFS. The Powder River Ranger District is very aware of the issue and the recent actions taken by this group of individuals.
If you have any questions or concerns, please reach out to us directly.

Access Fund Stance on Route Removal, Manufacturing, and more: https://www.accessfund.org/pages/access-fund-stance

This issue is on the top of our pile, and has been for about a year and a half. We're doing everything in our power to work with the USFS, Access Fund, local climbers, and all parties involved to develop a productive resolution. The BCC has done our best to maintain a clear and consistent message without falling into the drama of the online conversation. If you're interested in being a part of the solution, please attend our next meeting in Ten Sleep, July 20. We are planning to take an initial crack at creating the above referenced Guideline (some of which has already been drafted). Details will be posted in the coming days.

Dude, I get your are representing the BCC, but take a stance and stop trying to please both sides and say all this stuff that people wanna hear. This is why it has gotten to this point to begin with. If this was on "top of your pile" for a year and a half then shit would gotten done. You can say a lot, but those "18" dudes have done a lot more (whether you agree with their actions or not) than the BCC has done in "a year and half". Talking ain't diddly shit if it isn't doing anything...you been to the ark this season? Louie is still up to his old comfortizing tricks. 

IMO, part of the reason the individuals have gotten away with this for 3 seasons now is, in large part, due to the accountability/actions (or lack thereof) by the BCC and the people "in charge" of the land usage/bolting/etc. The lack of action has also now lead to bolt removing and an even uglier scenario

I just love how the Andersons own a gym in Southern California called.....The Factory...as in a place where you manufacture things. This is about one thing, and one thing only and it is money.  The Andersons want THEIR guidebook to be purchased.  Any closing of these routes would hurt their wallets. Don't be fooled by otherwise.  If it wasn't about money, he would have shut up and stopped A LONG LONG TIME AGO.  His behavior has been an issue in crags all around the US for decades.

The BCC is losing credibility by the day and their ability to manage the situation has been hilariously poor.  

Taylor Spiegelberg wrote:

My personal stance is the same stance that I've represented on behalf of the BCC. I don't agree with the actions of certain individuals over the past few years, but I also believe retrospective, destructive punishment is a bad solution.....

Oh yeah, if anyone wanted to see some of the manufacturing @ tensleep.  

I want to see the sand blasted crack. I've heard jokes about doing that, but I never imagined anyone would be stupid enough to actually do it.

m Mobes wrote:

#sorrynotsorry

Hey Taylor!  Right.  Ok a few questions.  

Do you see any problems/conflicts with you weighing in quite defensively here, about your conduct as well as that of the BCC when you are also tagged as an MP SITE ADMINISTRATOR!!  For fucks sake!!

Do you know Lucy Pauley?  She is the Wyo Dept of Agriculture and the USDA mediation program administrator.   My guess is you should step aside and bring her program in to facilitate meetings and possibly mediate this if it comes to that.

Do you know the number one danger to a facilitation or mediation that requires the facilitator stop it immediately??  It's when a party is acting in bad faith.  It certainly appears that Gluey's conduct in the canyon compared to his reported sweet talk and outright bullshit rose to that.  Plus you yourself admit his wife had a conflict.  This bad faith and economic conflict of interest should have been obvious to someone who puts himself forward as being professionally suited to lead the BCC and these meetings.

Do you understand that people realized that you all were just talking in circles and doing nothing and so in that way you yourself helped compel them to act??

Do you stand by your earlier statement here that only you locals (meaning the BCC) or land management have the final say in whether removal should occur? (Plus you're kinda missing the point that the vast majority of climbers support the 18 anyway! Duh!!!)

Are you and or the BCC Board going to be accountable for one of the ugliest episodes in American climbing history and resign??

Or are you just going to keep talking about what nice inclusive circles you were talking circles to??

TerryE wrote:

I had not heard this before, but a quick search shows Louie's background as a hold designer.  He has this company:

https://legacyholds.com/pages/our-story
And this Youtube interview intro (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFDY7GewuS4 ) says he "has been shaping holds probably longer than anyone in the world".

Yeah I thought he owned his own deal, I used to climb at his gym down in so-cal and he would debut new sets in the gym, really cool stuff with modular holds and a little more grip than most brands out there (for better and worse)

It's amazing that such an average spurt crag gets so much love and hate! Miles and miles of boring vertical choss!

Not sure 10 sleep "gets so much lovr and hate." I think people hate manufactured routes and complicity from BCC, while at the same time love the resource (rock) we all share.

+1 for the 18! Good job!

imagine if those schmucks chopped and filled in rodellar, or margalef, or ceuse, or verdon, or boux, or rifle, or rumney.  etc.