Steve, you mentioned you are having problems with the current search engine. Well, here's a stripped down browseable HTML version for your future handheld computer. Thanks again to Jack and Zemkat.
Maps and more routes coming soon.
http://www.redriverclimbing.com/RRCGuideV2/show.php
NEW!! Try out the new online guidebook
Here's a late entry report:
I'm doing research for the RRGCC on ownership of the Dark Side/Solar collector. It is not clear yet who owns that property. The deeds are so confusing that even the Lee County PVA (who assesses property taxes) has that land as labeled "unknown" as to ownership. Nobody pays taxes for that land currently.
Before the RRGCC will exercise an option to purchase on the Murray property, we'll have to determine what crags their land encompasses. Preliminary indications show that the Murray's own from the Motherload (not including the Motherload) west to Drive-By. They probably own Oil Crack and the Arena, but I haven't confirmed that yet.
There is clearly a dispute from another landowner as to ownership of the Dark Side/Solar Collector. As such, I would recommend not publishing those routes yet.
As far as the other areas, the Murrays have given direct permission to a few individuals to climb on their property. It remains to be seen whether masses of climbers would create a problem or if the Murrays would mind. My gut feeling is that it probably isn't a problem as long as climbers don't interfere with oil operations (which the Murrays do not own). Until these issues are resolved, the safer thing to do would be to not publish the area. I'm not preaching, since I published these areas without a lot of thought about impacts. Fortunately, not a lot of problems have arisen, but that's no justification in and of itself. I personally won't criticize Ray for publishing these new routes, but from a practical/strategic standpoint it's probably not a good idea. [I don't support publishing new routes on FS land, however.]
As far as actual purchase of the Murray property, until we know what we have, we won't move forward on an actual purchase. I expect to fairly determine ownership in the next month. If anyone would like to join me in the Lee County Clerk's office some day, I could use the help.
Assuming that all of the climbing areas mentioned are on Murray property, we'll then move forward with ideas on how to purchase it. No decisions have been made, thus all considerations are open at this point including outright purchase, leasing, purchase of a "climbing easement", re-sale to another entity (eg. feds, county gov't), etc. The Access Fund is not involved at this point and I wouldn't anticipate much contribution from them.
I'm doing research for the RRGCC on ownership of the Dark Side/Solar collector. It is not clear yet who owns that property. The deeds are so confusing that even the Lee County PVA (who assesses property taxes) has that land as labeled "unknown" as to ownership. Nobody pays taxes for that land currently.
Before the RRGCC will exercise an option to purchase on the Murray property, we'll have to determine what crags their land encompasses. Preliminary indications show that the Murray's own from the Motherload (not including the Motherload) west to Drive-By. They probably own Oil Crack and the Arena, but I haven't confirmed that yet.
There is clearly a dispute from another landowner as to ownership of the Dark Side/Solar Collector. As such, I would recommend not publishing those routes yet.
As far as the other areas, the Murrays have given direct permission to a few individuals to climb on their property. It remains to be seen whether masses of climbers would create a problem or if the Murrays would mind. My gut feeling is that it probably isn't a problem as long as climbers don't interfere with oil operations (which the Murrays do not own). Until these issues are resolved, the safer thing to do would be to not publish the area. I'm not preaching, since I published these areas without a lot of thought about impacts. Fortunately, not a lot of problems have arisen, but that's no justification in and of itself. I personally won't criticize Ray for publishing these new routes, but from a practical/strategic standpoint it's probably not a good idea. [I don't support publishing new routes on FS land, however.]
As far as actual purchase of the Murray property, until we know what we have, we won't move forward on an actual purchase. I expect to fairly determine ownership in the next month. If anyone would like to join me in the Lee County Clerk's office some day, I could use the help.
Assuming that all of the climbing areas mentioned are on Murray property, we'll then move forward with ideas on how to purchase it. No decisions have been made, thus all considerations are open at this point including outright purchase, leasing, purchase of a "climbing easement", re-sale to another entity (eg. feds, county gov't), etc. The Access Fund is not involved at this point and I wouldn't anticipate much contribution from them.
-
Guest
Thanks for the clarification, Johnny. What kind of prices are you looking at per acre for that land? What is the tax rate? How much land is it, in total (approximately)? Can you share that information? I know a climber who might like to own some of that land under the right circumstances.
As to publishing, I think that the Murray's and/or other landowners (when indentified) may appreciate it if guidelines and restrictions were published for climbers, including very clear directions to crags (to keep people from wandering aimlessly on private property). So perhaps if the guidebook is presented as a document which will help keep climbers in line, landowners might be very receptive. Personally I don't want climbers pissing these people off and going where they shouldn't be going or doing things they shouldn't be doing and potentially screwing us all.
As to publishing, I think that the Murray's and/or other landowners (when indentified) may appreciate it if guidelines and restrictions were published for climbers, including very clear directions to crags (to keep people from wandering aimlessly on private property). So perhaps if the guidebook is presented as a document which will help keep climbers in line, landowners might be very receptive. Personally I don't want climbers pissing these people off and going where they shouldn't be going or doing things they shouldn't be doing and potentially screwing us all.
First of all, publishing the unapproved routes on FS land is no big deal to me because I know that the masses aren't going to be flocking to do some upside down offwidth climbs, etc. etc. Even the 5.11 trad routes at the Red still have cobwebs on them. It's just not the "fad" for the kids these days to wear socks while they climb and carry big springy jammies. I think the people bitching about my publishing of those routes are just bitching because they don't like to see people break laws and get away with it. Although I guarantee all of them break more important laws from time to time (speeding, running stop lights, jacking off in public restrooms, smoking pot, bolting routes before being approved). Those people flat out make me sick. They can please blow me.
Johnny, you always make so much sense. I'm listening.....
It sounds like you don't want the routes at Darkside/Solar Collector published because those Kentucky yahoos that own the land can't figure who owns what and Boss Hogg wants to buy the land. Meanwhile the Duke Boys are partying back there and Boss Hogg wants nothing interfering with his land purchase.
God, did I just move to Hazzard?
Johnny, you always make so much sense. I'm listening.....
It sounds like you don't want the routes at Darkside/Solar Collector published because those Kentucky yahoos that own the land can't figure who owns what and Boss Hogg wants to buy the land. Meanwhile the Duke Boys are partying back there and Boss Hogg wants nothing interfering with his land purchase.
God, did I just move to Hazzard?
Yo Ray jack dynomite! Listen to my beat box! Bew ch ch pff BEW ch ch pfff! Sweet!
-Horatio
-Horatio
Scinny, I think you're right on most of what you said (specially the Dukes thing!). My sticking point is that the FS can get really tweaked if they feel like climbers aren't dealing with them on a respectful basis. That's human nature and a sense of fairness. If climbers get too rogue, then they'll deal with us like they did the 4 wheelers and really not care about shutting climbing down.
The relationship between the FS and RRGCC is now the best it's ever been. Without the FS cooperation, we can't climb. So, they really are the wrong folks to piss off. But treating people with respect and being careful not to piss someone off is different than agreeing with them or being subordinate.
It's no different than if you and Artsay had an argument. Whether she or you are ultimately right on a certain stand or issue is less important than you showing respect for each other during the disagreement. If you show respect, you can come out of a conflict in good shape. If you don't show respect, the relationship is harmed even if you can "prove" you were "right".
So, in a way, publishing and promoting obscure trad probably won't make a difference if you are looking at actual effects on the environment or sensitive resources, for example. But if you look at how the FS could perceive publishing and promoting (like they might think it's the equivalent of "taunting" in the NFL), then their feathers are going to get ruffled. I think the bouldering guide is a good example. Yeah, you can still boulder about anywhere, but that put relations between the FS and climbers back about 2 years and we can't get those years back.
The relationship between the FS and RRGCC is now the best it's ever been. Without the FS cooperation, we can't climb. So, they really are the wrong folks to piss off. But treating people with respect and being careful not to piss someone off is different than agreeing with them or being subordinate.
It's no different than if you and Artsay had an argument. Whether she or you are ultimately right on a certain stand or issue is less important than you showing respect for each other during the disagreement. If you show respect, you can come out of a conflict in good shape. If you don't show respect, the relationship is harmed even if you can "prove" you were "right".
So, in a way, publishing and promoting obscure trad probably won't make a difference if you are looking at actual effects on the environment or sensitive resources, for example. But if you look at how the FS could perceive publishing and promoting (like they might think it's the equivalent of "taunting" in the NFL), then their feathers are going to get ruffled. I think the bouldering guide is a good example. Yeah, you can still boulder about anywhere, but that put relations between the FS and climbers back about 2 years and we can't get those years back.