RRC Archives

special for today only, two for the price of one

bcombs wrote:

caribe wrote:Just because someone checks gear to make sure it is sound does not mean that someone extends this assurance to ANYONE.

I would be concerned that it is looked at as senior members of a user group doing inspection. I don't know how a community organized gear check does not get spun around as that type of verification. A lawyer being able to point to a link here at RRC stating an initiative to spank the mank or whatever, seems like some liability comes with that. Is it enough to actually win a lawsuit? I'm sure someone on here can answer. I just do not like the idea of a group, trained or otherwise, going out and doing spot inspection on fixed gear in a broad effort like that. Again, $0.02.

Giant Penises!!!!

I understand your point. It sucks how an effort to keep things safe could even possibly make you liable enough to need a defense. It would be nice to get a legal perspective. What about the people that put on uclimb... are they liable if some decks from not tying correctly? What about trail days... If you slip and break you ankle on the trail, can you sue the volunteer group that built it?

caribe wrote:

Clevis Hitch wrote:

Meadows wrote:I don't see how we, the community, and the recreators are setting ourselves up for a lawsuit.

411.190. Obligations of owner to persons using land for recreation
(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;

Just because someone checks gear to make sure it is sound does not mean that someone extends this assurance to ANYONE.

What you've got to understand that if any assurance is given that anything is safe, for any purpose, even for purposes other than what the recreational activity encompasses, i.e. you fall down hiking to the crag, Your original intent was to climb but you fucked yourself up walking, if a lawyer can prove that ANY assurance for any activity was offered. Then the landowner IS NOT COVERED UNDER THE KENTUCKY RECREATIONAL STATUTE.

Clevis Hitch wrote:What you've got to understand that if any assurance is given that anything is safe, for any purpose, even for purposes other than what the recreational activity encompasses, i.e. you fall down hiking to the crag, Your original intent was to climb but you fucked yourself up walking, if a lawyer can prove that ANY assurance for any activity was offered. Then the landowner IS NOT COVERED UNDER THE KENTUCKY RECREATIONAL STATUTE.

Who is giving assurances??? I think the take home message EVERYONE agrees on is that there is NO ASSURANCE and you need to check your shit. Just because people are willing to go out and check their shit on the same day, doesn't mean that they have given any type assurance to anyone else. But it is pointless to argue about law unless you are have a law degree and specialize in liability.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/assurance


Do you want me to consult a lawyer. My lawyer would say and be willing to sue under any pretense that I offered. To say that approving a method with the explicit intent improving the quality, longevity or safety (any one of those three) isn't an assurance, then the word has no meaning.

How about this. The official policy of anyone associated with climbing and with the land owners is this: all gear is suspect and should be regarded as such. All gear left anywhere for any purpose will be regarded as abandoned and falls under the guise of adandoned property and can be disposed of in any manner that the "finder" sees fit.


C2C- the yank the mank is actually the same thing that I'm saying...no arguement here...

I almost took the new petzl draws off, pure imagination yesterday, just because I need new draws and the meeting people said that it was cool to do...

That is a slippery slope they have created, and I think they need to go back to the drawing board.

Freaky Friday, COOL!

ynp1 wrote:I almost took the new petzl Penises off, pure imagination yesterday, just because I need new Penises and the meeting people said that it was cool to do...

That is a slippery slope they have created, and I think they need to go back to the drawing board.

+1

Better not to have a meeting at all if the result is to issue an official statement from a pseudo-consensus implicitly condoning theft as the "local ethic."

Ha ha, I don't think anyone has implied that the consensus of their small meeting implies consensus of the Red. It was one epically small group interested in the stewardship of the Red. Their goal was not to form THE ethic for all of us to follow, but rather to come up with A proposal that could be further supported or refuted. Additionally, the premise of removing hardware from a climb was not to claim it as booty, but to provide you an opportunity to climb on your own gear. The only suggestions I have seen for the removed gear were to leave at the base or top of the climb. Of any of the people who attended, please name specifically who either stated they intended to claim the gear as booty, or someone you even THINK would take it. I sent out a fb message to 20 or so climbers from central Ohio asking their opinion on this... So far, crickets. At least this group is taking time to discuss it

i've got nothing but just remembered that Chris McNamara (~?, the supertopo guy?) made a mission of cleaning up all the shit and just did it relatively quietly and by setting a good example and not by projecting some 'concensus'.

then i guess there's the Everest clean up efforts, but that just may be because guides and vendors might look like squalid hookers amid the heap.

What? Clif are you drunk, I could not follow that post. Maybe in an hour when I am drunk I will understand it better.