ACCESS TO ROADSIDE - closed unttil further notice

[Shamis]

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.

I'm sure you could figure out a way to break even on the deal, and delegate all tasks to somebody else. If you think the land, and the horde of new climbers are all going to manage/police themselves then you are living in a dream world. You can sperge about the climbing community all you want, but the fact remains that the number of climbers is growing fast, and even the climbers that want to help police things really have no authority to do anything short of fisticuffs.

[ReachHigh]

I'm sure you could figure out a way to break even on the deal, and delegate all tasks to somebody else. If you think the land, and the horde of new climbers are all going to manage/police themselves then you are living in a dream world. You can sperge about the climbing community all you want, but the fact remains that the number of climbers is growing fast, and even the climbers that want to help police things really have no authority to do anything short of fisticuffs.

that's a lot of work for a land owner, they should not have to take it upon them selves to regulate climbers. We are failing and it shouldn't be up to the land owner to fix this.

[climb2core]

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.

Ha Ha, Caribe, you crack me up. You pick apart research as if you a have a fucking clue as to what a parking fee would due to traffic at the Red and long term sustainability. What is YOUR real world experience with land management models? What other US based models can you site as examples. Instead of just saying we need parking fees, do us all a favor and seek out qualified expert opinion. Maybe you are that guy, but from your current posts it doesn't come across.

[Climbingrocks]

Then just charge for the PMRP

[caribe]

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.

$10 to park at your own risk with a warning not to leave valuables in their autos. What are they going to take you to court for, a broken window? At some point this has to be workable.

The Graining Fork Nature Preserve clearly delineates the boundaries and these include the Road Side Parking Lot. http://www.gfnp.org/Site/Boundaries.html
There may be easement/ trash pickup, issues/ agreements with the park between the river and the parking lot. Charging for parking may not work for RS if you are correct about who owns it Bob. Between you and the website there are two opinions.

[Barnacle Ben]

(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.

emphasis added.

For all intents and purposes, parking at Muir (or PMRP) is tantamount to using the land at Muir. You would be hard pressed to argue 'hey, we're not charging you to use the land, just charging you to park on the land.' It's a distinction without a difference, as they like to say, and I don't think a court or an insurer would buy it.

[climb2core]

(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.

emphasis added.

For all intents and purposes, parking at Muir (or PMRP) is tantamount to using the land at Muir. You would be hard pressed to argue 'hey, we're not charging you to use the land, just charging you to park on the land.' It's a distinction without a difference, as they like to say, and I don't think a court or an insurer would buy it.

Not that I am buying into parking fees as the solution... but what if RRGCC bought the parking lot and charged for it? Then walk across the road on to the Preserve property.

[caribe]

Instead of just saying we need parking fees, do us all a favor and seek out qualified expert opinion.

I am not just saying we need parking fees. I am offering some argumentation regarding that fact. I am using the research that you posted which is apparently in favor of the parking fee proposal. What more can you possibly want from me? The experiment is worth running. There might be something hidden and there might be unintended consequences, but why should we go another year bitching about the same issues?

If Bob is right about the parking area across from RS then the parking fee idea is a non-starter for RS obviously.

[toad857]

This same discussion has been had multiple times... (Muir, then Torrent, now Roadside). But it doesn't go anywhere!

Parking fees & permits are active solutions... (constant attention & manpower). They would certainly drive down attendance & raise money, but too difficult to implement, evidently. Certainly for PMRP. Move on.

I think what's needed are passive solutions (closing a crag entirely is one). What about others? Someone mentioned a rotating closure for all crags. That is still a good idea, and it's easily done.

[caribe]

For all intents and purposes, parking at Muir (or PMRP) is tantamount to using the land at Muir. You would be hard pressed to argue 'hey, we're not charging you to use the land, just charging you to park on the land.' It's a distinction without a difference, as they like to say, and I don't think a court or an insurer would buy it.

Could someone who has experience with KY Rec. Land Use Law comment with some explanation? I am curious about what KY law says about this. Ben you may be right. In that case the proposal is dead.