RRC Archives

your trying way to hard to sell this "yank the mank". Just grab a crew a do it, I dont care a bit to help

I have been watching this thread with some degree of trepidation for some time now … apparently one goal is to close any privately owned cliff that does not conform to the vision of policing and rules regarding gear, fixed or otherwise, by means of the creation of a general standard for any and all gear left on cliffs. All of a sudden if I let someone leave something on my cliff, regardless of reason, I am responsible and liable for its condition and maintenance … regardless of who left it, etc. … now I am the responsible party, as the identified landowner; the alternatives are to police with vigor and strip all gear unattended (doesn’t matter how long or short it has been there) or to risk a lawsuit condoned by the community consensus on gear maintenance.
All gear left, regardless of reason, is abandoned; no matter the state of that gear, the reason for its abandonment or the circumstance surrounding the same … all of it. All of it is suspect at the best and should be treated as such. The “nanny state” thinking that “saves” the ignorant only serves to increase the reliance on the gear of those that have gone before by the ignorant as the “reliable trail blazing” of the pioneers. To think or produce any rule, policy, custom or standard invariably ropes the private land owners into the round robin of “safety” and “insurance” and creates an obligation and potential expense on their part that would not exist without climbing on their property.
You are proposing, in the end, that I close climbing, that all other private land owners seriously reconsider climbing and that climbing on private property can only occur with your intervention and oversight. To do otherwise would create expense, obligation, etc. on their part.
Ain’t going to do it. Now or ever.
Bob

Privately owned land was never in the scope of this discussion. Just as the Webers set their policies, you would do the same for Torrent. NFS land was never on the proposal either as there are already standards in place. These are voluntary ethics that were proposed for the PMRP only and are no different IMO than "don't tr through the chains"

Below are the proposed voluntary ethics for the PMRP: that are not even supported by the RRGCC.

1.) Be responsible for the gear you climb on. Do not assume it is safe.
2.) Do Not "donate" any new aluminum gear to act as fixed gear for any route. DO pull any mank gear as you encounter it.
3.) Try to limit your project draws to about 30 days.
4.) Limit fully equipped steel gear to the very steep and chains/cleaning biner to moderately steep.
5.) Promote education and awareness of these ethics in the community.

Point 1.) and 5.) are obviously not in contention. The intent is to promote safety through education and reduction of mank gear and NOT to put anyone at increased liability. I am not sure how voluntarily choosing to follow a few simple ethics that would decrease the mank on land that you do not own/operate/manage and that would encourage education could put you at risk?

The Rifle Climbers Coalition has some ethics for fixed gear in Rifle. They limit the amount of fixed draws that go up and hold an event to check and remove mank gear. Does that put you at risk?

Perhaps add one more thing:
6.) Any land owners wishes will always supercede any ethic mentioned above.

Dear RRG climbers. Jerry Springer just called and his ratings are falling faster than peoples individual level of responsibility when out climbing at the Red. Apparently all of his viewers find the drama at the Red regarding chipping, perma draws and downgrading far more interesting than 13 year old moms that don't know who there babies daddy is.

Want resolution to the "issues" at the Red?

Step one: Log off

Step two: go climbing, at the cliff and talk to people.

Its called mentoring. It is something that was done prior to internet forums and Facebook. Its hard to remember the dark ages I know.

bob wrote: … apparently one goal is to close any privately owned cliff that does not conform to the vision of policing and rules regarding gear, fixed or otherwise, by means of the creation of a general standard for any and all gear left on cliffs.

First rule of fight club:

1.) Be responsible for the gear you climb on. Do not assume it is safe.


From the Kentucky Recreational Use Statute:

(6) Nothing in this section limits in any way any liability which otherwise exists:
(a) For willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity;


This is a powerful statute that is largely the reason why people that own private property can let us climb on their land and not be held liable. It basically this means that if you make efforts to warn people that come on to your land for recreational use that dangers do exist, that you cannot be held liable. For example, cliff-lines are high, bolts may fail, gear found should be assumed to be unsafe, etc.

I respect Dr. Bob and I am well aware of what he has contributed to the Red. However, I still fail to see how these voluntary ethics not designed or invoked on his property could open him up to liability. If anything, these common sense ethics would further serve to warn individuals of dangers and inherent risks of climbing. I am of course not a lawyer, but I sure would be interested in the opinion of one on this subject.

Happy Thanksgiving Everybody! looks like a beautiful day to be

climb2core wrote: I am of course not a lawyer, but I sure would be interested in the opinion of one on this subject.

Clauserunt FUTUO ascendit atque abeo.

Google translate Latin -English.