RRC Archives

[quote="climb2core"...if there is a succession plan that gives ownership to the climbing community (as in the PMRP), I believe financial resources can be secured. ...[/quote]

I would suggest you have this backwards. To create a realistic, workable succession plan, it is prudent to first gain assurance that one will be able to secure financial resources. This is just basic good business practice.

Rick

stix wrote:my favorite climbing area is not open and will not be open any time in the near future so it is in fact not up to ME.

Then be extra glad there are people who are willing to hold a discussion, unlike many crag owners.

stix wrote:seems silly to put the responsibility on US to meet the financial needs of a place that has such ridiculous extravagances like 2 way radios, camera's, massive parking lots, roads being moved, concrete bridges, etc.

Sounds more like the thought process of someone who walks right by the donation box, searching for a justification to hold onto that $5 bill in their pocket. Maybe that's not you, but I'm going to make the point anyway.

And besides:

-Radios save lives. Oh, Sure, "climbing is dangerous, accept the risk, blah blah blah." But Nobody wants to see a fellow climber die.
-Cameras protect your vehicles (broken windows suck... ask all the people who've had that happen to them in the PMRP this past year)
-Parking lots, roads, and bridges are infrastructure for long term sustainability (e.g., road to sore heel, the muddy landscape of the lode parking lot getting worse every year)

weber wrote:

stix wrote:that's all cute and all rick...to say that muir valley staying open is in anyone's hands but YOURS is bullshit.

Thank you for your viewpoint Keenan. I doubt if your favorite climbing area had 30,000 annual visitors. The enormous number of climbers who come to Muir mandated our "extravagant" expenses. Can you imagine what impact 30,000 climbers peeing and pooping on the land would be like? Restrooms were a necessity. Can you imagine what the outcome might have been for the five critically injured climbers at Muir last year without an emergency road for the EMS vehicle and emergency communications gear? Two almost assuredly would have died. Even more expensive than big parking lots would be the cost of personnel to police and limit the attendance. We've tried "lot closed - please go elsewhere" signs, but climbers then park all over the neighbors' property. Every big expense you noted was necessary due to the huge number of folks who want to climb here.

Rick

Not saying there is an easy solution but... More roads = More traffic. and It's been peer reviewed.

http://www.infrastructurist.com/2011/06 ... s-traffic/

“People, it seems, find it hard to believe that the cure for congestion is not more facilities for congestion,”

weber wrote:I would suggest you have this backwards. To create a realistic, workable succession plan, it is prudent to first gain assurance that one will be able to secure financial resources. This is just basic good business practice.

Rick

When I opened my business, I did a 5 year pro-forma. I estimated the expenses to open the business and the operating expense. Then, with those numbers, I began to raise the capital. Without the business plan, I had no idea how much money to raise, and could not go to any investors. I also clearly laid out what and how the investors would get for their money. With all that I was able to create a value proposition that made them want to invest.

The community are the investors and FoMV would be the operator. We need a business plan to invest in the future of Muir Valley. Only you and Liz can give us that.

bryan wrote:

Not saying there is an easy solution but... More roads = More traffic. and It's been peer reviewed.

http://www.infrastructurist.com/2011/06 ... s-traffic/

“People, it seems, find it hard to believe that the cure for congestion is not more facilities for congestion,”

That urban study has little to do with the Muir Valley situation. What point are you trying to make with it? That the improvement of the dirt roads in Muir increased the number of climbers? That the parking lot extensions are resulting in more users? That improving the trails result in more foot traffic?

And, while I disagree with Keenan's tone, I do agree that:

1) relying on simple voluntary donations does not work and is not sustainable. Eventually, money is going to have to either come from either outside, large-scale nonprofit grants, from a coercive user fee program, or both.

2) while I see the necessity of the EMS-type improvements, the entire operating system of Muir Valley seems set up to cater to large numbers of low-committal climbers. The perma-draws, the close bolting, the little name plates at the bases of routes, the directional signs, these ALL contribute to drawing large numbers of the types of climbers that are least likely to donate money. (simply put: Muir attracts a lot of beginners and university groups, and these groups tend to donate less money than older, long-time, more experienced and financially secure climbers)

i made less than $7000 in 2011 and donated $20 to the RRGCC. i did not donate to muir this year as i didn't climb there in 2011. i years past i have donated money and time to muir valley when i was climbing there. i have attended numerous trail days and built trials, bridges, stairs, etc. i remember giving 2 of the last 5 dollars to my name to mark's donation box at torrent b/c i wanted to do steelworker before it closed. i fell above all the cruxes. i was employed by mark at the time and knew i would lose my job when he closed torrent.

you're right, no one wants to see a climber hurt or killed. i've seen a few climbers lose their lives and it is unacceptable. the radios and such seem great i you can afford them, but prevention and safe climbing practices are the only way forward on this one. while i'm very cynical and don't think this "educate the masses" helps much in the long run, i make my few bucks by teaching folks to be safe at the cliff in hopes that they pass this knowledge on as any climber should. it helps me sleep at night anyway. the safety precautions in muir are an awesome plan B. now all we have to do is teach people that the brake hand is the best plan A.

i've hit the ground and helped climbers who've hit the deck. i have had my car ripped off in the southern region, most everything i own stolen out of my storage unit in stanton, and been blocked in from both sides in the nada tunnel while locals tried to rob me. my car won't make it to lex right now b/c of the wear and tear of driving a kia in and out of sore heel god knows how many times the past few years with clients in it. this shit sucks, but welcome to the red. if you don't like the reality of the area you frequent then go somewhere else. or, create your own reality, but don't be shocked when it's really expensive.

camhead wrote:

bryan wrote:

Not saying there is an easy solution but... More roads = More traffic. and It's been peer reviewed.

http://www.infrastructurist.com/2011/06 ... s-traffic/

“People, it seems, find it hard to believe that the cure for congestion is not more facilities for congestion,”

That urban study has little to do with the Muir Valley situation. What point are you trying to make with it? That the improvement of the dirt roads in Muir increased the number of climbers? That the parking lot extensions are resulting in more users? That improving the trails result in more foot traffic?

Camhead you are funny It has everything to do with this situation. Yes, your points are exactly what I am saying. I knew I should have watered down the metaphor. The point is that building infrastructure in an effort to “keep up” with growing human demands will never alleviate the problem.

From the article: “people drive more when the stock of roads in their city increases; commercial driving and trucking increase with a city’s stock of roads; people migrate to cities which are relatively well provided with roads.”

The point is that climbers like the elaborate infrastructure at Muir because it is convenient and safe. Just as people drive more when they have nice roads and migrate to cities with well-provided roads, climbers will migrate to areas with well-provided infrastructure leaving developers always “just behind” the growing demand, which leads to ever-growing and unsustainable infrastructure costs. It is the same damn thing. But i acknowledge that it is counterintuitive to basic logic. I would bet a graph of the ratio of infrastructure growth in Muir in relation to climber attendance would look a lot like a graph on urban road building in relation to traffic congestion.

That doesn't mean the relationship is causal. People flock to Muir because it's a beautiful area and there are tons of well-protected easy routes. Improvement to the existing network of roads in the Valley has little to do with it. In fact the approach times to the crags are some of the longest in the Red... not that that's saying much. How do you define "infrastructure"?

It is a component of human nature and a phenomenon that has been tested over and over again in different settings. "Correlation doesn't equal causation" is certainly valid but is an argument that has become overused and I'm not convinced everyone even knows what it even means or how it is applied.

I'm not talking about roads!!! Im talking about the well protected routes more than anything.

"infrastructure" = climbing hardware, wooden steps, bridges, parking areas...Everything that makes climbing at muir a safer, easier and more enjoyable climbing experience. what I am saying the more you try to cater to climber needs the more people will come and more catering will need to be done.