RRC Archives

bob wrote: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.

Shamis wrote: 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.

caribe wrote:

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.

bob wrote: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.

Kentucky Recreational Use Statute wrote:(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.

Barnacle Ben wrote:

Kentucky Recreational Use Statute wrote:(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 wrote:Instead of just saying we need parking fees, do us all a favor and seek out qualified expert opinion.

Barnacle Ben wrote: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.