RRC Archives

caribe wrote: You don't have to pay anyone to monitor anything. Have volunteers spot monitor here and there. People are basically honest. 99% of the people will pay.

People would probably pay, but getting volunteers ... probably wouldn't work. Great ideas and I love that you are thinking, but I can't see a viable structure that would allow the RRGCC (or Stephens/Haight) at least to charge for parking. We can discuss it in further detail at the gym.

Meadows wrote:

caribe wrote: You don't have to pay anyone to monitor anything. Have volunteers spot monitor here and there. People are basically honest. 99% of the people will pay.

People would probably pay, but getting volunteers ... probably wouldn't work. Great ideas and I love that you are thinking, but I can't see a viable structure that would allow the RRGCC (or Stephens/Haight) at least to charge for parking. We can discuss it in further detail at the gym.

Guys, go with evidenced based research. You are all ASSUMING that charging for parking fixes the problems...

Here is what the research says: (repost I know... but I think worth reading twice.)

Some work carried out in the United Kingdom suggests that reducing access for climbers may have an impact on
the popularity of sites. Realising that simple entry fees to parks were not a useful barrier, Hanley, Alvarez-Farizo
and Shaw (2002b) tested the implications of introducing car parking fees and measures to increase access time at
three popular sites in Scotland. The study found that ‘a 2h increase in walk-in time in the Cairngorms reduces
predicted visits by 44% … £5/day car-parking fee reduces predicted trips to the Cairngorms by 31%’ Hanley
(2002b:167). However, it was identified that knock-on effects would be felt at other, substitute sites. It is
suggested that such policies may be rather reactive, and in the long run do nothing to combat the problems
resultant from the increasing popularity of rock-based activities.

Find another solution.

Taken from:
http://www.sustainabletourismonline.com ... e-research

Parking fees with property usage still under KY state recreation laws would increase access. Imagine you are a landowner. You are aware of a core of people who will take care of the crag you own. They will organize trail days and you can set limits on the number of people who visit. Your land goes up in price because you own a cliff that makes money with no risk. If there is a problem you can close it. At today's interest rate if you have $100k in the bank it brings in about $70 a month in interest. A popular crag would blow that sum away easily. Obviously as a landowner you would think about allowing climbers on your property to develop the cliff.

caribe wrote:

climb2core wrote:Paying for parking may deter parking at ONE crag... but if you have to pay to park at all crags then it won't matter. I spend $100 on gas every trip down. What is $10 for parking? What would be more effective is making an extended approach... make the entrance at the far end of the Preserve...

You are missing the point. The parking fee, whatever it is, will help pay the rent and upkeep. If it cuts down the patronage by 30% that is fine too. In fact every statement you made seems to be in favor of the parking fee even though your overall post was against it.

This is a good point, and I feel that you would see some areas seeing less impact. With Roadside though, it looks like the problems causing access wouldn't be mitigated with any parking fees etc. In respect to radside: Permadraws are an easy strip, that's gone quick. "New" route, also can be gone quick with the right person...

The rovers issue especially @ roadside and other areas in the RRG is a little more "long term problem"... I've never been a fan of dogs @ the crags and it seems to be an issue in more areas than just the roadside/torrent/muir...almost all owners seem to play the "my dog is cool" and "i'm going to break the rule because my dog is actually a person" but a few of them actually leave fido @ home, best practice on busy weekends imo...that is, if they don't leave them in the car in the webers parking lot... because technically, the sign sez no dogs "in the muir valley". True story (just not at the muir, another area....)

Meadows wrote:People would probably pay, but getting volunteers ... probably wouldn't work. Great ideas and I love that you are thinking, but I can't see a viable structure that would allow the RRGCC (or Stephens/Haight) at least to charge for parking. We can discuss it in further detail at the gym.

You mean you'll see me at the gym that you said would NEVER work in Lexington . . . is that the gym you are referring to Stephanie? Seriously, you made a negative comment and it was shot down logically. Now what else do you have? Bring it! I love you to death Steph, but this idea that keeps surfacing needs to be tried. What we have now is likely not sustainable.

caribe wrote:Parking fees with property usage still under KY state recreation laws would increase access. Imagine you are a landowner. You are aware of a core of people who will take care of the crag you own. They will organize trail days and you can set limits on the number of people who visit. Your land goes up in price because you own a cliff that makes money with no risk. If there is a problem you can close it. At today's interest rate if you have $100k in the bank it brings in about $70 a month in interest. A popular crag would blow that sum away easily. Obviously as a landowner you would think about allowing climbers on your property to develop the cliff.

Parking fees could reduce patronage at select crags. Which may be a good thing for something like RS. But it will not deter overall numbers at the Red. I don't believe RS is being closed due to lack of funds for up keep. If that were the case, Grant would have said as much. Again, raising money for RRGCC is a good thing too. Parking fees will not provide long term sustainability though.

climb2core wrote:Some work carried out in the United Kingdom suggests that reducing access for climbers MAY have an impact on the popularity of sites.

Good!

climb2core wrote:Realising that simple entry fees to parks were not a useful barrier, Hanley, Alvarez-Farizo
and Shaw (2002b) tested the implications of introducing car parking fees and measures to increase access time at
three popular sites in Scotland.

NO one is looking for a useful barrier.

climb2core wrote:The study found that ‘a 2h increase in walk-in time in the Cairngorms reduces
predicted visits by 44% … £5/day car-parking fee reduces predicted trips to the Cairngorms by 31%’ Hanley
(2002b:167).

This fact is not even relevant to what is being discussed. . . .

climb2core wrote:However, it was identified that knock-on effects would be felt at other, substitute sites.

Good! Move climbers from one venue that is over-popular to another that is less popular.

climb2core wrote:It is suggested that such policies may be rather reactive, and in the long run do nothing to combat the problems resultant from the increasing popularity of rock-based activities.

Other than pay the bills . . . You are talking about the UK. Taxes support the natural areas you are talking about. Money is not an issue. They are trying to limit access and it is not working for a bunch of nature-hungry Britons looking to breath on holiday away from Manchester. The structure of climbing in that gorge nowhere like that of the study you are quoting. Furthermore, everything that appears to be applicable seems to support the plan on the table. Are we really going to see X pages of bullshit in which you are blaming the climber deltaX% for being dropped?

climb2core wrote:Parking fees could reduce patronage at select crags. Which may be a good thing for something like RS. But it will not deter overall numbers at the Red. I don't believe RS is being closed due to lack of funds for up keep. If that were the case, Grant would have said as much. Again, raising money for RRGCC is a good thing too. Parking fees will not provide long term sustainability though.

1) Parking fees would be good for RS. 2) It is no longer all about RS.

Rocky Top wrote: The rovers issue especially @ roadside and other areas in the RRG is a little more "long term problem"... I've never been a fan of dogs @ the crags and it seems to be an issue in more areas than just the roadside/torrent/muir...almost all owners seem to play the "my dog is cool" and "i'm going to break the rule because my dog is actually a person" but a few of them actually leave fido @ home, best practice on busy weekends imo...that is, if they don't leave them in the car in the webers parking lot... because technically, the sign sez no dogs "in the muir valley". True story (just not at the muir, another area....)

just leashing the damn thing and a little bit of training eliminates 90% of the dog problem, but that requires a little responsibility and fore thought.

The parking area for Roadside is a county park ... it is owned and maintained by Wolfe county. I would think that Wolfe County would be less than enthused with a need for further patrols and oversight at an area on their outermost boundary.

Any charge for a "service" comes with a legal requirement of "due diligence". If I charge you to park at Torrent then I have to have a "safe" parking area for you; I have to maintain, police, and be a presence ... all at a cost. When you propose this as a "solution" you are proposing that owners spend ... this will not go down well. Property owners should not have to go to any expense to allow access and should be able to be assured that access will cost them nothing … we need to be able to police ourselves. It is true that some will violate the trust but, if we do not step up to the need to be a good steward we will lose, not only the access that exists we will also lose the potential climbing that is out there.

Again and again and again ... if you force me, as a private land owner, into the position of having to be the enforcer then I will take the avenue of least effort and cost and (ban/close/not open) the property to climbing ... this costs me nothing surveillance costs me daily.