RRC Archives

Andrew wrote: I really think you are missing the point. Money is limited and when you are competing for donations with many other groups, don't be surprised if people don't want to donate to a place that has luxuries far beyond any other climbing spot. The Webers can do what they want, but I just don't think it is financially sustainable, especially considering you are asking to raise 2x-3x more a year than the PMRP mortgage was.

What is the number of climbers/year at the PMRP vs Muir. If it is 2-3 x higher, then it seems like a reasonable number, since many of the "luxuries" are going to help deal with the increased traffic (toilets/trails/parking/road maintenence/erosion prevention and more development to add more areas to spread out the impact).

climb2core wrote:Andrew, I would contend that you vastly under estimate the financial resources of the climbing community at large. There is potential for more than enough to go around for everyone. The trick is developing the fundrasing platform.

I don't agree. There is a difference between how much people have to potentially give and how much they are willing to give. I also think you underestimate how many climbing groups are asking for money. At some point people get fundraiser fatigue. Not only that, but not everyone is a PT. Some struggle just to get enough cash to drive down, and won't go if they can't get four buddies to split gas.

I really hope it works out, good luck.

I know it's been said before, but it always seems worth saying again: Transfer ownership of the parking lot to an outside group (Wolfe County? MV Parking LLC?), charge $3-6 for parking. Or get effective liability coverage and just pay to park as-is. 20,000 of those 30,000 annual visitors are always going to be either too cheap, lazy, or uninformed to toss in their 2 bucks, so voluntary donations are just not going to meet the stated goal, so something does need to change. OK I'll shut up now.

climb2core wrote:Patrick, while I can understand the desire to compare MV to the PMRP. However, I would say that the comparison is mostly not relevant and will not yield anything of value. Think of the differences... Well maintained gravel roads, ample flat parking that is not a mud pit, emergency response supplies, well maintained trails, impact areas at base of crags, bridges, toilets at the parking lot and soon the valley floor, etc.

Soo like... 20,000? Your right that a comparison would be unfair but I'm still curious.

Ask a member of the RRGCC BOD. They are 501c3 non-profit, so this sort of info is well documented.

climb2core wrote:Patrick, while I can understand the desire to compare MV to the PMRP. However, I would say that the comparison is mostly not relevant and will not yield anything of value. Think of the differences... Well maintained gravel roads, ample flat parking that is not a mud pit, emergency response supplies, well maintained trails, impact areas at base of crags, bridges, toilets at the parking lot and soon the valley floor, etc.

I am not saying that either path is better or worse, just different. And as the land owners of MV, it is the Webers absolute right to decide how they will manage the land. Many, many people appreciate those attributes and that is the community that we hope to appeal to. The other group that might support MV are those that don't really believe in the Webers vision, but are pragmatic enough to realize that the busy season now would seem like the dead of winter without MV.

Well I hope your not preaching to me, I have not said anything in this whole thread.. I fully support the Webbers and Muir Valley. I could care less what they do with my money. It's just the right thing to do. Come on 2 or 3 bucks shouldn't hurt anyone's feelings.. It only takes one meeting with Rick and Liz to relize how cool and nice these people are. Some of you should be ashamed of the things you have said..

the $2-3 dollars per visit makes sense, mostly. where confusion arises is the 30,000 visitors a year (mentioned before but on p.1 of the Outside article, remember that?) I would still be interested in the number of waiver's filled out for access to Muir, but IF 30,000 is the number of individuals using Muir then THREE DOLLARS A YEAR PER PERSON is $90,000. DONE.

if however, the number of climbers/Muir users is, i'll estimate at 1500-3000, then a different argument should be made, or, uh, a different "fundraising platform" used.

thanks for reading. Ian, i love you.

clif wrote:the $2-3 dollars per visit makes sense, mostly. where confusion arises is the 30,000 visitors a year (mentioned before but on p.1 of the Outside article, remember that?) I would still be interested in the number of waiver's filled out for access to Muir, but IF 30,000 is the number of individuals using Muir then THREE DOLLARS A YEAR PER PERSON is $90,000. DONE.

I believe the 30,000 number is estimated visitor days. As in, I climb at muir on saturday and sunday two weekends in a row, that would be 4 visitor days. But yeah, the general point is that if everyone who walks down the trail dropped a couple (2-3) bucks every time, there would be no real issue to speak of.

Andrew wrote:

climb2core wrote:Andrew, I would contend that you vastly under estimate the financial resources of the climbing community at large. There is potential for more than enough to go around for everyone. The trick is developing the fundrasing platform.

I don't agree. There is a difference between how much people have to potentially give and how much they are willing to give. I also think you underestimate how many climbing groups are asking for money. At some point people get fundraiser fatigue. Not only that, but not everyone is a PT. Some struggle just to get enough cash to drive down, and won't go if they can't get four buddies to split gas.

I really hope it works out, good luck.

Very good point.

Ian, your survey actually made me think of this:

My ballpark for annual donations:

Muir Valley--$50 (plus trail day)
RRGCC-- $50 (plus Rocktoberfest)
TeamSuck-- $50
NRAC-- $50 (+ donating a few $$ through various raffles at local comps, plus Rendezvous)
Access Fund-- $50.
Random one-time climbing destinations-- a few $$s here and there

I looked at that, and I thought, hmmm, I go climbing to the New and the Red about equally, yet my donation to the Red is $150, and to the New is only $50. I probably should up the donation to NRAC, but I am feeling kinda stretched out already. So from my individual point of view, the fair thing to do would be to re-balance that $150/$50 to $100 and $100, but NRAC is not doing nearly as much moaning about money as various groups at the Red do, so somehow that makes me think that maybe NRAC is not hurting for money quite as much.... but that is probably not the case. This is probably where more fundraising efforts will help/prod/guilt someone like me to part with extra $50 for NRAC.

RRG is unique because there are multiple organizations competing for the money for basically the same region. Yes, we all know (or should know) that FOMV and RRGCC are separate, and you can always make the case that RRG is really big, in terms of number of routes, compared to many other climbing destinations, and is also seeing unprecedented crowds, so asking for more money at the Red is justified. This kind of reasoning works to certain extent. But then people reach the limit, too.

And yes, paychecks are not elastic for most people.

The climbing at the New is almost entirely on federal land versus the Red, where most of the (sport) action is on private property. There is no way to compare the two, as the New is largely supported by federal tax dollars.