RRC Archives

bcombs wrote:Don't they do that in golf, letting smaller faster groups "play through". Not that I would compare golf to sport climbing. Golf is not a sport, its something else, not sure what, but not a sport.

and climbing is????? LMAO....

Of course it is!!

Here is my definition of sport - Something you can become better at by trying harder. There is no trying harder in golf. Trying harder leads to more clubs in the pond.

Kidding aside.. regarding golf, I do have a problem calling something a sport when the fattest guy participating can win on any given Sunday. Of course I guess that goes for Sumo wrestling too, and I would consider that a sport. I guess I'm conflicted about it. Sorry for my interruption.

and football linemen....

true.. alright, so if it involves fat dudes and running or fighting, its sport. Fat dudes walking or riding, not. Look, I'm not going to keep lobbing these softballs all night you know.

Real Sports should require:

-dedication and commitment to be good at it, with a lessening of ability with taking time off
-physical ability. ie. Dexterity, endurance, strength, hand/eye co-ordination, power, mental focus leading to physical execution
-raising your heart rate more than 50% above baseline.

chriss wrote:

steep4me wrote: just as I thought it was our turn, two more from their group walked up and said that they were next (even though they had been at the other side of the Gallery up until that moment)--they were part of this group from Maine.

Sounds as though you need to be more assertive. They are not next in line unless they have been waiting in line, have a rope in line, or anything reasonable. Suppose I am waiting in line for Route A as another climber is climbing Route B. If he/she is climbing as I am waiting, they are not getting on Route A before I do. The same holds for someone not at the crag, on the other side of the crag, or no where in sight. I have pointed this out several times and never had a problem.

I have never been told that I needed to be MORE assertive
I did try to be more diplomatic in my assertiveness than usual to be welcoming to out-of-state-ers. I said, Excuse me, how many more people are waiting to go on this climb? Answer was "7". I said, oh, wow, because we just wanted to do that one route and head over to another crag (is this not a clear hint?).The response was, "well, those girls and that guy and that guy are still waiting to go." (isn't this a "no"?)

When I thought it was my turn and the other two people showed up and said it was their turn, I said, "where did you come from? We have been waiting for 2 hours behind that last girl." They said, "we've been waiting too, for a long time." And then they got on the climb. How rude are you willing to be to get your turn? I pretty much asserted myself I think.

I think you should just rope up and start climbing even if they were on route, just hang your own draws next to theirs. That way no one has to wait

Clevis Hitch wrote:If I am not mistaken this is what the LAC is for. The climbing management plan is to address all of these issues. It's not a matter of 20 people in one group or ten groups of two. The impact is the same and the crowd is over-crowded. Tis will be addressed by the CMP. I forsee military being completely closed to climbing or completely given over to unmitigated impact. I think the former has more of a chance that the latter. So... I said all of that to say this. If you've got a project or something yo want to climb at military and possibly left flank you should get it done this summer because I see closure in its future.

To help calibrate the model for climbing impact it was assumed that Military was already outside of the Limits of Acceptable Change. When we first started into LAC the USFS had done some planning to conduct a restoration project at Military. This went to the wayside due to lack of USFS staffing and funding. Whenever the Climbing Management Plan goes into effect, the USFS will be looking to climbers to help fund a restoration of Military to bring it back within the LAC. I hope that the climbing community is willing to maintain funding of the RRGCC beyond the PMRP acquisition so that land management issues such as this can be addressed. Closure is the management action of last resort in LAC. Let's not let it go so far.

captain static wrote:

Clevis Hitch wrote:If I am not mistaken this is what the LAC is for. The climbing management plan is to address all of these issues. It's not a matter of 20 people in one group or ten groups of two. The impact is the same and the crowd is over-crowded. Tis will be addressed by the CMP. I forsee military being completely closed to climbing or completely given over to unmitigated impact. I think the former has more of a chance that the latter. So... I said all of that to say this. If you've got a project or something yo want to climb at military and possibly left flank you should get it done this summer because I see closure in its future.

To help calibrate the model for climbing impact it was assumed that Military was already outside of the Limits of Acceptable Change. When we first started into LAC the USFS had done some planning to conduct a restoration project at Military. This went to the wayside due to lack of USFS staffing and funding. Whenever the Climbing Management Plan goes into effect, the USFS will be looking to climbers to help fund a restoration of Military to bring it back within the LAC. I hope that the climbing community is willing to maintain funding of the RRGCC beyond the PMRP acquisition so that land management issues such as this can be addressed. Closure is the management action of last resort in LAC. Let's not let it go so far.

Granted that the LAC is a way for the USFS to save money by effectually using user groups to police themselves and causing them to "sign off" on closures. (The thing that drives me crazy about the National Forest using LAC is that excluding areas with congressional designations) that gas,oil and timber interests can and will be sold off and all of this LAC crap will go by the wayside.Anyhoo...

I don't know what the status is of Military and Left Flank. I know that they are the poster-child of overuse. If the USFS decided to close it tomorrow citing any number of causes would you be surprised. I think that the only answer at this point is to look at other areas for development. Look at the climbing assets in the southern region. I don't know why the CC isn't supplying bolts and outfitting crews ( The image of Rick Webber riding shotgun over a prison work crew on horseback with a shotgun in one hand and mirrored sunglasses just flashed through my mind...cold chills!)is beyond me.

climb2core wrote:Real Sports should require:

-dedication and commitment to be good at it, with a lessening of ability with taking time off
-physical ability. ie. Dexterity, endurance, strength, hand/eye co-ordination, power, mental focus leading to physical execution
-raising your heart rate more than 50% above baseline.

Hence the term "sport fucking".