RRC Archives

Wes wrote:All well and good, but you act like those are to only two choices, both involve continuing to boulder and develop. How about option 3: Stop bouldering there until you have solid access with the land owners worked out. Tell no one, and don't even go there yourself until it is legit. That would be the right way.

now that's more like it. i agree. done. i won't be making the trip to mainside until i figure out who owns it. next stop:

county clerks office

though it is worth noting that "telling no one" is kinda kaput from the first instance. which makes my abstinence almost wholly symbolic. and just to clarify, the area appeared to be on DBNF property throughout early development (you know, when you didn't know it existed). in fact, a ranger suggested it was not private property. if you saw the area and had the data we had, you would have probably made the same decision.

-t

come on what's yer' name, -nobody cares, climber fx. nobody owns the land, they just owe more taxes and debt.

clif wrote:come on what's yer' name, -nobody cares, climber fx. nobody owns the land, they just owe more taxes and debt.

nice. my first inclination was to point out all US property was 'stolen' from people who didn't really indulge in property rights - per se - to begin with. next move: explain how pissing in an alley downtown is no different than putting chalk on rocks in the woods; at least in the context of property rights and transgression.

honestly, i grew up in place where trespassing could get you shot in the face. so that's sort of my litmus test for right and wrong with regard to private property. if it looks like i won't get killed (i.e. right next to a road, not near a house, and not adorned with signage) it looks right to me.

-t

Good luck with access, and thanks for posting this information. It seems like a solid bouldering area, and I'm psyched to check it out someday.

those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it.
See- Hominy Hole.
Everything you said we said to justify climbing at the Hominy Hole, and it was on Forest Service property!

tell us more Lurk, since you have a history of screwing up access for generations to come....

seriously, would love to hear the timeline and history of hominy, oil crack, pocket, et al...

but didn't we also bolt the Lode before gaining solid access? how about choco today? and how about beer trailer, the zoo, etc.....seems like these are more land owners not caring versus actually giving us "solid" access....

wilson has done a good job keeping the bouldering on the down low, so I give him props. I went and visited with the other land owner again today, and have secured tentative access to his property for very small groups..he wants to see how we handle ourselves before carte blanche.

I am telling you.
Don't make the mistake we made with the Hominy Hole.
Lode was discovered and Jeff Moll very quickly before there was wide spread knowledge about it had gotten permission for carte balnche with Tom Hall.
Beer Trailer had two routes and only a few knw about it and it became off limits by the owners and no one went there for years until recently.
Chocolate Factory is on PRMP land.
The other really huge loss is the Pocket Wall. It had world acclaim and visited by eveyone the world over and the owner found out and was pissed. Becuase of this misstep the owner had written into the deed the State Park bought that no climbing would ever occur again.
Be advised...

there is the wise sage I know and love.

however, I disagree with you on choco being on PMRP....but I am not 100% committed to my disgagreement....lol

any insight into the Zoo? I had always assumed it was private land but seems like no one cares or knows who actually owns it....

the lurkist wrote:those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it.
See- Hominy Hole.
Everything you said we said to justify climbing at the Hominy Hole, and it was on Forest Service property!

i know the history. but the situation is different. not in the "it'll never happen to me" sense, but different in the scale of impact, the type of activity taking place there, and the economic value (no lumber, unsuitable for dwellings, etc..) of the land in question. based on this set of differences, i'm confident we will not lose this area. but if we do lose it, i think everyone should know i've already done all of the problems under v10 BLAM!

but seriously. could we lose it? sure. do i regret climbing there without permission? no way. 99% of the bouldering i've done in this state is hopping out of the car to climb 1 or 2 almost-but-not-quite-decent problems, packing it up, and never going back. if i asked for permission every time i saw a boulder on the side of the road i'd never get to climb; i'd be living at a county clerk's office. so permission - for me - seems like something you ask for when you want to continue going somewhere.

in that sense, i haven't created an access issue so much as i've created a reason to obtain permission. zero boulder problems? no need to ask anyone for anything. lots of boulder problems? you've got a reason to ask.

but like i said, i don't think we'll "lose" anything so this is mostly just rhetorical blabbering on my end.

cheers!

-t

tbwilsonky, Your sense of entitlement is why there are access issues with climbing. You DO NOT have a right to climb anywhere anytime unless you have permission...period. I am with Hugh on this one, history will be repeated here. The "climb first then get permission later" is what needs to stop!