PDs at Lode
Moderator: terrizzi
Re: PDs at Lode
Rick said it very nicely, but why not start with climber education and work on dispersing the crowds to new and/or closed areas first. Which I believe if done correctly will mostly fix these "major" issues. If that doesn't work then go to more extreme measures, like stripping all permadraws/project draws from the red, which will result in an extreme negative reaction and rebellion. In my opinion if someone wants to leave draws up on a route then let them, if you don't have the ability to inspect a draw before climbing on it then you are a f'n retard and should not be climbing, and that can be fixed with... climber education and carrying a few spare biners and dog bones.
Re: PDs at Lode
Gotta agree with Adam on this one. Draw policing and a whole volunteer day dedicated to removing "mank" (of course 99+% of the draws hanging will be just fine) sound like a massive waste of time and energy. Inspect ALL fixed gear yourself while climbing, and if you don't like a biner or dog bone or quicklink, take it down... it ain't rocket surgery. Otherwise I feel we should try to stay focused on the important stuff... access, education, new crags, keeping the bolts safe... and oh yeah, rock climbing.
-
climb2core
- Posts: 2224
- Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 4:04 pm
Re: PDs at Lode
Dispersing the crowds to new and/or closed areas will not fix the problem of over crowding. Unless you open up another Muir Valley it will just be a drop in the bucket of reducing crowding. Plus most of the new crags have not been opened because of access issues that are still sensitive and being worked out.@@@ wrote:Rick said it very nicely, but why not start with climber education and work on dispersing the crowds to new and/or closed areas first. Which I believe if done correctly will mostly fix these "major" issues. If that doesn't work then go to more extreme measures, like stripping all permadraws/project draws from the red, which will result in an extreme negative reaction and rebellion. In my opinion if someone wants to leave draws up on a route then let them, if you don't have the ability to inspect a draw before climbing on it then you are a f'n retard and should not be climbing, and that can be fixed with... climber education and carrying a few spare biners and dog bones.
It is not always easy to inspect biners when on an onsight attempt. History has clearly shown that people do climb on mank gear and this will continue despite education attempts. There are just too many people climbing that are not at Adam's or Dustin's level of skill and experience.
Re: PDs at Lode
yeah, i agree that Muir Valleys only come along once, but this seems a little defeatist, and technically, 'dispersing' a crowd IS fixing 'over crowding'climb2core wrote:Dispersing the crowds to new and/or closed areas will not fix the problem of over crowding. Unless you open up another Muir Valley it will just be a drop in the bucket of reducing crowding.
--and if it is demonstrated that crowd sourcing solutions can work, their will be more people to solve issues? isn't that why we are ceaselessly told the we must grow the economy and need more people having more babies to spur business expansion...?? not that i believe that, i'm just sayin'
training is for people who care, i have a job.
Re: PDs at Lode
Opening all the cliff that the RRGCC seems to own the drip line, but not the bottom, plus the new/unpublished areas on the PMRP, would add about 200-300 (just a guess) new routes of all grades and quality. You don't think this would disperse the crowds. Some of this stuff is so good, you better believe people will be going like crazy.
I am not saying we should do this or can do this, but if we did...
I am not saying we should do this or can do this, but if we did...
Living the dream
Re: PDs at Lode
It has been said that one solution does not necessarily fit all situations, with which I agree. Perhaps a decision making process adaptable to different situations using consistent (agreed to) standards might yield useful guidelines. I have tried to capture most of the viable suggestions presented in a coherent approach. I would like to see some community supported guidelines for climber behavior that could be distributed, shared, posted, for ourselves, our friends and admiring visitors as climbing continues to grow in popularity. It turns out opportunities to climb on more and more land continues to grow (hint, hint) but along with those opportunities comes the attending need to encourage responsible climbing to ensure continued access to what we have and what will come.
So far most of the perma draw, project draw discussion has centered around the Motherlode with occasional reference to the PRMP, Muir Valley, Roadside and even FS land. So, one way to handle all these scenarios suggests that any guidelines needs to start there, with who owns or manages the land.
DECISION PROCESS—Start with expressed statements or direction about climber behavior by land owner/manager. If no statement has been made, ask for direction, if possible. If no statement is possible to obtain then use a hierarchy of principles to craft preferred behavior subject to (majority, not perfect) climber consensus agreement, then use group (negative and positive) reinforcement to encourage voluntary compliance.
A hierarchy of values or principles could look something like this:
Hierarchy of Principles/Values
1.) Compliance with land owners/mangers
2.) Safety for self/others
3.) Conservation (avoid or mitigate adverse environmental impact)
4.) Consideration of others
5.) Convenience for self and others
6.) Custom
I would like to see that ALL climbing activity (regardless whether trad, sport, beginners or experts) start with the premise of absolute, or express assumption of risk. Use the current legal status for climbing liability, “Express Assumption of Risk: Courts consistently uphold express assumption of risk when the plaintiff's participation is clearly voluntary, such as the decision to engage in risky recreational pursuits. [See Restatement § 496B; see also, e.g., Woodall v. Wayne Steffner Productions, Inc., 20 Cal. Rptr. 572 (Cal. Ct. App. 1962).]
Under this analysis, using others gear, pre-placed trad gear (recent Long Wall accident) webbing, bolt anchors, project draws, perma-draws, etc., is still and will always be the climbers absolute responsibility. Period.
FYI…Project draws under the law are not necessarily abandoned property. They are unattended property. It is the intent of the owner that generally controls. The FS may consider project draws that way but they do so for convenience and because they give notice, as a land owner/manager can, and should. But when there is no clear guidance on the subject, it is the intent of the owner of the property whether it was meant to be unattended or abandoned, and therefore subject for seizure.
Suggested recommendations:
1.) Land owner/manager direction controls. Owners/mangers direction should be sought and followed. If we can’t find out then…
2.) Safety considerations suggests no unattended perma draws, regardless who owns/ manages the land, except where preferred by land owner/manager. FA’s may set perma draws (on their routes) and be expected to maintain but are not liable for their condition. If FA’s do not wish to maintain/replace them, then perma-draws, steel or otherwise, should be discouraged.
3.) Project draws are allowed but understood to be for a limited time and if used are at the risk of the user. If project draws are left unattended for more than a year(?) then they are subject to removal.
4.) Leaving draws, whether project or perma draws, should be the exception and not the norm to facilitate onsights (for those who might care).
5.) Unilateral action is discouraged unless to promote the immediate safety of self, or others i.e., a clearly worn biner on a project or perma draw, or other unsafe gear.
6.) A designated group, or group activity, could be formed or understood to act on the climbing community behalf to monitor the condition of project/perma draws.
As to #5, the RRGCC had created a Climbing Advisory Council of elected climber volunteers with a Fixed Anchor Replacement (FAR) Committee in 2004. I personally would like to encourage the RRGCC to consider activating this group again. These were climbers who offered to serve on the committee and were voted on by their fellow climbers. Terry Kindred served as the first Chair of this committee, which eventually led to Team Suck. It doesn’t have to be elected, it could be voluntary, it doesn’t have to be so formal. But the point is group (consensus) action is better than individual, unilateral (controversial) action. So, come let’s come up with a preferred way to handle things.
Lots of great ideas have been put forward. We should, and can have agreement and use as guidelines that can then be distributed and amended over time, as things change and are are needed.
I will tell you that I am (still very much) involved in securing climbing access so having group consensus, support and compliance is as relevant and necessary as ever for the future of climbing. The crowds are still coming and in a way it seems a lot of the issues are really about what the FS likes to call "inter user group conflict."
I heard a request for a meeting, possibly in Lexington, on this subject…I can offer exceptional meeting space (free, easy access, ample parking, etc.) for 50+ people in Lexington to facilitate a timely resolution to this. We can do M-F after work hours, if that would help. I heard some say that there was not enough notification given for the Miguel meeting, so this is a suggestion to try again and widen the scope of discussion.
I applaud all those who have taken the time to make thoughtful posts and appeals to “do something.” It is encouraging to see there is a sense of community that still exists and civic-minded climbers who care. If meeting in Lexington has appeal to draft and adopt some version of what I and others have proposed then allow me to suggest Wednesday, November 9, 5:30 pm at 560 East Third Street. This should be enough time to give notice to those interested and still have time to organize and take action by the suggested Thanksgiving date. Or, in the alternative November 16, is also available.
I, for one, am about taking action that leads to solutions. I say, let’s do something, sooner rather than later.
Shannon Stuart-Smith
So far most of the perma draw, project draw discussion has centered around the Motherlode with occasional reference to the PRMP, Muir Valley, Roadside and even FS land. So, one way to handle all these scenarios suggests that any guidelines needs to start there, with who owns or manages the land.
DECISION PROCESS—Start with expressed statements or direction about climber behavior by land owner/manager. If no statement has been made, ask for direction, if possible. If no statement is possible to obtain then use a hierarchy of principles to craft preferred behavior subject to (majority, not perfect) climber consensus agreement, then use group (negative and positive) reinforcement to encourage voluntary compliance.
A hierarchy of values or principles could look something like this:
Hierarchy of Principles/Values
1.) Compliance with land owners/mangers
2.) Safety for self/others
3.) Conservation (avoid or mitigate adverse environmental impact)
4.) Consideration of others
5.) Convenience for self and others
6.) Custom
I would like to see that ALL climbing activity (regardless whether trad, sport, beginners or experts) start with the premise of absolute, or express assumption of risk. Use the current legal status for climbing liability, “Express Assumption of Risk: Courts consistently uphold express assumption of risk when the plaintiff's participation is clearly voluntary, such as the decision to engage in risky recreational pursuits. [See Restatement § 496B; see also, e.g., Woodall v. Wayne Steffner Productions, Inc., 20 Cal. Rptr. 572 (Cal. Ct. App. 1962).]
Under this analysis, using others gear, pre-placed trad gear (recent Long Wall accident) webbing, bolt anchors, project draws, perma-draws, etc., is still and will always be the climbers absolute responsibility. Period.
FYI…Project draws under the law are not necessarily abandoned property. They are unattended property. It is the intent of the owner that generally controls. The FS may consider project draws that way but they do so for convenience and because they give notice, as a land owner/manager can, and should. But when there is no clear guidance on the subject, it is the intent of the owner of the property whether it was meant to be unattended or abandoned, and therefore subject for seizure.
Suggested recommendations:
1.) Land owner/manager direction controls. Owners/mangers direction should be sought and followed. If we can’t find out then…
2.) Safety considerations suggests no unattended perma draws, regardless who owns/ manages the land, except where preferred by land owner/manager. FA’s may set perma draws (on their routes) and be expected to maintain but are not liable for their condition. If FA’s do not wish to maintain/replace them, then perma-draws, steel or otherwise, should be discouraged.
3.) Project draws are allowed but understood to be for a limited time and if used are at the risk of the user. If project draws are left unattended for more than a year(?) then they are subject to removal.
4.) Leaving draws, whether project or perma draws, should be the exception and not the norm to facilitate onsights (for those who might care).
5.) Unilateral action is discouraged unless to promote the immediate safety of self, or others i.e., a clearly worn biner on a project or perma draw, or other unsafe gear.
6.) A designated group, or group activity, could be formed or understood to act on the climbing community behalf to monitor the condition of project/perma draws.
As to #5, the RRGCC had created a Climbing Advisory Council of elected climber volunteers with a Fixed Anchor Replacement (FAR) Committee in 2004. I personally would like to encourage the RRGCC to consider activating this group again. These were climbers who offered to serve on the committee and were voted on by their fellow climbers. Terry Kindred served as the first Chair of this committee, which eventually led to Team Suck. It doesn’t have to be elected, it could be voluntary, it doesn’t have to be so formal. But the point is group (consensus) action is better than individual, unilateral (controversial) action. So, come let’s come up with a preferred way to handle things.
Lots of great ideas have been put forward. We should, and can have agreement and use as guidelines that can then be distributed and amended over time, as things change and are are needed.
I will tell you that I am (still very much) involved in securing climbing access so having group consensus, support and compliance is as relevant and necessary as ever for the future of climbing. The crowds are still coming and in a way it seems a lot of the issues are really about what the FS likes to call "inter user group conflict."
I heard a request for a meeting, possibly in Lexington, on this subject…I can offer exceptional meeting space (free, easy access, ample parking, etc.) for 50+ people in Lexington to facilitate a timely resolution to this. We can do M-F after work hours, if that would help. I heard some say that there was not enough notification given for the Miguel meeting, so this is a suggestion to try again and widen the scope of discussion.
I applaud all those who have taken the time to make thoughtful posts and appeals to “do something.” It is encouraging to see there is a sense of community that still exists and civic-minded climbers who care. If meeting in Lexington has appeal to draft and adopt some version of what I and others have proposed then allow me to suggest Wednesday, November 9, 5:30 pm at 560 East Third Street. This should be enough time to give notice to those interested and still have time to organize and take action by the suggested Thanksgiving date. Or, in the alternative November 16, is also available.
I, for one, am about taking action that leads to solutions. I say, let’s do something, sooner rather than later.
Shannon Stuart-Smith
Re: PDs at Lode
Awesome... thanks for everything Shannon!! 
-
climb2core
- Posts: 2224
- Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 4:04 pm
Re: PDs at Lode
Andrew wrote:Opening all the cliff that the RRGCC seems to own the drip line, but not the bottom, plus the new/unpublished areas on the PMRP, would add about 200-300 (just a guess) new routes of all grades and quality. You don't think this would disperse the crowds. Some of this stuff is so good, you better believe people will be going like crazy.
I am not saying we should do this or can do this, but if we did...
What % of these 200-300 climbs are at crags that are mostly developed and ready to open?
Of this sub-group, what are the barriers to opening? ie land rights to access, parking infra-structure, trail development, etc.
Re: PDs at Lode
100-200+ are ready to ride, but access issues are sensitive and or the things you mentioned. Part of this group is the Arena/Oil Crack, and there are others with similar issues.
Living the dream
Re: PDs at Lode
so will opening more routes really disperse the crowds, or will it draw even more people?
"oh look, the Red has 2800 climbs now"
there are plenty of open routes as it is...problem is everyone wants to flock to the main 3-5 areas where everyone else is also flocking.
"oh look, the Red has 2800 climbs now"
there are plenty of open routes as it is...problem is everyone wants to flock to the main 3-5 areas where everyone else is also flocking.
Positive vibes brah...positive vibes.