Letter to the Editor:
The current DPS Management Committee is asking us to expand the scope of our present officially-recognized activities with 3 newly proposed additions without much explanation. I, for one, feel I don't have enough information to vote intelligently, despite having done 50 DPS peaks in the last 13 months. Perhaps the following will give us more information and raise the probability of acceptance of these three proposals:
1) The "*" emblem: There's precedence in this; HPS gives recognition and hat-weights after 100 and 200 peaks and the SPS does so with the senior emblem, after 100 peaks & some other requirements. But can we vote on each of the criteria (a through h) rather than give a blanket approval? I'm inclined to favor it; it's much less garbage-sport oriented than the last proposal; but I don't dig camping in sand dunes. Sand in your tush??
2) The Desert Wilderness Traverse List: Why? I can see this list growing to hundreds of possible traverses, of varying qualities; the possibilities are infinite!!! Again, for what purpose??
3) 17 more peaks: This is apparently a grab bag of most of the exploratory peaks led by bored list-finished leaders over the last couple of years. I'm sure there are some very: worthwhile peaks on this list - and worthiness is not something I see as a black and white dichotomy. But we have no information on which to vote. We merely have the assurance of the leader that led the trip, that "nearly everyone agreed that this would be a worthwhile addition to the peak list" Has any leader ever led an exploratory peak and said it 'was a lousy peak, not worthy of adding to the list"?? Perhaps some or all of the following would enable us to make a more intelligent decision:
a) Announce proposed peak additions a year before voting on them; this would allow those who care to go out and climb them and judge for themselves.
b) Limit voting to those who have climbed the peak(but nearly all will approve regardless of the worthiness of the peak; they have a vested interest!)
c) Limit the number of peaks on the list: to 100, or 110 or 150 or ?? Then we can't add one without removing one.
d) Have a mountaineering committee of 3 to 5 people who all must climb each proposed peak. Have them rate each peak on a scale of 1 to 10 or 1 to 5 and publish the ratings. This committee should have a balance of list finishers and non-list finishers, as non-list-finishers constitute over 90% of the DPS trip, participants.
4) Lastly; I wish to respectfully but heartily disagree with our chairman: Difficulty, distance, and proximity are important considerations, in the opinion of some of us. -Dale Van D.
