ACCESS TO ROADSIDE - closed unttil further notice

[Toad]

my most humble apologies i thought you could take a little ribbing and yes i got the message actually i got two messages

[pigsteak]

eat toad shit, or eat shit, toad?

lol.....

funny how this thing turns into a dog banning, parking fee, and entrance fee thread. none of these appeared in the original complaint. let me spell it out:

no fixed gear. no new routes without prior approval. too many people so they are closing it to figure out how to deal with it. grant's an attorney. I think he can handle the logistics. if you have ever climbed at RS, you are/were part of the problem. don't be so smug. overcrowding starts with you every time you come to the Red.

[Toad]

eat toad shit, or eat shit, toad?

Or...eat toad, shit!

Either way.

[CLIMBTRAD]

My bad sorry toad your spot on i cant type at all or spell.
and pigg trying not to be smug i know im part of the problem. We all are.
when i see a parking lot full i find an empty one crowded crag move on. when i see trash i pick it up i love my dog love having him in the gorge but not for climbing.
the problem is that the climbers messing it up do not come on this site and if they do they do not care.
let roadside rest for a long time.

ps piggy thanks for all the work you do love your routes makes us a team in the overcrowding

[Toad]

Piggy,

Are you trying to limit this discussion to the immediate problem at hand? I was so hoping we were looking at the bigger picture.

I'm rarely ever part of the problem. I'm usually the whole damn thing.

[heath]

I think we can chalk this whole thing up to the miss use of the grigri.

[toad857]

(d) "Charge" means the admission price or fee asked in return for invitation or permission to enter or go upon the land but does not include fees for general use permits issued by a government agency for access to public lands if the permits are valid for a period of not less than thirty (30) days.

emphasis added.

For all intents and purposes, parking at Muir (or PMRP) is tantamount to using the land at Muir. You would be hard pressed to argue 'hey, we're not charging you to use the land, just charging you to park on the land.' It's a distinction without a difference, as they like to say, and I don't think a court or an insurer would buy it.

This exact issue was raised in a case before the Kentucky Court of Appeals, and the court found that charging a small parking fee per vehicle did not constitute a "charge" under the KY recreational use statute. City of Louisville vs. Silcox, 977 S.W.2d 254 (Ky.Ct.App 1998).

The court looked at whether the parking fee was really just a parking fee or a quid pro quo for accessing the land. Two main factors persuaded the court that the parking fee was not a charge to access the land: (1) the fact that the fee was charged per vehicle and not per person and (2) no fee was charged for those accessing the land on foot, by bike or by parking in a more distant lot where no fee was charged.

So a landowner can charge a parking fee without losing the protection of the KY recreation statute. However, one fact to keep in mind is that, in the case above there were alternative ways to access the land without paying the parking fee. Lands like Muir and PMRP are remote enough that driving is the only practical way to climb there. So B Ben's right that charging to park is really the same as charging for access. But if the fee is per vehicle rather than per person, and people who hike in (yeah right) aren't charged, it's probably ok.

[Disclaimer--this post should not be considered legal advice. Any landowner considering a parking fee should consult a lawyer.]

finally, one post amidst a sea of head-shaking and chit-chatting that actually nudges things forward!

[toad857]

I don't read the climbing rags, so I'll ask...

Short of an ad for the access fund, do the magazines address these sorts of access and overuse issues? Do they ever print a "how to not be a douche at the cliff" article? Do the professional climbers that tour all the various outdoor venues ever step up and preach the gospel of not fucking things up?

In short, yes, the magazines do bring up the issue of sustainability from time to time.

HOWEVER, the majority of magazine content (especially when it comes to the RED) simply glorifies and overhypes the place. They contribute FAR more to the overburden of climbers than they do to the issue of sustainability.

It was amusing to watch as the RRG infiltrated every single climbing magazine out there---you all have seen it too, if you've been around long enough. At first it was an obscure article here or there, and nowadays it's full-page advertisements highlighting RRG classics in every magazine. They can't get enough of it.

[caribe]

don't be so smug. overcrowding starts with you every time you come to the Red.

[captain static]

The RRGCC has a strategy regarding private property with existing climbing. We talk to the owners and let them know we are available to assist with access issues. This communication sometimes materializes into action. The trail day that Driskell held at Roadside is an example of this. At the last RRGCC meeting the BOD approved money to install an informational kiosk @ Roadside and repair the kiosk @ Torrent. This last Saturday I attended a trail workshop sponsored by the USFS and given by Woody Keen of Trail Dynamics. John Haight also attended this workshop. The RRGCC is holding its' own trail workshop on June 4th. One of the RRGCC's stategies this year is to increase our trail building expertise & capacity.

We will be holding another open meeting @ Torrent sometime before JATD. Come to the workshop and/or the meeting if you can. As the cliche says, actions speak louder than words.