A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Nature > Locations > False Kiva?

Featured Equipment Deals

5 Gifts for Good Read More

5 Gifts for Good

As we shop for our loved ones this holiday season, we are often reminded of those less fortunate. Here are 5 photo-related gifts that give back.

Latest Equipment Articles

Nikon D810 versus D750: Which to Choose? Read More

Nikon D810 versus D750: Which to Choose?

Both the Nikon D810 and D750 are excellent FX-format DSLRs. Shun Cheung compares the two models to help you choose which one is the right choice for you.

Latest Learning Articles

State of the ART: The Little Lens That Could Read More

State of the ART: The Little Lens That Could

Fine art photographer Pete Myers talks about his love for the Cosina Voigtländer CV ULTRON 40mm SLii, a lens he considers to be "The Little Lens That Could."


False Kiva?

Joseph Allen , Dec 22, 2007; 08:16 p.m.

Does anyone have GPS coordinates for False Kiva? I just got a GPS as an early Christmas present to take on my trip to Arches/Canyonlads, and although I have the directions to False Kiva from Martres's book, it seems a little tricky to find. If you don't feel like posting them on here, please feel free to email me.

Responses

Ian Cox-Leigh , Dec 22, 2007; 09:57 p.m.

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00FX0w

Read to the bottom. Not GPS; but, should be of assistance.

Alan Davenport , Dec 23, 2007; 02:26 a.m.

38?25' 06" N, 109?55' 07" W

Gary Anthes , Dec 23, 2007; 09:36 a.m.

The controversy about disclosure of "secret" sites comes up from time to time here, and I think there are valid points on both sides. A site that is on private land or is truly unknown to the public need not be disclosed by the lucky ones that know of its location. But to say that a place like False Kiva (which is on public, taxpayer-supported land -- see Edward Abbey) is only accessible to those who have a certain book or happen to ask the right ranger or local waitress or have superior on-line search skills, is just silly. I know of places that are so rarely visited I can be alone when I go there. I like that. I don't want to see them over run. But to think I have some special right to them is wrong.

Joshua Szulecki , Dec 23, 2007; 10:17 a.m.

Gary,

I frequently encounter chaff for disclosing (or even asking for) information regarding waterfalls in a number of locations, particularly in Alabama's Sipsey Wilderness. There is a small but very vocal group that believes the secrets of Sipsey belong to them and them alone, frequently under the argument of protection. I find this ironic when there is currently a mapping project underway in the area (mostly outside Sipsey from what I've been told) by an organization dedicated to wilderness preservation.

I take the position that any location on public park or forest lands belongs to the public, and should be open to them unless there is some substantial reason to prevent visitation. If the location is so dangerous, or so fragile, that visitation is unreasonable, then fine. Only experts with permission should be allowed. But, this should be a decision made by the authorities charged with protecting the park or forest land. While I hate litterbugs, graffiti, and desecration as much as the next nature lover, photographer, and history-buff, I am prepared to risk those evils to allow the public to see the beauty or history that we have seen fit to preserve.

Yet there are two more buts. BUT, people who know about a location are 100% free to decide not to disclose the location of something they wish to protect. This is a decision I have struggled with a few times, and even I have decided not to disclose information at times. BUT, people who choose not to disclose should not think themselves the police of that particular feature, coercing others not to disclose, or even telling the public to leave.

The above does not apply to private property. I know of features on private property that simply cannot be visited, even with permission. I would never disclose anything beyond the existance of these features.

Besides, remoteness and unmarked trails protect many "secret" sites.

Bill Proud , Dec 23, 2007; 10:19 a.m.

The tricky part about having the coordinates is walking out toward the site and finding that it is 500 feet directly below you.

Joshua Szulecki , Dec 23, 2007; 10:38 a.m.

Bill,

You raise an important note that I want to address. I've struggled with whether to give out GPS coordinates for locations for a while, not to protect the location, but rather to protect the hikers. I still haven't made a decision, but I am leaning towards taking them down unless there is a clearly defined trail, too. I've even stopped updating the information I have on the web about 50% as a result of trying to decide what to do, and about 50% because it was destroying the fun of photographing waterfalls. Unfortunately, this decision came about 90% into a major update that took months...

Joseph Allen , Dec 23, 2007; 10:52 a.m.

Well, I intend to use the coordinates as an aid to the directions I already have which are in Martres's book Photographing the Southwest Vol. 1, so hopefully won't be blindly following the coordinates only to find that I'm on the edge of a 500 ft. cliff, etc. although the point is well taken. In fact, Martres has a few paragraphs on this very subject (that is, the ethics of giving out GPS coordinates with regard to 1) protection of sites and 2) safety of inexperienced GPS users).

Bill Proud , Dec 23, 2007; 05:08 p.m.

Joe,

Can't get your email address. Go to my website and email me and I'll help you with False Kiva. www.billproudphotography.com

Also, if you ask at the ranger station they may help you find the starting point to access the site.

Edward Ingold , Dec 25, 2007; 12:46 p.m.

If the coordinates are accurate, the False Kiva is visible from the Holeman Springs trail. If this information thwarts the Sanctimonious Site Savers, it makes my day :-)

Undisplayable photo attachment:
False Kiva Location? -- False Kiva.pdf)

Back to top

Notify me of Responses