RRC Archives

Without responding to each pro-falling/jumping argument given specifically, they suck.

To take a different tack-do you proponents ever retire ropes? Ignoring rocks, hardware, belayer qualifications....simple enough?

the lurkist wrote:... I do not make it a habit to purposely jump from anchors. I think it invites getting dropped. People who do it have a competent belay and do fine. Its all fine. But some kid will do it with an inept belay and will deck. That is my concern.

Mine too.

To make an arguement that the bolts are getting undue wear by falling on them is frankly wrong and unsupported.

Respectfully disagree. Stay tuned for supporting data.

...If Rick isn't comfortable with people falling on his gear, then he got into the wrong business. He should make all routes at MV obligate TR (seriously).

First, it is not my gear. It was put up by climbers who were given the privilege, at no charge, to develop routes on some particularly nice rock.

Second, it is not a "business." We've merely provided an opportunity for route developers to develop and climbers to climb. We make no money, as one would in a "business." Frankly, offering the climbing community the opportunity to bolt and climb down here has cost us a hell of a lot of money. I'm willing to run this uh..."business" as you call it, so long as visitors act responsibly (and leave their stupid rope tricks at home.)

Thirdly, I did not say anywhere that I was uncomfortable with people falling on "my" gear.

Back to your first point, Hugh, that I not only agree with but also stated the same in several previous posts, new climbers and belayers could "monkey see- monkey do" with disastrous results. All you have to do is spend a few minutes at any moderate sport wall in the Red on any weekend to see a lot of sloppy, inept, and reckless climbing and belaying. What are we all doing to improve this situation? Has the RRGCC done much of anything to instruct, mentor, and teach risk management to new climbers?

"Boy, that little gal over there keeps taking her brake hand off to scratch her butt, but hey, I'm not getting involved. That's their problem."

Isn't this the most prevalent attitude down here?

There are two videos out there that new climbers can watch to pick up pointers. One is Red River Ruckus. It illustrates how to climb irresponsibly, how to detonate a variety of objects with fire crackers, fall into mud puddles, rip up the landscape with a fusillade of AK-47 bullets, and paint a disrespectful image of local residents.

The other video is Ascending Rhythm. It shows the harmony of rock climbing with nature. There is not a single whipper in this video. But there are spectacular climbing sequences in places of breathtaking natural beauty (Yosemite.)

I would guess that most climbers down here in the Gorge (and those posting to this forum) choose to live the RR Ruckus Image. Fine.

However, to provide an alternative, it is our hope that Muir Valley will continue to grow and offer responsible climbers more of the Ascending Rhythm theme in a nature preserve/rock climbing arena.

It's not a matter of right and wrong here, just different choices.

Rick

I understand that weber is trying to protect himself and his assets from lawsuits, but there is a very large danger in having routes approved as "safe" and some deemed not. When you close down your crag in order to inspect every bolt/hanger/rock quality, and then re-open, saying that the inspection checked out, you are almost, in essence saying that the route has been deemed "safe". The trick with this, of course, is that it is not at all safe. Something could happen, and someone could be seriously hurt. And while i admire and greatly value the work that goes into putting up the routes, and then the subsequent work in inspecting those routes, you then open yourself up for the next obvious question: "how often will you inspect". If you decide to inspect once a year, who has deemed this enough? There is no standards setting organization for climbing preserves. What if another preserve (Veyo in Utah?) inspects theirs every six months? ouch? why didn't you?

So an accident does happen, and the person says: "but this route was inspected and i was told it was 'safe'". This actually opens you up to greater threat of a lawsuit going against you, not in your favor.

There is also double talk happening at Muir valley, which is unfortunately not coming from Rick. On one hand, all Muir valley paperwork says that it is for knowledgable, responsible rock climbers only, not for beginners, and yet there are walls called "practice wall", a place where folks can learn to clean from a very "low risk" (note: not safe) height, and other things that promote certain routes as great "first leads". So this increases the exposure to risk as well. If I can see this discrepecny, lawyers will be all over it.

My personal risk management opinion would be to cite the risks inherent in climbing, have bolting policies for those who bolt on the property (and a contract for the sport developers?), let people know that they could die from a bolt coming out of the rock, outlaw victory whips if you wish, and then focus attention on emergency response plans and other risk management arenas (you've done a great job at this). This shows you have a dedication to control the things you can (access to the valley floor via road for emergency vehicles), and that you are attempting to minimize risk (you can not completely remove it) on things you can not control (routes). If you do too much more, you are actually increasing your level of exposure to lawsuits.

no credible witness in the world would tell a jury that a bolt/rock system can be deemed completely safe or failproof.

Rick, I personally think your engineering research is amazing and i am glad you're doing it, but i wonder if it's not actually making your situation (re: risk management/lawsuits) worse rather than better. Be careful what your statistics "say".

Climbing will always be dangerous, take away that risk, and it is no longer climbing.

Well said JB. And in my opinion, I am not speaking for the RRGCC. That is why the answer to this question:

"Has the RRGCC done much of anything to instruct, mentor, and teach risk management to new climbers?"

..is No.

Speaking of risk management,

That big sign on the way up toward Miguels from the parkway that advertises the Via Feratta as "SAFE", and it is in the guidebook as "SAFE".

Man, that just scares the crap out of my risk manager side. Any time you advertise something as "safe", you are just inviting lawsuits... no matter what your waiver says. I shudder to think what'll happen if somebody gets hurt on the via feratta and decides to sue... just because of that billboard.

In the torrent closure thread I wrote:Apparently I have been giving people way too much credit, I'll drop all my other projects and start rolling with the RRGCC Babysitting Committee as it seems that should be the most pressing priority for the BOD these days.

That's not what I signed up for. I personally work to provide access, not hold people's hands. We promote responsible climbing but the RRGCC is not a group of climbing instructors. I would guess our advice will be to respect the landowners' guidelines, wherever they apply and not threaten access for everyone.

Now, not speaking for the BOD, as in this is a personal rant of one Charlie Rittenberry, free thinker and spokesperson of just the 7 different voices in my head......

I will not be sitting around telling people how or why they should be taking or not taking victory whips (aside from muir valley), climbing R routes, or soloing climbs. Climbers climb, some climb with their grandmas, some climb with their hard core freaky friends. I've done both and have enjoyed both. Fuck any of y'all that want to preach to me about the way I climb. I do not get paid to supervise any of y'all and I sure as hell do not pay any of you to supervise me.

So, the general public can feel free to babysit as many people as they want, but don't ask for my help in doing it and don't blame me for not doing it. Since so many other people are excited to do it, it will not be my gig.

Also, JB has it nailed on the risks of implied safety, every time someone talks about that it give me goose bumps......

Kentucky Recreational Use Statute

KENTUCKY REVISED STATUTES
TITLE XXXVI. STATUTORY ACTIONS AND LIMITATIONS
CHAPTER 411. RIGHTS OF ACTION AND SURVIVAL OF ACTIONS

411.190. Obligations of owner to persons using land for recreation

(1) As used in this section:
(a) "Land" means land, roads, water, watercourses, private ways and buildings, structures, and machinery or equipment when attached to the realty;
(b) "Owner" means the possessor of a fee, reversionary, or easement interest, a tenant, lessee, occupant, or person in control of the premises;
(c) "Recreational purpose" includes, but is not limited to, any of the following, or any combination thereof: hunting, fishing, swimming, boating, camping, picnicking, hiking, bicycling, horseback riding, pleasure driving, nature study, water-skiing, winter sports, and viewing or enjoying historical, archaeological, scenic, or scientific sites; and
(d) "Charge" means the admission price or fee asked in return for invitation or permission to enter or go upon the land but does not include fees for general use permits issued by a government agency for access to public lands if the permits are valid for a period of not less than thirty (30) days.

(2) The purpose of this section is to encourage owners of land to make land and water areas available to the public for recreational purposes by limiting their liability toward persons entering thereon for such purposes.

(3) Except as specifically recognized by or provided in subsection (6) of this section, an owner of land owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for recreational purposes, or to give any warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity on the premises to persons entering for such purposes.

(4) Except as specifically recognized by or provided in subsection (6) of this section, an owner of land who either directly or indirectly invites or permits without charge any person to use the property for recreation purposes does not thereby:
(a) Extend any assurance that the premises are safe for any purpose;
(b) Confer upon the person the legal status of an invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care is owed; or
(c) Assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to person or property caused by an act or omission of those persons.

(5) Unless otherwise agreed in writing, the provisions of subsections (3) and (4) of this section shall be deemed applicable to the duties and liability of an owner of land leased to the state or any subdivision thereof for recreational purposes.

(6) Nothing in this section limits in any way any liability which otherwise exists:
(a) For willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity; or
(b) For injury suffered in any case where the owner of land charges the person or persons who enter or go on the land for the recreational use thereof, except that in the case of land leased to the state or a subdivision thereof, any consideration received by the owner for the lease shall not be deemed a charge within the meaning of this section.

(7) Nothing in this section shall be construed to:
(a) Create a duty of care or ground of liability for injury to persons or property;
(b) Relieve any person using the land of another for recreational purposes from any obligation which he may have in the absence of this section to exercise care in his use of the land and in his activities thereon, or from the legal consequences of failure to employ such care; or
(c) Ripen into a claim for adverse possession, absent a claim of title or legal right.

( 8 ) No action for the recovery of real property, including establishment of prescriptive easement, right-of-way, or adverse possession, may be brought by any person whose claim is based on use solely for recreational purposes.

And with that, I'm going paddling. It's got implied DANGER!!!! and you can't hear people crying over the sound of the whitewater.

Sigh.

You folks posting here sure have a love for misquoting and setting up straw men to knock them over.

JB, I have never approved or presented a route as being "safe." We avoid using that word. We use the terms "risk reduction" or "risk management." I have stated many times in posts that rock climbing is inherently a dangerous sport and that those climbing in MV must choose to either accept that risk or don't climb here. Notices are posted all over MV stating that no guarantees whatsoever have been made as to the safety of the rock or the hardware affixed thereto.

For those who may not have read or have forgotten my post that announced the temporary closing of MV, here it is:

http://www.redriverclimbing.com/viewtop ... ht=#120523

No, it is not a matter of some routes "approved as 'safe' and some deemed not." Some are open for climbing, and some are waiting inspection.

As for periodically inventorying and inspecting routes for obvious defects or problems, it is the responsible thing to do, and the route developers here will continue this practice. And, we will temporarily close any route that the developers believe can be improved. Improved. NOT made safe, but perhaps lowering its inherent risk a bit.

As for the RRGCC, that purports to promote and support climbers in this area, it's my opinion that it has a moral obligation to include a training or mentoring program for new climbers. Google 501(c)(3) to learn that one of several functions a 501(c)(3) can choose as its purpose is to educate. It appears this isn't currently one of its purposes.

One final note: For the last six months, a free Risk Management Seminar has been in the works and will be offered at Muir later this year or early next with Jim Taylor and other qualified instructors providing rock climbing risk management and self rescue instruction. This will be directed at all levels of climbing expertise. All are welcome including those folks who just don't hanker to bein' preached to.

Rick

weber wrote:........ it's my opinion that it has a moral obligation to include a training or mentoring program for new climbers. Google 501(c)(3) to learn that one of several functions a 501(c)(3) can choose as its purpose is to educate. It appears this isn't currently one of its purposes......

Teach them what exactly? Should I teach them based on your opinions about whippers or Hugh's?

We educate about threats to climbing access and issues that are involved with our articles of incorporation. These are things most everyone can agree on.

RRGCC Articles of Incorporation read.....

The purpose for which the corporation is organized is for the charitable purposes of gaining, securing, and ensuring public open access to recreational rock climbing opportunities and encuraging the conservation of the natural climbing environment on publicly managed and privately owned land.

501(c)(3)'s also publish threats and record data regarding computer viruses. Your opinion notwithstanding, that is also outside our mission.

This place never ceases to amaze me............

I remember when rock climbing was just about having some fun. All this drama and _politics_ makes me want to sell my rack and start playing basketball or hockey again.

I can't wait to find another practice that inspires me physically and mentally, as climbing does, so i can leave all this BS behind. Climbing has officially grown to include too large a scope of our population. We've replace the subculture with popculture and gotten all the crap that comes with it.