More Tensleep Drama

And of course many of those FS employees (insert pay scale and highest climbing grade here) dont like thousands of shiny bolts and hoardes of gym climbers from out of state trampling the vegetation, eroding the canyon etc etc.  

This is the future the OG Tradiban foretold during the 80s bolt wars.....or maybe that was just about egos?

Which is why they develop the areas in secret and don't advertise via a rock ranch and shiny new ego pounding guidebook.

You foretold something almost 40 years ago and it might have sort of started happening, but hasn't actually? You must be so proud.

For fuck’s sakes, GS 11 is nowhere near a higher up, just a well paid drone. I was a GS 12, and nothing more than an anonymous office troll. The folks who make decisions are usually appointees not even on the GS scale. 

 Hopefully FS will assign a legit ranger and not one who has climbed out of Louie's back pocket

Just because you were a powerless schmuck doesn't mean all GS-11s in the FS/BLM are. I've seen plenty of decisions made by GS-11 and GS-12 FS officials, including whether to close climbing areas based on raptor nesting or just inform the climbing community and ask them not to climb there, totally voluntarily. They are also the one's most often on the ground evaluating resource impacts, meaning they decide if shit is getting thrashed. But by all means, continue to base your impression of how things currently work on your depricated experience as the mindless, lazy ass POS you used to be.

How many times have you paid to ride your mtn bike on FS land?

Slim Vincent wrote:

I hope they don't see the inside of the shower rooms or the general state of the bathroom.

MP...the new platform to bitch about cleanliness of a 5$ campground area where you take a dump

Weird that climbers should "expect the fees to follow" yet I've never had to pay any fees to climb that other users don't have to pay to do whatever. Oh, poor rebel climbers have to pay $10 to park their $80k benzo van and use public lands and facilities, just like Jonny Public does. Bbbbut, yer special, don't they know you CLIMB FUCKING ROCKS? They should pay YOU for being rad. Boo fuking hoo.

What's more, speaking for myself, I don't want the services.

Of course not, because your shit don't stink. You are fine taking a dump in the canyon. It is the shit from all the other people that causes the issue.

2001, I had only been climbing for a decade. That's about the time I started finding shit and tp under every rock in Bishop and other areas. About the time parking in Red Rocks started becoming an issue. About the time we could no longer find peaceful, free camping at Rifle, Indian Creek, Bishop, City of Rock, Flagstaff, etc.

Speaking for myself, people who started climbing around 2000 are the exact people who should be paying the fees. Like it or not, you are the boomers of the outdoor recreation world. You are the very reason we need the fees. You need to be managed.

Some HUGE names chipped and glues some pretty gnarly crap. The difference is, they realized how absolutely stupid it was. That's what makes Gluey so special, he seems incapable of realizing the stupidity of what he does. The Nixon of the baby boomers? Or maybe Charles Manson? Either way, yes he needs to be managed.

Yes the 2010 decade is the second wave. Luckily I'm too old, too busy, too weak, and too local (I don't know or care what the next big crag is, let alone travel to it) to really run into those hordes. But I'm certain they should be managed.

From the Access Fund website. Some decent food for thought. 

If chipping routes is blatantly unacceptable, and the community is supposed to police itself, how (in a logically consistent manner) are we supposed to lump the route choppers in with the route chippers to say all parties involved are bad and making the community look bad?

In other words, in what way are the people chopping the routes not a perfect example of community self-policing?

Since some people in authority (in this example the access fund) have renounced both groups, but advocated for the community to police itself, the onus is on them to make some logically consistent suggestions for how this should have been handled and how it should be handled in future instances if this kind of thing re-occurs.

JNE wrote: If chipping routes is blatantly unacceptable, and the community is supposed to police itself, how (in a logically consistent manner) are we supposed to lump the route choppers in with the route chippers to say all parties involved are bad and making the community look bad?

In other words, in what way are the people chopping the routes not a perfect example of community self-policing?

Since some people in authority (in this example the access fund) have renounced both groups, but advocated for the community to police itself, the onus is on them to make some logically consistent suggestions for how this should have been handled and how it should be handled in future instances if this kind of thing re-occurs.

Because it's mob rule.

Tradiban wrote:

Because it's mob rule.

Then what do you make of the fact that The Access Fund and everyone else publicly condemning the actions of the route choppers are advocating for just that, 'mob rule', and saying that this has happened specifically because 'mob rule' was apparently not the chosen path?

caughtinside wrote:

Seems like they chose both paths. 1 - mob rule, chop the bolts, fill the holds, put red padlocks on routes. 2 - then tell the Forest Service what you did.

It is a challenging problem though given Louie's prolific new routing... this isn't a guy who puts up a handful a season, he does a hundred.  

So, just to be clear, according to you, the choppers both chose and did not choose mob rule. They chose mob rule when it is convenient for your argument to say that mob rule was followed, and they did not choose mob rule when it is convenient for your argument that mob rule was not followed.

In other words, they chose 'mob rule' in order to violate 'legal authority' (here that was the BHCC or BCC, whichever acronym they go by, which I would not agree is a 'legal authority'), but did not choose 'mob rule' in that they acted as a subset of the community which did not reflect the consensus of the broader community.  And the choppers apparently did not reflect the consensus of the broader community despite the fact that the broader community condemns chipping, even to the point of labeling standard-practice-at-every-crag route development/cleaning as chipping.

caughtinside wrote: Those are good questions. And it’s not easy because I guess Louie was asked to stop, but continued to chip.

Which begs the question, what do you do when the only recourse you have left is the nuclear option?
Sounds like they tried to get Gluey to stop, and he basically decided f***-you was his final answer.

So the FS now thinks we are all dipshits who need to be regulated... 

Sounds relatively accurate to me,  more and more the last few years.

The environment has suffered at the hands of climbers on both sides

False equivalance gag! Gluey has done FAR more damage, for decades. He was told to stop more than once. His response was basically fuck you.

If the route manufacturing and route removal don’t stop immediately....

That should have been BCC's stance from the start. Instead, Gluey got his wife on the board and somehow convinced them to turn a blind eye. BCC knew what he was doing.

Unless everyone at Access Fund lives under a rock, they know what Gluey has done, was doing, and will do again. Yet they did nothing, absolutely nothing, to stop him. Why didn't they, as a responsible rep of the community, rat Gluey out... in 10z, socal, and everywhere else he has been? I'm sure there is at least a fine that can (should) be imposed.

This shitshow is on Gluey first and foremost. If you want to argue climbers need to police themselves as a community, it is also on BCC and to a slightly lesser extent Access Fund.

Well when you have multiple meetings to address only a few individuals actions, and those individuals do not stop their actions then I think those who chopped the routes honestly thought they were policing the situation as the BHCC did not take action (at least not in a timely manner).

Yes, Louie is mostly to blame, but the BHCC has had a large part in this too due to their actions, or lack thereof. 70% Louie, 20% coalition, 10% choppers...cause I know how much ya'll love math. 

If the local climbing community couldn't reign in someone like Louie, why didn't they reach out to a bigger organization like the Access Fund to help out?