Southern Region

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 08, 2003 5:08 pm

at this point the reason, the source, and therefore any potential enforcement of the no trespassing signs is purely speculative. We need facts.

I stand by what I said efore though, that we should obey them in case they are owner backed, so that we have a better position if we find ourselves negotiating access.

Post by **SikMonkey** » Mon Sep 08, 2003 5:08 pm

How does the property owner know it was a climber and I wonder what their REAL problem is. I am not convinced this is totally (if at all) related to the spray painting incident.

Mj

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 08, 2003 5:13 pm

no one said it was related to the spray painting incident. Even the rumors do not support that it is. Also, EVERYTHING is pure speculation right now.

We could definitely use some answers. I'm going to get a freakin ulcer here! MY PROJECT IS IN THE SOUTHERN REGION!

Post by **SikMonkey** » Mon Sep 08, 2003 5:28 pm

Spragwa wrote:Umm. From what I heard, and it is not confirmed at all, but it's not the Oil Companies picking on us but us paying for one person's poor behavior. As soon as I have more info, I'll give it to you.

Ah I see. I guess I assumed it was related to Spraypaint-gate from the above comment. I should probably read things more carefully though.

Mj

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Sep 08, 2003 5:32 pm

'spraypaint-gate' hahahaha!

Post by **tomdarch** » Mon Sep 08, 2003 6:09 pm

I know that we had a bit of a discussion about signs in the area becuase of 'spraypaint-gate', but I'd like to present it differently in this light. Because it would be very easy for there to be a conflict between the oil company and a climber (typically parked vehicles blocking access to oil equipment), I'll base my assumption on that scenario. It seems very, very easy for climbers to drive into the southern region with the attitude that climbers 'own' the place (literally or not) and park anywhere they please, then give attitude if they were asked to move. (But note that even if it wasn't that this time, it will happen sooner or later)

I think that there need to be a couple of signs posted along the road(s) that lead to climbing on the currently Murray-owned parcels. They need to explain that we are climbing as guests and that it is critical that climbers not block oil equipment or access for oil company trucks. I know that a lot of people want to have a 'wilderness-like' aesthetic experience down there, but a few signs may be a necessary evil.

Post by **air canada** » Mon Sep 08, 2003 6:19 pm

I think that the oil wells clanking in the background all day are a LOT more disruptive to my wilderness experience than some signs around equipment/parking areas. Having some signs up that explain the climbing situation may indeed be a necessary evil.

Post by **SikMonkey** » Mon Sep 08, 2003 6:26 pm

Where exactly were the No Tresspassing signs seen?

Post by **TexasK** » Mon Sep 08, 2003 6:34 pm

Post by **rhunt** » Mon Sep 08, 2003 6:47 pm

what kind of 'wilderness experience' are we talking about here...I think Air Canada said it best..hard to have a 'wilderness experience' with all the oil work going on in the area...

I think signs are a great idea... bigger (and more established) parking areas is another idea.