Page 3 of 5
Re: Which is better?
Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 3:08 pm
by potts
ray wrote:Which is better overall for a climbing area? From rock quality to atmosphere.
Well, if by "atmosphere" you mean the stench of dog and human shit and piss, poorly kept trails, a godawful access road, insanely noisy dogs and climbers, zero restrooms, and inadequate parking, then there is no contest - the PMRP has all this and more.
Re: Which is better?
Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 3:59 pm
by clif
why do you hate America?
Re: Which is better?
Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 4:34 pm
by sarahinreallife
potts wrote:ray wrote:Which is better overall for a climbing area? From rock quality to atmosphere.
Well, if by "atmosphere" you mean the stench of dog and human shit and piss, poorly kept trails, a godawful access road, insanely noisy dogs and climbers, zero restrooms, and inadequate parking, then there is no contest - the PMRP has all this and more.
So many lolz.
Re: Which is better?
Posted: Wed May 29, 2013 4:59 pm
by qmhill
I thought Muir was a gym?
Re: Which is better?
Posted: Thu May 30, 2013 1:16 am
by caribe
Thank goodness for Muir, an open university.
Re: Which is better?
Posted: Thu May 30, 2013 2:35 pm
by Bum
I chose Muir Valley because I like the Amusement Park parking and climbing with Boy Scouts.
Re: Which is better?
Posted: Thu May 30, 2013 2:38 pm
by Meadows
potts wrote:ray wrote:Which is better overall for a climbing area? From rock quality to atmosphere.
Well, if by "atmosphere" you mean the stench of dog and human shit and piss, poorly kept trails, a godawful access road, insanely noisy dogs and climbers, zero restrooms, and inadequate parking, then there is no contest - the PMRP has all this and more.
I don't think the Lode was on this poll.
But you're right, there are zero restrooms, which I didn't realize was a requirement for going into the woods.
Re: Which is better?
Posted: Thu May 30, 2013 2:39 pm
by dustonian
Meadows wrote:But you're right, there are zero restrooms, which I didn't realize was a requirement for going into the woods.
It definitely should be given the extremely high volume of traffic in the PMRP. No environmental impact process in the nation would approve what is going on there. And I am so over walking out of crags with a full bag of garbage clipped to the pack.
Re: Which is better?
Posted: Thu May 30, 2013 2:44 pm
by Meadows
BTW, why are we comparing land privately owned by a wealthy couple vs. land owned via donations from the climbing community?
Shouldn't it be Muir vs. Torrent or Muir vs. Roadside or Muir vs. HP40; and PMRP vs. (well geez, I haven't visited any climber-owned land outside of PMRP, just government-owned, climber accessible land).
Re: Which is better?
Posted: Thu May 30, 2013 2:49 pm
by Meadows
dustonian wrote:Meadows wrote:But you're right, there are zero restrooms, which I didn't realize was a requirement for going into the woods.
It definitely should be given the extremely high volume of traffic in the PMRP. No environmental impact process in the nation would approve what is going on there. And I am so over out of crags with a full bag of garbage clipped to the pack.
According to all the statistics that Weber posts, there isn't that much traffic in the PMRP.
Given though that there is in fact a lot of traffic in the PMRP from climbers and the OC, it would be nice to see bathrooms and that has been a discussion in the past on this forum. At the time though, the PMRP mortgage payment was all that could be afforded, and there was concern about vandalism. I'm not sure of current state of affairs or how that it could be possible after seeing the RRGCC kiosk was burned down and the PMRP immediately vandalized. The PMRP doesn't have full-time residents and access to it is from different directions and spread out.