RRC Archives

round and round we go.

Hi Grant, Tod Anderson here, a voice from the past. Hopefully you remember our exploits there at the Red & Roadside crag from, ahem, 1984.... I'm sorry to hear about some of the excessive impacts at Roadside and I hope that there can be a way to resolve things to give you less frustration and allow climbing as well. I made it back to the Red about a year ago for the first time since we climbed there and despite being an old broken climber found the place amazing. I even took my son there for Spring Break and Roadside was the first place we went. It seems that there is a core local community that are really able to help with these situations and they are some pretty good folks. Hopefully they'll weigh in here or contact you to get the ball rolling. I agree with you about the fixed draw thing, it looks pretty awful compared to just the bolt hangers and in the vast majority of cases is unneeded. Overall the place was in pretty good shape considering the popularity & we picked up a few tidbits of tape, etc. to help out too. I hope that the local climbing community will step up and show some appreciation for the great job you have done securing a great climbing resource and I hope to see you back there one of these days.

Not all dogs are horrible. I have a dog and I know that she has her bad dog moments, but as soon as she has those moments I tie her up or leave the crag. I have seen many people do the same and encourage fellow dog owners who's dogs are acting up to follow this model. Generally if you bring it up in a respectful way people respond positively. I fully agree that there should be a leash rule and maybe even just some general rules about no aggressive/barky/trouble/etc dogs allowed (that way if someone's dog is acting up there are rules people can point to). However, I know a lot of climbers who live in their vehicles and have no where to leave their pups. A lot of these same people show up for trail days, give to the RRGCC regularly, and are respectful of crags and their regulations. Not to mention, humans, generally speaking, tend to cause more harm to crags than dogs do. If people who treat the Red like crap can go to the crag, I should be allowed to bring my dog. (unless it's on private property) Just say'n.

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.

This exact issue was raised in a case before the Kentucky Court of Appeals, and the court found that charging a small parking fee per vehicle did not constitute a "charge" under the KY recreational use statute. City of Louisville vs. Silcox, 977 S.W.2d 254 (Ky.Ct.App 1998).

The court looked at whether the parking fee was really just a parking fee or a quid pro quo for accessing the land. Two main factors persuaded the court that the parking fee was not a charge to access the land: (1) the fact that the fee was charged per vehicle and not per person and (2) no fee was charged for those accessing the land on foot, by bike or by parking in a more distant lot where no fee was charged.

So a landowner can charge a parking fee without losing the protection of the KY recreation statute. However, one fact to keep in mind is that, in the case above there were alternative ways to access the land without paying the parking fee. Lands like Muir and PMRP are remote enough that driving is the only practical way to climb there. So B Ben's right that charging to park is really the same as charging for access. But if the fee is per vehicle rather than per person, and people who hike in (yeah right) aren't charged, it's probably ok.

[Disclaimer--this post should not be considered legal advice. Any landowner considering a parking fee should consult a lawyer.]

I don't read the climbing rags, so I'll ask...

Short of an ad for the access fund, do the magazines address these sorts of access and overuse issues? Do they ever print a "how to not be a douche at the cliff" article? Do the professional climbers that tour all the various outdoor venues ever step up and preach the gospel of not fucking things up?

Hey Toad why dont u write an article and snd it the magazine like climbing,or rock and ice to see if they will publish it.

Do you realize how long it took me to type that last post? Do you know how many times I had to hit the backspace key?

you guys know their are more crags out their.
plenty of rock and no lines to stand in get a rack of gear and go find a crag that is empty their is a bunch out their
i cant beleive climbers stand in line at roadside or muir or pmrp for gods sake get out in the woods pick your shit up leave dog at home and stop fucking up for us all

Is that really all one sentence?

Toad wrote:Is that really all one sentence?

eat toad shit you got the message