Well, if by "atmosphere" you mean the stench of dog and human shit and piss, poorly kept trails, a godawful access road, insanely noisy dogs and climbers, zero restrooms, and inadequate parking, then there is no contest - the PMRP has all this and more.ray wrote:Which is better overall for a climbing area? From rock quality to atmosphere.
Which is better?
Moderator: terrizzi
Re: Which is better?
-
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2011 3:10 am
Re: Which is better?
So many lolz.potts wrote:Well, if by "atmosphere" you mean the stench of dog and human shit and piss, poorly kept trails, a godawful access road, insanely noisy dogs and climbers, zero restrooms, and inadequate parking, then there is no contest - the PMRP has all this and more.ray wrote:Which is better overall for a climbing area? From rock quality to atmosphere.
Re: Which is better?
I thought Muir was a gym?
Re: Which is better?
Thank goodness for Muir, an open university.
Re: Which is better?
I chose Muir Valley because I like the Amusement Park parking and climbing with Boy Scouts.
Re: Which is better?
I don't think the Lode was on this poll.potts wrote:Well, if by "atmosphere" you mean the stench of dog and human shit and piss, poorly kept trails, a godawful access road, insanely noisy dogs and climbers, zero restrooms, and inadequate parking, then there is no contest - the PMRP has all this and more.ray wrote:Which is better overall for a climbing area? From rock quality to atmosphere.
But you're right, there are zero restrooms, which I didn't realize was a requirement for going into the woods.
Re: Which is better?
It definitely should be given the extremely high volume of traffic in the PMRP. No environmental impact process in the nation would approve what is going on there. And I am so over walking out of crags with a full bag of garbage clipped to the pack.Meadows wrote:But you're right, there are zero restrooms, which I didn't realize was a requirement for going into the woods.
Last edited by dustonian on Thu May 30, 2013 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Which is better?
BTW, why are we comparing land privately owned by a wealthy couple vs. land owned via donations from the climbing community?
Shouldn't it be Muir vs. Torrent or Muir vs. Roadside or Muir vs. HP40; and PMRP vs. (well geez, I haven't visited any climber-owned land outside of PMRP, just government-owned, climber accessible land).
Shouldn't it be Muir vs. Torrent or Muir vs. Roadside or Muir vs. HP40; and PMRP vs. (well geez, I haven't visited any climber-owned land outside of PMRP, just government-owned, climber accessible land).
Re: Which is better?
According to all the statistics that Weber posts, there isn't that much traffic in the PMRP.dustonian wrote:It definitely should be given the extremely high volume of traffic in the PMRP. No environmental impact process in the nation would approve what is going on there. And I am so over out of crags with a full bag of garbage clipped to the pack.Meadows wrote:But you're right, there are zero restrooms, which I didn't realize was a requirement for going into the woods.
Given though that there is in fact a lot of traffic in the PMRP from climbers and the OC, it would be nice to see bathrooms and that has been a discussion in the past on this forum. At the time though, the PMRP mortgage payment was all that could be afforded, and there was concern about vandalism. I'm not sure of current state of affairs or how that it could be possible after seeing the RRGCC kiosk was burned down and the PMRP immediately vandalized. The PMRP doesn't have full-time residents and access to it is from different directions and spread out.
Last edited by Meadows on Thu May 30, 2013 2:58 pm, edited 3 times in total.