Is it acceptable to post a TR?

this quote earlier posted by Lowell:

"... three kinds of backcountry places: 1) those that are already well known and accessible, where additional publicity has little effect; 2) those that are very remote, where difficult access prevents them from becoming popular; and 3) places that are accessible yet for some reason little known.

I don't mind publicizing spots in the first two categories. This is how we introduce newcomers to the sport and inspire experienced skiers to expand their horizons. The last group however, are backcountry gems. I don't write about these spots ..."

IMHO, this statement is disingenuous and self-serving<snip>

I'm always amazed when folks can read minds via the interwebs. Perhaps there is a self-serving aspect to Lowell's sentiment. I lack the mind reading trick so I'm not sure, but I can assure you that there is indeed a self-serving aspect to my desire not to publicize some of the routes that i've ferreted out which are not in guidebooks. There is also a true desire to share what I've experienced with others - the pleasure of finding a place out for myself, rather than having it charted out by guidebooks be they in books or online with GPS tracks etc.. On a similar thread years ago, ski_photomatt (I'm pretty sure it was him, sorry if I've mis-attributed this notion) made a great point that even though one can avoid reading guidebooks and trip reports, one can't avoid seeing the skin tracks that they motivate, and hence there is no way to ignore the bright route pointers that are given in such sources.

Of course it is tempting to assume that there is also a self-serving aspect at work in those who advocate the open sharing of details of such routes. As in "I don't want to have to risk some perfectly good ski days trying to find new routes and potentially ending up just wasting time on crap terrain, so I'd appreciate it if you'd reveal what you've learned from your own explorations..." So IMO the question of whether a behavior here is "self-serving" doesn't seem to provide much in the way of a useful principle for which way to go.

This is an interesting subject that I have debated with myself over the years and is partly why I do not post many TR’s. I tour for the discovery of the unknown (at least to me). I enjoy planning a route on a map and trying to ski it. In many cases I am forced to change plans or bail but sometimes I can pull it off. At the end if I feel it is a quality tour someone else might enjoy I will post it with a map or a very detailed description. I think that is what some of this website is all about.
There are many factors in deciding to post something or not. If a tour has over 5k in elevation gain, 7+ miles with multiple transitions and little or no bailout points I don’t think there wouldn’t be too much of an impact if posted. A trip close to I-90 with 3K elevation gain, 1 transition, less than 5 miles and 2k continuous fall line the impact would be enormous if posted. I guess it is sort of what Lowell described in my own way.
As to the subject of following someone’s tracks for the duration of a tour into an area than posting about it, well I think that is wrong unless it falls into Lowell’s #1 or #2 categories.
The one thing I cannot stand is the person who posts a TR and is unwilling to give any information about it. I find these TR’s useless, self-serving and chest beating. If pictures are posted and someone calls out the location, who is to blame for reveling it? If it a secret and you want to keep it that way, don’t post anything.

I'm always amazed when folks can read minds via the interwebs. Perhaps there is a self-serving aspect to Lowell's sentiment. ..

The quote was not from Lowell but from an editor of Couloir Magazine who evidently made his living promoting backcountry skiing--he was a professional promoter.  IMHO, any bc skier should post reports when or about that which she or he wants to, period (as I said).  The only report I would not be pleased with would be one suggesting people ski on private lands ... public lands are for the entire public; private by permission.


And, you of course equate my free speech/opinion with a claim that I am claiming to be reading minds  :  sounds like you not only exercise the mind-reading trick, but go beyond and reverse the meaning of my writing (cuz you read my mind)--interpreting my words to be critical of Lowell instead of the Couloir editor, oh well, so much for comity, Jim.

I never understood the concept of "secret stashes". The whole concept is stupid, and frankly, it smacks of the absolute worst kind of elitism. If you want a secret stash, get a lease from the Ministry of Forests.

Imagine if avalanche researchers took that approach and reserved the best information for themselves.

Share and share alike. Information wants to be free.

acarey - I may have misinterpreted the following passage when I assumed it indicated that the words you quoted were in fact Lowell's:

Here's how I resolved a related question in a letter to the editor of Couloir magazine in 1994

As for comity, I guess I'm not sure that telling someone else that they're saying what they're saying purely out of selfishness or elitism really furthers comity in any way. Sorry if you took umbrage at my mind-reading comment, but I really do still wonder how one can tell for sure that the motivation behind the passage you quoted is "self-serving" (whether the passage was penned by Lowell or a magazine editor). Perhaps I'm missing how making a guess like this furthers the discussion.

In any case, there are places I won't report on beyond describing the general region and then giving some conditions info that might be of use to others heading to the general area. I support others who do the same even though this means I may "miss out" on some potentially cool tours. Accusing me of being self-serving and/or elitism isn't going to change my behavior. If you guys have something more substantive than these sorts of accusations, you might manage to enlighten me a bit.

CookieMonster - I don't want or expect any private stashes that are mine-all-mine. IMO your analogy to avalanche research and field reports is off-the-mark (and in fact, we see folks here regularly post avy info w/o revealing specific route info; info that is at least as detailed as much of what's reported in the NWAC snowpack discussion). Economics of modern information publishing may indeed be causing much info to be free, but this in no way compels anyone to share what they prefer not to share. Information of course wants nothing, but people want many things; some want folks to share what they prefer not to share!

e·lit·ism [ i l tìzzəm ]   
belief in concept of superiority: the belief that some people or things are inherently superior to others and deserve preeminence, preferential treatment, or higher rewards because of their superiority
belief in control by small group: the belief that government or control should be in the hands of a small group of privileged, wealthy, or intelligent people, or the active promotion of such a system
control by small group: government or control by a small, specially qualified, or privileged group
Synonyms: exclusiveness, exclusivity, selectivity, selectiveness, snobbery, superiority

I don't see how my not providing details of some tours indicates that I believe I'm superior to anyone else. I also don't see how it indicates a desire for control by a small group - anyone else who is physically fit and understands how to ski tour and navigate can find what I've found, and they are free to report on the details of what they've found if they so choose.

Most of the "epic" places I've been to, rarely do people care to put forth that kind of effort. If it's less "remote" and others go there, there is no law against posting. Shit, it's hard enough to control what goes on within your own household (i.e. family) sometimes, let alone an acquaintance or a complete stranger.