RRC Archives

dustonian wrote:I appreciate your opinion, and would also appreciate leaving out the ad hominem insults and name-calling. What you've left out of your post is history: that the current landowners didn't purchase the land until 2004, and that there were few to no access issues until they chose to close it. That said, I admire and agree with the landowners' stated intentions, and in the context of our current system (see below), I hope they stay true to the ideals they have put forth on http://www.gfnp.org.

I disagree that the crag has been severely damaged by recreational use, although some routine maintenance is certainly in order. Furthermore, the notion of "getting the property back to a natural state" is naive and in some ways impossible in a region historically devastated by 99% deforestation, unrestrained resource/oil exploitation, groundwater contamination, neglect, off-road vehicular abuse, and invasive species run rampant.

Roadside is a beautiful jewel in the midst of all that, loved and maintained for decades by a community of climbers and before that, native Americans. Yes, there are erosion issues at the base of some walls, as is the case at popular climbing (or biking or hiking) areas around the world, and better infrastructure is needed to support the soil. But I fundamentally disagree with the concept that the acquisition of property alone justifies the abrupt closure of land that has been open to the public essentially forever. In European countries and other developed nations, this idea is called "Freedom to Roam"; unfortunately, citizens have no such rights in the United States, despite our posturing towards liberty et cetera... in other words, "If they can buy it, they can close it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam

dustonian wrote:...this whole thing is like a bad joke...