ACCESS TO ROADSIDE - closed unttil further notice

[pigsteak]

Hahaha, my favorite is when the dog runs up after having rolled in turds, carcasses, or poison ivy (especially this time of the year), rubs themselves all over their clueless owner, digs a big hole, then plops down on top of their rope!!

thats my dog for sure....lol

Kipp thats not your dog.....thats you...

I got your next belay Dru...and maybe your last;)

[Jeff]

DruMack talkin' smack.

[crimpandpeel]

those aren't my permadraws, nor is it my route by way up yonder but i will take them down if it helps reopen Roadside, has it been done, who do i need to contact, it's only a 9 hour drive and i can do it asap

[nm44]

I recently heard about the closure and am devastated, however I totally respect the decision.

In reading responses, I saw that some suggested charging for access. Though this would help with the costs of upkeep, this could also discourage many of the climbers who truly respect the crag, yet can't really afford to pay. As a compromise, several trail days could be held throughout the season and attendance to one or another fairly decided number could serve as a "fee". This way, people who help to keep up the crag with their time would not have to also do so with their money. (Others would simply pay for their access.) This would encourage attendance of trail days and also reward those who care for the rock!

[pigsteak]

any incidents of climbers up there Saturday?

[GStephens]

any incidents of climbers up there Saturday?

I was there this afternoon and evening putting up signage. Remarkably, the parking lot was pretty empty. There were a couple of parties who were there before we put up the sign, but they left before we were finished.

Thanks to everyone for their cooperation.

Grant

[GStephens]

One of the amazing things that Never ceases is the talk of impact. Impact to what? there are no known "special" aspects of the base of the climbs at roadside. Because the land changes over time you call it "impact" its pure aesthetics. There is no actual "impact". A year after people stop going there the jungle will take over the trodden areas. Fallow ground doesn't stay fallow in the Red too long. Erosion is another factor. The "base" of the cliffline slips. And then what, does the cliff fall down. I'm gonna go with no on that. Just because the foilage is pushed back and the base receeds. It dosen't have any "actual" impact.

So all of this talk of saturation is just that talk. I have a suspicion that the ones who complain the most of the "problem" are the ones who frequent the over=populated areas the most.

I vote for closing all the crags in the southern region as well. Climbers don't tolerate other climbers too well. Bob shut his, Grant shut his. I think we should maybe institute "rolling Black-outs" through out all climbing areas. Even on crags that aren't impacted. That way we can help people realize how precarious access actually is in jeopardy.

You forget that Roadside is NOT Roadside - it is an area in the GRAINING FORK NATURE PRESERVE, LLC - a nonprofit limited liability company. The GFNP owns other excellant parcels of land with great climbing in addition to the land near Natural Bridge. John and I have a vision that is, perhaps, much broader than many realize. So, Roadside is simply one aspect of the GFNP, albeit, an important one.

[GStephens]

(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.]

I have read every case involving the Kentucky Recreational Use Act multiple times since I have a vested interest in it. I agree completely with this post.

[GStephens]

The parking area for Roadside is a county park ... it is owned and maintained by Wolfe county. I would think that Wolfe County would be less than enthused with a need for further patrols and oversight at an area on their outermost boundary.

Any charge for a "service" comes with a legal requirement of "due diligence". If I charge you to park at Torrent then I have to have a "safe" parking area for you; I have to maintain, police, and be a presence ... all at a cost. When you propose this as a "solution" you are proposing that owners spend ... this will not go down well. Property owners should not have to go to any expense to allow access and should be able to be assured that access will cost them nothing … we need to be able to police ourselves. It is true that some will violate the trust but, if we do not step up to the need to be a good steward we will lose, not only the access that exists we will also lose the potential climbing that is out there.

Again and again and again ... if you force me, as a private land owner, into the position of having to be the enforcer then I will take the avenue of least effort and cost and (ban/close/not open) the property to climbing ... this costs me nothing surveillance costs me daily.

I'm sure you could figure out a way to break even on the deal, and delegate all tasks to somebody else. If you think the land, and the horde of new climbers are all going to manage/police themselves then you are living in a dream world. You can sperge about the climbing community all you want, but the fact remains that the number of climbers is growing fast, and even the climbers that want to help police things really have no authority to do anything short of fisticuffs.

Actually, Wolfe County has a deed from the GFNP to use only the parking area as a public park. The GFNP owns the entire area containing the roadside park, but the deed to Wolfe County contains a reversion, so if it is ever used as anything other than a park it immediately reverts back to the GFNP.

[GStephens]

Who or what owns the Roadside parking lot?

Wolfe County by deed from the GFNP with a reversion back to GFNP if it is ever used as anything other than a park.