BajaNomad - PETROGLYPHS & PICTOGRAPHS you can drive to, or close (in Baja Norte)!

PETROGLYPHS & PICTOGRAPHS you can drive to, or close (in Baja Norte)!

Pages: 1 2

Skipjack Joe - 1-7-2013 at 09:14 PM

David,

What you should remove are the posts directing people to unprotected prehistoric art sites.

Your actions are irresponsible and potentially dangerous to the art itself.

You should only promote those areas that are already under protection.

Skip

mtgoat666 - 1-7-2013 at 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K

Funny huh? I just removed a few of my replies to these drama queens, as there is no hope of reaching them...

"Drama queens?" There you go again!

rts551 - 1-8-2013 at 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgoat666

Quote:

Originally posted by David K

Funny huh? I just removed a few of my replies to these drama queens, as there is no hope of reaching them...

"Drama queens?" There you go again!

Name calling from the person who complains about it the most. Reveals a lot about the personality.

Skipjack Joe - 1-8-2013 at 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K

Then you better start up a book burning because, with one exception, they all are in books... and other web sites too. I happen to believe that sharing with Baja Nomads is going to reach the most 'quality' Baja travelers there are... sorry you don't feel the same about your Baja brothers and sisters here.

Oh, but I do feel the same way as my brothers and sisters.

Read your own thread above. I just joined in after seeing that others ("brothers and sisters") were already voicing their criticism. I've also received support U2Us from "brothers and sisters".

David K - 1-8-2013 at 01:45 PM

You know if I don't like a 'fishing spot', then I go find another... I don't stay in the same spot, and then keep throwing rocks in the water. :smug:

Skipjack Joe - 1-8-2013 at 02:01 PM

David,

What you should remove are the posts directing people to unprotected prehistoric art sites.

Your actions are irresponsible and potentially dangerous to the art itself.

You should only promote those areas that are already under protection.

Skip

MMc - 1-8-2013 at 02:08 PM

He can't help himself. Nomads seems if it one of the few places he shines in the world and he likes to keep his image.
Did I just post that? Can't we all have a big group hug.

David K - 1-8-2013 at 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
David,

What you should remove are the posts directing people to unprotected prehistoric art sites.

Your actions are irresponsible and potentially dangerous to the art itself.

You should only promote those areas that are already under protection.

Skip

You should really qualify this, because nowhere in this thread do I give exact directions or GPS or anything but the general area or name... It is just showing some sites that are close to roads... nothing more Igor.

Skipjack Joe - 1-8-2013 at 02:47 PM

I will stop throwing rocks in the water after you stop directing people to unprotected archeological sites. Remove all those posts.

I have a right to say what I believe on this board.

rts551 - 1-8-2013 at 03:48 PM

Its not going to change Igor. I see another book coming!

Barry A. - 1-8-2013 at 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rts551
Its not going to change Igor. I see another book coming!

-------and I think that another book would be wonderful, based on this last one!!!! I hope your are right, rts.

Barry

David K - 1-8-2013 at 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
I will stop throwing rocks in the water after you stop directing people to unprotected archeological sites. Remove all those posts.

I have a right to say what I believe on this board.

Nobody was directed... they were only given a peek.

Say what you wish, but be big enough to do it in your own thread, instead of my three year old one that has been enjoyed by most who see it. When you see posts started by me, know in advance (before you get upset) that it is to help the people of Baja and for the education of everyone about Baja... plus I LIKE IT.

Not showing photos of historic sites does NOTHING to either help or educate anyone.

For the umpth time: There were no exact directions or GPS locations to any of the sites I posted photos above.

[Edited on 1-9-2013 by David K]

Skipjack Joe - 1-8-2013 at 05:32 PM

In case you didn't get it:

David,

Remove the posts directing people to unprotected prehistoric art sites.

Your actions are irresponsible and potentially dangerous to the art itself.

You should only promote those areas that are already under protection.

Skip

There are no drama queens here. Just a simple and direct request. I have read both your and Barry's defense of your actions and they don't hold water. Your reasoning never convinced anybody.

(a) don't protect because it can't be done.
(b) sites are MORE protected by people coming to them.

That's it in a nutshell. Surely you jest. Those are pathetic arguments.

As far as who listens to you and who doesn't: I don't care. More unsubstantiated conjecture on your part, which is pretty much all of your writing.

Anyone willing to take the time to read this thread will see that neither of you have made a case for yourselves.

Nobody was able to refute the statement that exposing unprotected archaelogical sites encourages vandalism. One says "So What?" and the other states the opposite is true, bringing vandals actually protects the site. Well it doesn't take a lot of intellect to see how wrong you are.

Barry A. - 1-8-2013 at 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
In case you didn't get it:

David,

Remove the posts directing people to unprotected prehistoric art sites.

Your actions are irresponsible and potentially dangerous to the art itself.

You should only promote those areas that are already under protection.

Skip

There are no drama queens here. Just a simple and direct request. I have read both your and Barry's defense of your actions and they don't hold water. Your reasoning never convinced anybody.

(a) don't protect because it can't be done.
(b) sites are MORE protected by people coming to them.

That's it in a nutshell. Surely you jest. Those are pathetic arguments.

As far as who listens to you and who doesn't: I don't care. More unsubstantiated conjecture on your part, which is pretty much all of your writing.

Anyone willing to take the time to read this thread will see that neither of you have made a case for yourselves.

Nobody was able to refute the statement that exposing unprotected archaelogical sites encourages vandalism. One says "So What?" and the other states the opposite is true, bringing vandals actually protects the site. Well it doesn't take a lot of intellect to see how wrong you are.

-----and it does not take a rocket scientist to know that you are saying the same thing over and over again hoping that it will "stick"----a successful tactic of the left taught by Saul Alinski. I respect your opinion, SkipJack, and it may be valid in some cases, but you're disparaging of one of the most prolific and valued members of this board (David K) I find appalling, and frankly beyond understanding, at least by me.

Barry.

David K - 1-8-2013 at 05:58 PM

So, a site unpublished, that the public doesn't know about and nobody will see if vandalized is fine with you... vs. having a site published and visited by people interested in them?

You believe if we never see a site in photos or in person that is preferred over seeing what was done (before it vanishes for whatever reason)... Wow, really?

Have you written hate mail to Harry Crosby and the late Erle Stanley Gardner... here are a couple of books you would want burned...

and you think my photos on Baja Nomad are some kind of threat!??? :lol:

Thanks for putting me on such a high pedestal as the real superstars of Baja Cave Art publications!

rts551 - 1-8-2013 at 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K

Quote:

David, please how are you helping the people of baja? surely you jest or made a typo. Trampling over the history of baja does nothing to help these people. The PEOPLE of baja and their government (INAH) are trying to protect these sites from people like you as evidenced by their efforts in BCS. Unfortunately inadequate protection seems to give you free rein.

mtgoat666 - 1-8-2013 at 06:00 PM

lot's of strong gringo opinions about how to protect or share mexico's heritage! how about some mexican opinions????? :?:

rts551 - 1-8-2013 at 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.

-----and it does not take a rocket scientist to know that you are saying the same thing over and over again hoping that it will "stick"----a successful tactic of the left taught by Saul Alinski. I respect your opinion, SkipJack, and it may be valid in some cases, but you're disparaging of one of the most prolific and valued members of this board (David K) I find appalling, and frankly beyond understanding, at least by me.

Barry.

prolific....not a doubt... cluck cluck cluck

mtgoat666 - 1-8-2013 at 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
here are a couple of books you would want burned...

speaking of burning books, have you read Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451?

David K - 1-8-2013 at 06:05 PM

If nobody came, because nobody knew or cared to know... that would be a financial disaster for the people of Baja all the way from the border to the mountain ranchos (that now depend on tourism because the goats ate the mountains bare and the cattle no longer can graze).... the Mexican government wants people to visit the sites, to have a reason to go, to have things to do, and to not fear crossing the border.

"Trampled"...? Seriously, as if I don't care about Baja history, you must be joking.

BajaOkie - 1-8-2013 at 06:06 PM

Skipjack,

I have followed this for a few days now and I think you miss the real situation here. These sites may never be protected and they should be viewed and experienced by as many people as possible. The more folks that can relate to the history contained may help in the future preservation you are advocating.

Keeping some/many/all of these sites off limits may not help them to ever be protected. I have come across sites which have been plowed over and dozed but done by lack of information by the local owner. I believe in Baja that more interest and visitation is a win win in that all are educated as to the importance of such sites.

Just my two cents.

Skipjack Joe - 1-8-2013 at 06:16 PM

Goat,

I believe I know what the Mexicans would say. They've already set up guided tours of these masterpieces for the public to see: UNDER SUPERVISION.

It's true that the website DK is touting has the cave paintings. But the images are not there for the tourist to visit them. They are being touted for the tourist to come to their ranch and be shown UNDER SUPERVISION. I have met and spoken to the people who run Piedra Blanca Ranch. They won't tell you where the paintings are because they don't trust you. That's responsible behavior, DK. Get it?

Skipjack Joe - 1-8-2013 at 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BajaOkie
Skipjack,

I have followed this for a few days now and I think you miss the real situation here. These sites may never be protected and they should be viewed and experienced by as many people as possible. The more folks that can relate to the history contained may help in the future preservation you are advocating.

Keeping some/many/all of these sites off limits may not help them to ever be protected. I have come across sites which have been plowed over and dozed but done by lack of information by the local owner. I believe in Baja that more interest and visitation is a win win in that all are educated as to the importance of such sites.

Just my two cents.

Sure, I'll accept that not all sites will be protected.

But, Mark my Words, the site I visited and that DK is now promoting, will be protected. I can guarantee that. And if you saw it you would agree. Promoting this site is an act of terrorism in my view.

Barry A. - 1-8-2013 at 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
Goat,

I believe I know what the Mexicans would say. They've already set up guided tours of these masterpieces for the public to see: UNDER SUPERVISION.

It's true that the website DK is touting has the cave paintings. But the images are not there for the tourist to visit them. They are being touted for the tourist to come to their ranch and be shown UNDER SUPERVISION. I have met and spoken to the people who run Piedra Blanca Ranch. They won't tell you where the paintings are because they don't trust you. That's responsible behavior, DK. Get it?

----Here is a thought----"they won't tell you where the paintings are-------" because, duh, they want to take you there to see them (for a fee) and that is just fine. However, sites in National Parks under "strict supervision" (or as best as happens) are vandalized too------it happens-------and I believe that it happens more in the Parks to "protected" sites than it does in the "un-supervised" sites----but then that is just my experience and opinion over 30 years of trying to protect them. Get it??

You are a stubborn rigid person, SkipJack. :rolleyes:

Barry

David K - 1-8-2013 at 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipjack Joe

Quote:

I am not promoting it any more than they are, and I 'promote' it for education about Baja, not to make money off it... I just showed photos. I didn't say where it was on Nomad, just near El Arco... another person said the name of the place after. Why are my photos any different than yours or anyone else's published of the site?

DianaT - 1-8-2013 at 06:56 PM

Quote:

Certainly not always the case. I think many underestimate how many locals there are who really not only appreciate the antiquities of their country and want to protect them.

Just one example. There is a rancher in the mountains near Abreojos who led some friends of ours to some unknown cave paintings and not for any kind of fee. They are researchers who are a combination of gringo and Mexican and he trusted them. They were there for other research and knew nothing about these paintings --- and they nor the researches are telling where they are located.

It is not always about the money.

rts551 - 1-8-2013 at 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DianaT

Quote:

They were academics who were studying plants in the biosphere is why . They do not want tourists at this site.

DianaT - 1-8-2013 at 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K

I happen to believe that sharing with Baja Nomads is going to reach the most 'quality' Baja travelers there are...

Really? This is a forum with thousands of members and it is an open forum that anyone can read. "The most 'quality' Baja travelers" Quality is rather nebulous and very subjective.

We have met many Nomads who we think are really good people, and we have met others who are real jerks, others who don't give a rip about the environment, the people or the country.

We have met many NON Nomads who we think are really good people, and we have met others who are real jerks, others who don't give a rip about the environment, the people or the country.

It is a mystery as to why anyone would think there is something special about some one who signed up for this forum. There are members who are quite shady; and again non-members who are quite shady.

It is a good forum, a very useful forum, and usually a well run forum. It is a place to exchange information, to promote businesses, to meet people who share the same interests. However, just how does being a member qualify one for being a "quality" traveler, whatever that means.

I believe that Igor and Barry both make some very valid points. DK, you will continue to do what you think is OK for your own reasons, and you are sharing it with thousands of people.

And all of this is my subjective opinion --- except the part about there being thousands of members and an open forum. It is also wide open for distortion. :yes:

[Edited on 1-9-2013 by DianaT]

tripledigitken - 1-8-2013 at 07:34 PM

Shady Nomads, tell me it ain't so.

:lol:

DianaT - 1-8-2013 at 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tripledigitken
Shady Nomads, tell me it ain't so.

:lol:

Now be fair --- Shady Nomads and Shady NON nomads. :lol:

Skipjack Joe - 1-8-2013 at 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.

----Here is a thought----"they won't tell you where the paintings are-------" because, duh, they want to take you there to see them (for a fee) and that is just fine. However, sites in National Parks under "strict supervision" (or as best as happens) are vandalized too------it happens-------and I believe that it happens more in the Parks to "protected" sites than it does in the "un-supervised" sites----but then that is just my experience and opinion over 30 years of trying to protect them. Get it??

You are a stubborn rigid person, SkipJack. :rolleyes:

Barry

"It happens" - so you're solution was to do nothing and let it happen. That was the conclusion of your research? That's what you're advocating. You've stated it clearly.

Then you state the 30 years of "trying" to protect them. I'm glad you used the word trying because your conclusion is that it wasn't worth it. My conclusion is that you were the custodian of antiquities which you felt shouldn't be protected because they can't be.

And then you come here and offer the same advice based "upon 30 years of experience". Well, I don't care how many years of experience you have.

Al Gore has a Nobel Prize. Does that affect your judgment? I don't even have to ask.

[Edited on 1-9-2013 by Skipjack Joe]

rts551 - 1-8-2013 at 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.

Quote:

Barry

Failing to accomplish what you were paid and trusted to do over 30 years hardly makes you an expert!

Barry A. - 1-8-2013 at 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rts551

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.

Quote:

Barry

Failing to accomplish what you were paid and trusted to do over 30 years hardly makes you an expert!

Incredible!!!!

Barry

tripledigitken - 1-9-2013 at 10:01 AM

Barry,

Sorry this thread has sunk to the level of summarizing someone's entire 30 year career as a failure over a difference of opinion.

Ken

rts551 - 1-9-2013 at 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tripledigitken
Barry,

Sorry this thread has sunk to the level of summarizing someone's entire 30 year career as a failure over a difference of opinion.

Ken

Your right, Sorry...But he did say it did not work and BLM is chartered with protecting resources.

Barry A. - 1-9-2013 at 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rts551

Quote:

Originally posted by tripledigitken
Barry,

Sorry this thread has sunk to the level of summarizing someone's entire 30 year career as a failure over a difference of opinion.

Ken

Your right, Sorry...But he did say it did not work and BLM is chartered with protecting resources.

Thanks, Ken---it was a little rattling to hear somebody dismiss me that way.

RTS--------You are right, but the BLM and the National Park Service are also MANDATED to "provide for the enjoyment of the people" of those resources..-----which often is a real challenge, and that was my assignment---to strike a balance between those two mandates.

Barry

Skipjack Joe - 1-9-2013 at 12:36 PM

So it was a judgment call. Your judgment.

DK uses your 30 years of experience because your opinion that it's futile to protect archeological sites matches his desire to promote them.

Wonderful.

I'll bet that if I ask 30 random archeologist none of them would share your values.

Skipjack Joe - 1-9-2013 at 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tripledigitken
Barry,

Sorry this thread has sunk to the level of summarizing someone's entire 30 year career as a failure over a difference of opinion.

Ken

I don't think that's fair Ken. Nobody is citing Barry as a failure or his career. My main objection is citing someone as an authority because he shares your values. You have been here long enough to know that this is not the first time. During the Sharksbaja broohaha several years ago DK again supported himself by stating the Barry was an authority on desert biology as well.

In all the years I have been here I don't think Barry has disagreed with anything David has stated. This is on every subject matter.

As I stated earlier. Stop using crutches. Using Barry's expertise, books, or the professed opinions of others have little to do with the matter. It's not a popularity contest.

The question is simple:

Are you or are you not indirectly promoting vandalism by exposing unprotected archeological treasures.

To me the answer is a nobrainer.

I don't need to have Barry tell me that it doesn't matter. To me, and others here, it matters.

Barry A. - 1-9-2013 at 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
So it was a judgment call. Your judgment.

DK uses your 30 years of experience because your opinion that it's futile to protect archeological sites matches his desire to promote them.

Wonderful.

I'll bet that if I ask 30 random archeologist none of them would share your values.

You are interpreting and making judgements about what I said, only citing those comments I made that support your preconceived ideas, some quotes of which are out of context. This is NOT a competition between us, but you seem to think it is, otherwise why would you attempt to discredit me?? I would not have even posted unless I felt that I had something to contribute, based on my experiences and training, which seemed relevant to me.

Absolutely it was a "judgement call"------that's what the NPS and BLM assigned me to do--make judgements based on my experience in Law Enforcement, both inside and outside the Resources type of LE, as THAT was my only area of any possible "expertise" in this matter, and the Bureau's had few that were experienced in all types of LE. They were hoping for a fresh approach, and some were happy with my recommendations and others were not. (duh)

I went from GS-5 to GS-12 within 14 years, so must have been doing something right, and providing some value. You seem to see it differently----"Failing to accomplish what you were paid and trusted to do over 30 years hardly makes you an expert! ". Nice---------!!!!

Most Archaeologists did not agree with me, you are right, but some did-------they were/are "Archaeologists", not "LE" people-----they were "experts" in Archaeology, not Law Enforcement----and they had not been very successful at protecting Archy sites using their ideas, and wanted a fresh approach----thus they brought me in, as well as a few others over the years. The controversy continues, as does the destruction and vandalism.

All this is, of course, simply my ideas, not gospel---------I may be wrong, but I gave it my best, and continue to, as that is what they asked for. I have seen nothing over the years that changes my original ideas on this matter, so therefore think I am on the right track.

David K has his ideas of how things are, and naturally he would support those that agree with him, and vice-versa---don't we all? He does not ask for that support, I contribute it when I think if is warranted. And yes, I can't remember David saying anything that I substantially disagree with-----he may emphathise some things differently than I would, but so what? His information and knowledge are the only things that I care about, so yes, I do support him when I see others bashing him for what appears to me to be petty differences and objections to his style and personality and political beliefs. I often think "what is wrong with those people" that bash him visciously----------I don't understand that type of behavior, and I certainly don't find it objectionable that he defends himself----quite the contrary.

As always, you can take me seriously, or just dismiss it------your choice. Most do that, thank Zeus.

Barry

[Edited on 1-9-2013 by Barry A.]

salttram - 1-14-2013 at 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
Well, I don't have them all pinpointed on Google Earth or even GPS'd, so relax. Do you really think there are teenagers with spray paint in Ensenada, reading Baja Nomad and looking on Google Earth for places they can drive hundreds of kilometers to, in order to spray paint them, really?

Anyway, it is true that they are already preserved if they are photographed, and we can only hope they will remain visible for people (like us) to see them where they were made. Denying the people who love Baja from seeing them before they are lost by not saying where they are here (or in books) is selfish IMO. What makes you or me better than anyone else that only we can enjoy them?

I take David K at his word and I believe that he wants to encourage Nomads to explore Baja and share the wonders with friends who would (hopefully) have a spirit of preservation. It just troubles me a little bit when he states that a unique, world-class archaeological treasure "is preserved" when it is photographed. OK, more than a little bit.

When there are only photographic, literary and taxidermic representations of tigers, the tiger is not preserved; it is gone - most likely for good. It's absurd to say that a representation of something is a "preserved" something.

Fortunately, I don't think David K is the type of person to get peeed at us and post detailed directions just to spite us, even though some of us have been a little hard on him (maybe).

Near the beginning of this thread, David K posted some nice pics of a Great Mural site. Those of us familiar with this site know how close it is to a major road and how accessible it is. So much so that INAH took the care to place a sign in the cave that says, in effect, "This is your heritage - Protect it.", basically ceding the responsibility of "protection" to those of us who, like me, stumbled upon it by accident and read the sign.

There are much lesser sites in the Sierra San Francisco that are behind locked gates. If this site were in the US or Europe, it would be protected even more. When I spoke with Harry Crosby last year, he said he was surprised that he missed it during his surveys and that it escaped inclusion in both of his excellent books on the subject. He didn't say as much, but I think he deliberately left it out and was clearly concerned about its preservation. If you mention the name of the land-form where it is located, and have a detailed map, you will find this mural. Anyone who has seen it in person should consider it laughable that any photograph could even come close to the experience of standing in that cave. Which is why I find David K's assertion so perplexing. Maybe we saw and felt different things.

Maybe now would be the time to revisit the law that the Mexican government has on the books regarding such things. Under Mexican law, it is illegal to approach, visit, photograph or otherwise document archaeological sites without a permit (obtained in advance) AND guide registered with INAH. We may all take-lightly the proscriptions of an overstretched and compromised entity as the Mexican government . . . but I like to think that they have good reasons for some of their laws.

Skipjack Joe - 1-14-2013 at 08:36 AM

Thank you, saltram.

Yes, I am one of those people who stumbled on that site. As you say, it is unbelievable that it's still unprotected. Anyone who has seen it realizes how important it is that it be protected. It's why I have been so strong in making that point on this thread.

I was never proposing that every arrowhead in baja be conserved and watched over. It was never a theoretical argument or one of principles.

Yes, if this were in a more developed part of the country people would be charged to see it. It's important that we be responsible and keep it from being vandalized until that time comes. This is tantamount to inviting tourists to see the Altamira caves of Spain and removing all guards from the area. Just let visitors stroll through the cave.

I don't know the Cosby's or any other pioneers of baja exploration but I know quality when I see it.

rts551 - 1-14-2013 at 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by salttram
[

Maybe now would be the time to revisit the law that the Mexican government has on the books regarding such things. Under Mexican law, it is illegal to approach, visit, photograph or otherwise document archaeological sites without a permit (obtained in advance) AND guide registered with INAH. We may all take-lightly the proscriptions of an overstretched and compromised entity as the Mexican government . . . but I like to think that they have good reasons for some of their laws.

Well put.. Every time I see a photo of a tourist with their sweaty palm all over the art I wish that Law Enforcement would come along and take them in. These people are not experts and every time they trample around taking photos they destroy a little bit of the area. Next time I see the INAH guy (Soto) in San Ignacio I will ask him your "is it time" question.

David K - 1-14-2013 at 09:22 AM

"Near the beginning of this thread, David K posted some nice pics of a Great Mural site."

Actually the site in question is my recently added addition to my 3+ year old thread on the subject. PLease go to the beginning and see the whole thread. Please note no driving directions or GPS was given with any, just a name for reference. The cave in question I didn't even call it by name. Harry Crosby said he did not find the cave during his travels in his book of the cave paintings. It was one of the caves Diguet listed in the 1800's as a great site... To say Harry left it out on purpose because of its location near a road is illogical since Harry posted the photos of Montevido in his book, and they can be driven right to, with no hiking or climbing.

Skipjack and one other have posted the cave photos before me, and somehow that that was okay baffles me, as I did the same as Skipjack (and also without name or directions).

If we didn't have photos of things seen in the past (buildings, art, etc.) then they would not be preserved for the future to see what they looked like. I wish we had more photos of things that don't exist anymore, not less! Take photos and share them... save the past for the future!

rts551 - 1-14-2013 at 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
"Near the beginning of this thread, David K posted some nice pics of a Great Mural site."

Actually the site in question is my recently added addition to my 3+ year old thread on the subject. PLease go to the beginning and see the whole thread. Please note no driving directions or GPS was given with any, just a name for reference. The cave in question I didn't even call it by name. Harry Crosby said he did not find the cave during his travels in his book of the cave paintings. It was one of the caves Diguet listed in the 1800's as a great site... To say Harry left it out on purpose because of its location near a road is illogical since Harry posted the photos of Montevido in his book, and they can be driven right to, with no hiking or climbing.

Skipjack and one other have posted the cave photos before me, and somehow that that was okay baffles me, as I did the same as Skipjack (and also without name or directions).

If we didn't have photos of things seen in the past (buildings, art, etc.) then they would not be preserved for the future to see what they looked like. I wish we had more photos of things that don't exist anymore, not less! Take photos and share them... save the past for the future!

Even if it is against the law!

Skipjack Joe - 1-14-2013 at 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K

Skipjack and one other have posted the cave photos before me, and somehow that that was okay baffles me, as I did the same as Skipjack (and also without name or directions).

There is a major difference between the 2 threads, David. Mine was a discussion of bajas primitive art. Yours promoted the site as a destination for tourists.

I'm sure that explanation won't satisfy you so I'm proposing that we both remove our threads referring to this site with a pledge that neither of us will refer to it again.

Is that acceptable?

I am willing to do anything to have you remove your pictures of this site from this website.

Barry A. - 1-14-2013 at 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by salttram

There are much lesser sites in the Sierra San Francisco that are behind locked gates. If this site were in the US or Europe, it would be protected even more.

Have no chicken in the fight!!

captkw - 1-14-2013 at 11:11 AM

I would assume that the art was meant to be seen/shared with any/all folks on the planet.......protecting anything that keeps it away,,locked up,,no access is stupid & wrong...guys have died by saying the world was round !! :cool:

mtgoat666 - 1-14-2013 at 11:31 AM

can't we all agree that surfings spots, fishing holes and rock art sites should be kept secret? natural spots should be left secret for others to enjoy sense of discovery. why do you want every interesting spot in nature to have a well-worn trail leading to it? :light:

what do they say about wilderness travel? "leave only footprints." nowhere does it say "blog about everything to ruin it for others." :light:

Goat

captkw - 1-14-2013 at 11:34 AM

Thats a great thought,,,lets,, ask BARRY..He has the inside scoop on this matter...one would think !!!!

mtgoat666 - 1-14-2013 at 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by captkw
Thats a great thought,,,lets,, ask BARRY..He has the inside scoop on this matter...one would think !!!!

a scoop of what?

rts551 - 1-14-2013 at 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by captkw
Thats a great thought,,,lets,, ask BARRY..He has the inside scoop on this matter...one would think !!!!

You been hitting he peyote again?

He was a park ranger guy!!

captkw - 1-14-2013 at 11:41 AM

rts551 - 1-14-2013 at 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by captkw

IN THE US. He is unaware of Mexican Laws and has not been to Baja in years.

Barry A. - 1-14-2013 at 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgoat666
can't we all agree that surfings spots, fishing holes and rock art sites should be kept secret? natural spots should be left secret for others to enjoy sense of discovery. why do you want every interesting spot in nature to have a well-worn trail leading to it? :light:

what do they say about wilderness travel? "leave only footprints." nowhere does it say "blog about everything to ruin it for others." :light:

"ruining it", Goat, is very subjective. What you think is "ruining it" might be simply 'sharing it with other's', in my book. What gives you the right to demand others "keep it secret", by badgering and intimidating them? I don't recall anybody on this thread saying, "lets have well worn trails to EVERY Archy site". I certainly don't fault you for keeping anything you want "secret", but to demand others to do the same is questionable at best, in my mind.

So to answer your question, "no, I don't think I should keep things secret" (other than my special Fishing Holes). But I do agree that "leave only footprints" is a good slogan for ANYWHERE. Regardless of what personal opinions Park Rangers have, we certainly are not taught to "keep things secret" in any of the training I have received----quite the contrary----the whole point of National Parks is to interpret, educate, and share-----and yes, to protect for future generations, as well---------a very heavy mandate.

Barry

Thank you barry !!

captkw - 1-14-2013 at 11:51 AM

Of anyone on this board,,I would say this man has The mic on this subject!!! nothing to do with any mex/us law...where is that fine line in the sand of protect or no access to protect!!!

Barry A. - 1-14-2013 at 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rts551

Quote:

Originally posted by captkw

IN THE US. He is unaware of Mexican Laws and has not been to Baja in years.

More assumptions again-------

I was in TJ & Mexicali last year for dinner with friends. :tumble:

From about 1954 thru about 2008 I travelled numerous times all over Baja, but you are right I have cut way back since then. Not sure how that is relevant. I am vaguely familiar with "Mexican Laws" on Antiquities, and have been a long time friend of Dr. Eric Ritter (Baja Archaeologist---lives in Redding) for perhaps 35 years, both professionally and since my retirement. Is that relevant? Maybe not.

It seems to me that you simply don't want to accept any ideas other than your own, no matter what the source-------and of course that is your choice.

Barry

Skipjack Joe - 1-14-2013 at 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rts551

Quote:

Originally posted by captkw

IN THE US. He is unaware of Mexican Laws and has not been to Baja in years.

Barry hasn't even seen the site in question.

Each place is unique and shoud be given individual consideration. Saying that Utah is full of unprotected sites is inappropriate and of little value. How do you compare a Mesa Verde to some remote midden?

mtgoat666 - 1-14-2013 at 01:05 PM

this is what can happen!

Barry A. - 1-14-2013 at 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipjack Joe

Quote:

Originally posted by rts551

Quote:

Originally posted by captkw

IN THE US. He is unaware of Mexican Laws and has not been to Baja in years.

Somehow, Igor, I don't even think you are following this thread that closely. In my post above to "Salttam", I was responding to his assertion that "in the USA sites are protected", or words to that effect.

You are right----I have NOT seen the site (or sites) in question, and I totally agree with the rest of what you say here-----certainly case-by-case decisions ideally should be made, and you are making points that I have already made, and that we both agree on. To me, you now are drifting off-point and confusing the issue---------.

I have made my points, and the only reason I will further post on this thread is to counter some incorrect point that somebody else makes.

Barry

David K - 1-14-2013 at 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipjack Joe

Quote:

So, because it was you, that's okay to show photos... but not me? That's rich.

Quote:

"There is a major difference between the 2 threads, David. Mine was a discussion of bajas primitive art. Yours promoted the site as a destination for tourists."

Not in the least is anything I did different than you... Photos of rock art sites... no GPS or road directions provided...

It must be sweet of you to choose what you think can be shared or by who, but read anything you want here on Nomad?

Myself and a couple other Nomads shared some photos, and instead of adding some of yours or supporting the wealth of Baja California's natural and man made wonders to others who would possibly come to Baja or at least have an expanded knowledge of the peninsula, you don't think I am worthy to show and share what is there... before anything negative happens to it, as has happened in U.S. 'protected' sites...?

The sites are not secret, making them secret doesn't protect them, giving them value as something to appreciate and save does.

The giant rock art in the Sierra de San Francisco and others were known, written about, and described... but it was Erle Stanley Gardner who 'awakened' the world, brought in archaeologists, Life Magazine, Desert Magazine, and others (at his expense) so the world would appreciate and preserve these treasures.

Ignored, but not unknown did little for our knowledge or appreciation of the ancients who thrived in Baja long before the Cochimí arrived.

You are free to ignore what is there in Baja, but I cannot. The beauty of Baja is not something that needs to be hidden from others. Others who desire to see what is in our world and will appreciate, value and preserve it, as well.

Skipjack Joe - 1-14-2013 at 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
I'm proposing that we both remove our threads referring to this site with a pledge that neither of us will refer to it again.

Is that acceptable?

So, I guess the answer is no.

You defended you're right to promote the site by stating I had done it as well. But now your actions show that it was just empty talk. I suspected as much.

None of your reasons hold water. This is just the latest one.

Please reread your last response David. I has virtually nothing to do with the quote you used. I'm suggesting we remove our posts and your response is that you have just as much right to write as I do. WTF?

I may not agree with Barry but at least he makes sense.

[Edited on 1-15-2013 by Skipjack Joe]

redhilltown - 1-15-2013 at 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.

Quote:

Originally posted by salttram

There are much lesser sites in the Sierra San Francisco that are behind locked gates. If this site were in the US or Europe, it would be protected even more.

There are litterally thousands of Picto and Petro sites in the state of Utah alone with absolutely no "protection" other than long existing laws against their desecration, even many within National Parks. This is also true of many other states in the "USA".

And I have been to many including the entire length of Grand Gulch...and it is protected and inaccessible...the great mural site in Baja being mentioned is stunningly easy to get to and as Salttram mentioned, illegal on your own to visit (well..technically let's just say). The whole point of keeping a fishing hole secret is that the masses will ruin it...you're not keeping them from fishing...you're not denying them fishing...you're just keeping a few cards out of the deck...I cannot believe historic and important archaeological sites are not as important as grouper or white sea bass.

Barry

redhilltown - 1-15-2013 at 01:00 AM

Oooops...that last post looks like it was "Barry" ...sorry Barry!! I may (politely) disagree with you but I don't want to mis-quote you because of a technical (ie: brain fart) error...this is what I meant to post:

"And I have been to many including the entire length of Grand Gulch...and it is protected and inaccessible...the great mural site in Baja being mentioned is stunningly easy to get to and as Salttram mentioned, illegal on your own to visit (well..technically let's just say). The whole point of keeping a fishing hole secret is that the masses will ruin it...you're not keeping them from fishing...you're not denying them fishing...you're just keeping a few cards out of the deck... I cannot believe historic and important archaeological sites are not as important as grouper or white sea bass."

salttram - 1-15-2013 at 01:34 AM

I, for one, will forgive David K his error in equating photographs of a thing with preservation of a thing . . . IF . . . he can tell where I can find another jaguarundi.

I've seen many Great Murals in Baja but only ONE jaguarundi. Additionally, if David K can arrange for it to hold still long enough for me to "preserve" it . . . well DAMN . . . I'll buy him the mariscos dinner special at the Malarrimo!

I'm serious.

[Edited on 1-15-2013 by salttram]

Baja Bucko - 1-15-2013 at 09:56 AM

Salttram-can you please clarify-did you see a jagarundi in Baja? If so any general area? I have a remote camera that I need to put up (looking for certain mammals) and I have been unable to confirm whether this animal is in Baja now or in the past.

Barry A. - 1-15-2013 at 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by redhilltown
Oooops...that last post looks like it was "Barry" ...sorry Barry!! I may (politely) disagree with you but I don't want to mis-quote you because of a technical (ie: brain fart) error...this is what I meant to post:

"And I have been to many including the entire length of Grand Gulch...and it is protected and inaccessible...the great mural site in Baja being mentioned is stunningly easy to get to and as Salttram mentioned, illegal on your own to visit (well..technically let's just say). The whole point of keeping a fishing hole secret is that the masses will ruin it...you're not keeping them from fishing...you're not denying them fishing...you're just keeping a few cards out of the deck... I cannot believe historic and important archaeological sites are not as important as grouper or white sea bass."

Not a problem, Redhilltown----I understand, and have made similar mistakes. I too have covered almost the entire length of Grand Gulch via horseback (we did not go down clear to the SJ River), and side canyons, for the sole purpose of evaluating "protection possibilities" for the stunningly important sites there. This was in the late '70's, and there was a new quasi-Ranger staff there at the time (with no LE delegation, tho, so almost helpless). At that time there was no physical protection, but it was an arduous journey of several days to cover the canyon and it's main tributaries, so in a sense that afforded considerable "protection". There was NO other protection afforded, and anybody could access the canyon, tho not legally----a permit was required, but no ability to enforce it, at that time.

Many of those sites in Grand Gulch are unique-------and not comparable to scattered picto and petro sites elsewhere. I am talking about the not so unique petro and picto sites in ALL of my comments about "no real way to protect them" comments, and the scientific significance of these random sites is questionable at best, which even the most strident "protection" Archaeologists will admit, or at least they did way back then. Perhaps things have changed since I retired.

Barry

salttram - 1-16-2013 at 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Baja Bucko
Salttram-can you please clarify-did you see a jagarundi in Baja? If so any general area? I have a remote camera that I need to put up (looking for certain mammals) and I have been unable to confirm whether this animal is in Baja now or in the past.

Yes, we saw one for a few moments from our vehicle on the road connecting Arroyo El Sauz to Arroyo Cordornices. I think we surprised it as it was stalking some quail. I've heard of only one other recent account of a sighting somewhere in the Desierto el Vizcaino. I think this cat would be a particularly difficult subject to capture in a photo as they are known to be very shy and elusive.

I would like to plan a trip to the area dedicated to finding any sign of one, hopefully this year. Maybe I can find some rock art to preserve with my camera. Plus the scenery and camping around there is some of the best in Baja IMO.

I would like to know whether there is a stable population of them around there and if it has always been a part of their natural range. Who knows? You might find a jaguarundi somewhere out there burying a dead horse. Could happen.

salttram - 1-19-2013 at 04:05 PM

Seriously though, despite my attempt at humor, the Baja jaguarundis do exist. If Baja Bucko or any other Nomads want to plan a trip to find one . . . I'm on board!

About the Jaguarundi

David K - 1-19-2013 at 04:18 PM

[Edited on 1-19-2013 by David K]

Pages: 1 2