RRC Archives

I hope everyone one who doesn't want to pay for climbing never climbs at a crag kept open by an Access Fund intervention, the SECC buying land, or the RRGCC purchase. Those of you who think climbing is "free" have no clue. It costs more than you think..the problem is all the non-contributors making the price higher for those who go beyond their fair share.

Mark, thanks for an "idea" and you can sit back and feel vindicated about the cheap sorry asses who act like climbing on public or private land is their god given right. get a freakin clue, or stay in the gym.

To all the chest thumping whiners that are whining about the whiners, reread the original "post" at the beginning of the thread. And I ask again:
What right would a private entity have to charge for climbing on public land in order to finance itself? How is that a good idea?

Thank you in advance for your reply.

I doubt too many people on here will be able to relate to what I'm about to say, but the situation of climbing on a private land-owner's land seems to me to be very similar to going hunting on someone's land. It's custom anytime you hunt on someone else's land to give them the choice cuts from the game you take. It's really too bad we can't buy over the respect of landowners with a nice venison tenderloin and some summer sausage. Instead we seem to be acting like a lot of poachers. Interestingly, hunters have to pay for licenses that help conservation whether they're hunting on their own land, someone else's private land, or public lands.

I know, hunters are just a bunch of rednecks. And climbers are just a bunch of hippies. I'm proud to be both!

Mark having people check in at the Barbeque and selling day passes to your land was really likely the only way to keep Torrent open given your vision (or what I think your vision) of Torrent was. Issues of liability could have been side stepped. You could lay down the law and issue a liability waiver with every payment.

The PMP needs a different strategy. The RRGCC is asymptotically approaching a set of practicable policies. We all just need to get behind that purchase and give until it hurts.

Each climbing venue in the Gorge requires its own policy.

why not run Torrent like that Little Rock whatever boldering area. Have a set price and a set number of people. The first 20 or so people who show up pay five bucks and climb so long as they follow the rules and if they don't kick them out. I doubt you'd have that many people showing up during the week but on the weekend Mark could be making at least some money.
Pig,
just 'cause we don't want to have a gorge wide climbing pass doesn't mean we're cheap bastards. I give to both the RRGCC and the Acess Fund every year some of us don't want the red to feel like a climbing gym where you have to wear some stupid piece of laminated paper on your harness. So think before you offend.

you cheap bastard.

yo mcrib..just going on the facts brah. fact is that the first couple of years ONE individual paid the vast majority of the payment for the murray purchase. fact is, mark has stated many times the number fo climbers that walk right by his kiosk without reading the rules or donating. fact is, if every climb paid $1 everyday they climbed in the red, there probably wouldn't be the financial issues.

don't get me wrong though.I include myself in that group. so before you get offended by my offensive, think. and if the shoe don't fit, wear it.

and toad, please clarify your question. are you talking about a gorge wide pass monitored by a private entity that would encompass private and public venues? I would agree that one overall pass would not work.but would individual passes for each work? say there were two boxes and passes at miguel's. pay in one to climb on the FA land, pay in another to climb at roadside or SR. and pay directly at torrent for that.

really, it is not an issue so much of feasibility as it is of our perceptions that in the past, climbing has appeared to be a relatively cheap adventure into the outdoors. with heavier use however, things must change. i think the dialogue is healthy.

I wouldn't support a fee to climb on public land in the red.........yet, you never know what the future holds. Other users that pay a fee like hunters are paying for the enforcement for the most part. I'll stick with letting my taxes pay for public for now. Climber impact can still be kept in check by ourselves.

Private is different story, I'd support a yearly pass for climbing in the Murray property. I would hope it would more evenly distribute the cost of buying the property amung the users and later on pay for some improvements. Some sort of laminated card to hang on a harness with your photo on it would show support for the cause........kind of like a spray card. Have to get Dr. Bob a gold plated one!

Mark could do the same thing to cover his costs and lay down the law with some sort of contract. Course it may be more trouble then its worth in the end. Traveling climbers would want to pay for a yearly pass.

Yeah, clearly this idea doesn't work for Federal Lands. While there is an overnight pass fee, if the Feds want to exact a charge to climb, then they can do it and pay for the personel to enforce it.
On private land, I think it is not only a good idea, but an inevitable one. The fact that Mark's suggestion is ridiculed only points to the self serving perspective of those climbers resistant to the idea of helping pay for the priviledge of climbing on an expensive piece of property.
If there is a legal way to charge on a day use, seasonal use, annual use fee basis, I am in complete support of it. Furthermore, while I was unfortunately unable to make the planning meeting yesterday (got called in), I think the RRGCC should pursue this idea.
Climbers use to a few folks carrying the financial heavy lifting need to be shaken into adulthood. It is time to grow up, folks and become members of a community with a common purpose, instead of taking with out giving back.
If you have given to the RRGCC in any substantial way, I am not talking about you.

kneebar wrote: I'll stick with letting my taxes pay for public for now. Climber impact can still be kept in check by ourselves.

Leaving it to ourselves is just not getting it, if climbers with just no idea of respect will will do these acts on private property, think what they're doing in the park.

To answer the "Original Question" I think Mark meant a way to educate as well as fund our sport in the Gorge. Did he tell how to make it work?? no, but putting it on here may spark dialogue, and from there a way to make it all work. The climbers that get on here basically all agree on key concepts, but most, have they're own agendas that get in the way, sort of like high school. When we figure out how to get those out of the way, the rest will follow until then, we will keep beating each other up on this site.........