Many people formed ill views of the ironwork in question. Almost always, the views of those people change to favorable views once they actually go up and see the ironwork. It's happened over and over again. Only a few seem to remain cynical. Their original cynicism/concerns seemed to be based on myth and projection, rather than the reality that they had not yet seen.
I saw the ladders in spring 2009, when construction was beginning, and went up and down them once, soon after they were completed. I understand why some might find them attractive and desirable, but remain critical of the lack of process before they were built, the insular and short-sighted behaviour of some climbers, the poor quality of what was built, and the lack of concern for public safety and property. Some evidently disagree in part or in whole. Disagreement doesn't amount to 'cynicism', and such statements often suggest that the attacker has little cogent to say about the issue. Nor is the climbing community monolithic - we can in good faith disagree about important and less important matters, some of which are beyond our jurisdiction in any event.
There is always a need to be skeptical about development at climbing areas like the Chief, especially where commercial interests are involved or may benefit. For them, money usually comes first, rather than the park or the public. What will be our response when corporate interests propose a good quality via ferrata on the Chief, perhaps even after an appropriate planning process and amendment of the master plan? Did we defeat the gondola proposal, only to open the Chief up to death by ferrata?
I wonder if the difference is mostly in the label. "Via ferrata" sound bad to us. "Ladder" doesn't sound bad.
If stop using the "VF" language and just call Robin's route a ladder would everyone feel better?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests