(2023-02-25, 01:34 PM)Daymoth Wrote: [ -> ]Not all wasps are the devil spawn like yellow jackets.
I just would like to know who makes those nests. Ive researched before the webs with no luck and keep seing the nests in DV.
I think they are called "mud daubers" but that is a pretty broad name. There are several families and they build different shaped "nests" - the nests are not colonies, as they are solitary, but rather place to place eggs. At least that is my limited understanding. I see all sort of "nest" shapes online, but the only ones I've noticed, DV area through SW Utah, are the vertical tube clusters a few inches long, oriented downward, on rocks with a touch of shelter.
Now gas in SPW. That must be most annoying if the least expensive place to get gas draws long lines because it can't pump effectively. Bummer. I've seen it get pretty congested there when one of the pumps is out. Well if the power is still out, no one is getting gas at all...
(2023-02-25, 08:26 PM)MojaveGeek Wrote: [ -> ]I thought the second batch of petros seemed familiar, but had to go back in my photo archives 10 years to confirm. Yes, a number of small ones up there, could be easily stolen. Did you check on the other side of the main canyon? I've been told there are some there but I have not checked. Anyway that is a very very cool site.
I have to go back now and do a loop of the ridges north & south of this one (still on the north side of the bigger canyon here) and then hit the south ridge too. Going to be a lot of scrambling.
I did a loop on the north side, pretty much a steady stream of intermittent petros and blinds. Obviously springs attracted wildlife. I felt like we likely missed a lot of the petros, as they were all spread around and largely on isolated rocks on the ground. We didn't really scramble, though getting in to the actual springs is tough through vegetation.
(2023-02-26, 01:27 PM)MojaveGeek Wrote: [ -> ]I did a loop on the north side, pretty much a steady stream of intermittent petros and blinds. Obviously springs attracted wildlife. I felt like we likely missed a lot of the petros, as they were all spread around and largely on isolated rocks on the ground. We didn't really scramble, though getting in to the actual springs is tough through vegetation.
I didn't know of this site until viewing this thread. Obviously have not been there. It was not hard to match the background mountains and locate an easily discernable rock ring along the trail while viewing on GE itself with the most recent resolution. Is it something to be concerned about? I'm appreciative, and look forward to a visit someday. I want to believe that people of dubious intention wouldn't go to the trouble to "match the photos w/street view GE," but I am also gullible.
Really cool stuff. Thanks for sharing the petro photos. Elaborate abstract designs.
With Google Earth, I am in the ball park of the Cottonwood site. I see trails that could be close to matching the orientation of the photo looking into the sun but it will take some exploration in reality on the ground to narrow it down. Once I thought I read of some rock art higher to the west on or near the divide. Could this trail continue up there? It is lost to visibility in GE once down in the broad wash.
(2023-02-26, 01:57 PM)John Morrow Wrote: [ -> ]I didn't know of this site until viewing this thread. Obviously have not been there. It was not hard to match the background mountains and locate an easily discernable rock ring along the trail while viewing on GE itself with the most recent resolution. Is it something to be concerned about? I'm appreciative, and look forward to a visit someday. I want to believe that people of dubious intention wouldn't go to the trouble to "match the photos w/street view GE," but I am also gullible.
Really cool stuff. Thanks for sharing the petro photos. Elaborate abstract designs.
Yes, that's very concerning, thank you for posting this.
@Beardilocks, can you please temporarily remove and then crop your images that show the nearby features from which John was able to find the location of this site? This site has already been vandalized once, as you could probably see from the major panel, and as I did share info with you on the location of this site I'd appreciate it if you post publicly less images which could give away the location. Thank you.
My concern is mostly the mentioning of ***** stuff. People wont put too much effort to go deface things but will move sky and earth to harvest things illegally.
To keep things clean, then, I have eliminated some text and one image from my recent posts on this thread. John quoted one of my pix, which perhaps should be cleaned out, and maybe clean out the quoted language which I have subsequently deleted.
I’m on it. I didn’t think it would be that easy to locate the site with the literal hundreds of ridges in the area or I would have cropped the images better. I’ll prob just delete most of the images as it’s a huge amount of work to re-host and repost.
My apologies for the oversight. Obviously I’m usually better than this. Thanks for policing me.
Edit: Let me know if you think that’s enough. If not I’ll pull down more images. Or delete the whole post.
Edit 2: If the other participants could also edit their replies that would be great. I removed even vague location references in both posts.
I just used moderator tools to delete Geek's quoted-text picture.
Thanks Beardilocks! Typical procedure I've been told from NPS etc. is no background peaks whatsoever in petroglyph or other native site photos, just photos of objects on the ground. So if you could edit out or delete photos where there are peaks in the background that would be much appreciated. Yes some folks are incredibly good about determining locations from photos like those.
Post is wiped if most photos. To me it was more about the rock arrangements (that no one would mess with this far from the road) than the glyphs. That’s my fault. Definitely not worth the time and effort to alter, resize, re-host, replace, etc etc etc.
Took me 30 pages of thread to f**k up. That’s gotta be a record at least.