It does not surprise me that Chris and Janette haven't responded to the history of incredibly hostile, baited sniping towards them here, which is myopically one-side-of-one-issue. Clearly, you view them with no other interest than serving your singular goal, and with antipathy at best. Such a "conversation" is not a worthwhile investment of anyone's time.

And as you've demonstrated - you're willing to do anything under the sun, no holds barred, taking any uninvolved bystanders hostage as human shields, towards your one goal. So no, I don't want you as a replacement for Janette and Chris. But thanks for your offer.

In fact, it kind of speaks to a higher road that they haven't responded ... and I respect that.

Julie, there are others, long time members of the climbing community, who have posted respectfully to this thread about their frustrations with the lack of GCC representation and accountability.

So too, it comes with the territory. They hold themselves out as representatives of the climbing community, participate in online discussions, put up a web site, a Facebook page, and otherwise participate in online climbing community. As such, online questions about their conduct, accountability, and credibility, are fair game. I think the adage is "if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen".

I'm also displeased with the current situation in climber representation in the gunks. Good thing I haven't been climbing much in the last couple of months, and down to on-sighting 5.3 OTC (off the couch), so nobody will listen to me anyway.

No no no, you don't get it. They're your regional representatives of The Access Fund, not of the climbing community.

Not a democracy, here, more of a meritocracy and a willing-to-do-volunteer-work-ocracy.

As an aside, it just seems that Julie (I agree with her for the most part, except for this) seems to have confused JG with you.
JG is clearly far more landowner-hostile, so I'm not buying the "Kent's alter ego hack account" theory.

Anyway, insofar as the GCC is or isn't a representative of the climbing community, there are a wide variety of opinions out there in the climbing community about how to handle the local politics and zoning issue, so can one really be surprised that they've decided to stay neutral? Taking a neutral position is actually the most democratic thing they can do.

This zoning issue complaint is the only substantive complaint you've ever raised about the GCC Kent, and you can castigate the Preserve on it with some validity, you can definitely castigate the FoS on it and the FoS is indeed completely misguided as far as I'm concerned, but all this flame-baiting of the GCC is just pointless and trollish for somebody who claims to want to start a dialogue

(And JG, wow, don't get me started, this guy bitches and moans but fails to advance one coherent suggestion as to what should have been done differently, and is probably just somebody's, not Kent's, anonymous hack account. Lame-o.)

Do you people even climb? I haven't seen a single climbing post from JGreene since he/she started posting. I suggest you drop the lame politics, throw your rack over your shoulder, and go scare the shit out of yourself on a good route. That might give you some fresh perspective.

RR

Ranger Rob...you couldn't of said it any better.

Ditto.

It's still lift-served ski season out here. (Well, at least on Fri - Sun, but including this coming Monday.) We even drive right past this climb on the way....

Not my photo. Photo brazenly swiped off of imageshack.com. Originally appears in a thread on utahclimbers.com. The route is Fallen Arches, 13a, trad with one bolt, Little Cottonwood Canyon. Details at this link.

Actually, I'm 100% in favor of the GCC's neutral policy on the zoning issue, which is the only possible one climbers can take. My quarrel with them predates the neutral policy which was not always their stance, though proof of that has disappeared from this site.

Aside from the zoning issue, I have disagreed with their policy in other areas. I think I can sum up the GCC policy as: Most climbers are undesirable.

And Ranger Rob? That's what you say to every thread posted here. Sometimes I think you're a bot from rockclimbing.com sent to kill this site by ending every thread with the same pithy remark.

They are not neutral though. They merely feign neutrality.

Heh. More of your dredging up of old issues. Kent your laundry smells pretty bad too.