warning: big group at pebble and pistol this weekend

[bberlier]

Sandy, it has nothing to do with my manhood! Why couldn't you just believe that I knew and you didn't!

[MiaRock]

bberlier, you said in a previous post that you jumped through the hoops several years ago, so couldn't there have been some changes in regulations since then?

[captain static]

Lurk, the laws & regs for group/special use permits are there but are not applied to rock climbing activities as much as for other activities such as rafting, skiing, horsepacking, etc. As far as the RRGCC, we have a lot of work to do on ourselves as an organization. The word that idea that has come to my mind in this and previous discussions is, "we need more delegation". I, for one, would like to see a session at the upcoming DerbyFest for a discussion on RRGCC governance, perhaps in association with the CAC elecitons.

[bberlier]

Unless the Forest Service Plan has gone into effect, I don't think any changes have occurred. I don't think the FS rewrites laws very often.

[MiaRock]

But that's what you think, and might quite well be the case, but Sandy is attempting to get the most current information...

[bberlier]

I give up! Its like a bunch of five year olds that keep saying "why". Get off your frickin high horse.

[Guest]

Well said, Lurkist!

Without getting into the legal details, there may be a difference in requirements for a permit depending on whether or not the climbing club is charging a fee for the climbing class.

Capt, you are right. Essentially, if the climbing club is charging a membership or class fee, it appears that they fall under the definition of commercial use need to have permits. If they don't charge, they don't have to get them. BUT, if you read the relevent laws, it looks like there may be leeway for the Stanton Ranger District to tailor these regulations based on impact and other problems that large groups create.

As an aside, I suspect that all these climbing clubs are charging fees - at least for membership - and should be getting permits anyway...

From Sec. 251.51 Definitions

Commercial use or activity--any use or activity on National Forest System lands (a) where an entry or participation fee is charged, or (b) where the primary purpose is the sale of a good or service, and in either case, regardless of whether the use or activity is intended to produce a profit.

Note that the definition of Special Use would include rock climbing. From Sec. 251.50 Scope:

(a) All uses of National Forest System lands, improvements, and resources, except those provided for in the regulations governing the disposal of timber (part 223) and minerals (part 228) and the grazing of livestock (part 222), are designated "special uses.'' Before engaging in a special use, persons or entities must submit an application to an authorized officer and must obtain a special use authorization from the authorized officer unless that requirement is waived by paragraph (c) of this section.

(c) A special use authorization is not required for noncommercial recreational activities such as camping, picnicking, hiking, fishing, hunting, horseback riding, and boating, as well as noncommercial activities involving the expression of views such as assemblies, meetings, demonstrations, and parades, except for:

(1) Authorization of such use is required by an order issued pursuant to 36 CFR 261.50;

(2) Authorization of such use is required by a regulation issued pursuant to 36 CFR 261.70;

(3) Noncommercial group uses as defined in Sec. 251.51 of this subpart.

261.50, here:

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/te ... .1&idno=36

seems to indicate that the local Ranger can restrict use based on whatever needs dictate... but it's hard for me to understand all the mumbo jumbo (which is why I posted the link). There is wording about damage to Government property. Might be a road we wouldn't want to go down as a group, though, but it seems to me the RRGCC/CAC could work on this with the local Ranger District. There is no language of any sort that I could find in these laws (which are current, according to the US Government) that excludes Universities... so it's worth looking into.

Bberlier, I'm not on a high horse, FYI. I'm genuinely concerned. You are the one who started acting defensive and rolling your eyes. What exactly is your problem with people asking questions and wanting to understand?

[bberlier]

You asked, I told you. You didn't believe me, I rolled my eyes. I told again and rolled my eyes. You still didn't believe me and resorted to name calling and attacking. If you are not going to believe the answer you are given, why bother asking? I can't tell you "why" the Universities can get away with it. But that's what the FS told me.

[the lurkist]

This is clearly an issue for the CAC. But first the CAC has to be a functioning body with some authority delegated to it.

[Guest]

I just had a great conversation with Lee Brent. The bottom line is that technically, groups who charge a membership fee or trip fee are commercial. Technically the law requires permits, but this is not enforced (or required) here. There is not enough manpower to enforce or police this process. They also recognize that it would be a hardship on both the FS and the groups, because the process takes so damn long. So yeah, bberlier you were right and JB was right, but so was I (not that I give a crap about being right, to be honest).

Lee, who is very knowledgeable and concerned, and very fair, said he would be happy to talk to the leadership of these University groups about responsible recreation and minimizing impact (with smaller groups, etc). Perhaps the CAC will facilitate these meetings? He also encouraged the climbing community to stay on top of the LAC process and attend the meetings.