RRC Archives

anyone able to answer me? who owns the Zoo? did anyone get permission? if not, it needs to immediately be closed based on current arguments.

agree - same as choco factory

rhunt wrote:agree - same as choco factory

yup...we need to be consistent, and not just the pet projects we deem "ok"....

What I hear you say sound like what I heard Brian McCray say after the Hominy Hole debacle. He called me and asked why we took all the routes down. I told him that we had fucked up, didn't check before we bolted and because of it the FS was on the cusp of cutting off all climbing to the entire Forest. We had to make it right, as we were the ones repsonsible for opening up this area to the world (and the world was coming).
He was incredulous. He asked "What do you care about those routes at other cliffs (Military, Flank, etc..)? You've done those routes!"

The parallel is that you have done the problems, and can move on, which would be fine, but, oops, too late, you have published an online guide. Good thinking.
If you are inviting the world, think first and do right by the land owner.

It seems to me incredible that anyone who is local to the Red and knowing the history of access of the Red would have such a cavalier attitude.

I'm stoked that KY has more bouldering - all you haters can litigate while I instigate a tasty dyno ho ho ho

lurkist, what about the Zoo?

I agree that we need to get access, but I am falling on deaf ears for those areas that actually became climbing areas without prior approval...

why do people insist on comparing apples and oranges? 1) there is no single governmental or individual body we can piss off to close all the areas. the only area at risk is an area that wouldn't exist without the risk. 2) i don't have to "take routes down". i would never presume it okay to toss metal in someone else's shit. but brushing dirt off? meh. i'm okay with it. call it cavalier or what have you, but at least i can put human practice in perspective. 3) i wasn't inviting the world so much as i was trying to manage them. what the fuck do i care if a bunch of yahoos i don't know get off on some boulder problems i didn't make? my intent was to at least keep people hidden. was it the best choice? i dunno. we'll just have to see if the horrors of history come back to haunt the present.

my advice to everyone. do not go climbing in rockcastle county. that way, if it turns out that i 'Hominey'd" it, you won't have lost a thing. because - and i cannot stress this enough - loss requires an absence, which itself requires a former presence. just pretend like the cove is the only bouldering area til this all shakes out. and if it comes up sweet, then you have a ton of cool - but ill-gotten - boulder problems.

until then, i'll be putting up other shit at places with solid access.

i'm entitled to stuff (because of television),

tommy

The Zoo is privately owned, I believe.
I know that John always had it as a top priority to put it at the top of the list to purchase or get secured access to it after the PMRP was finished.
Personally, I never thought it should be too high on the list of places to get perma access to b/c it is kind of a heap and there are much more high value crags to secure before worrying about the Zoo.
Ask Grant Stephens regarding the ownership. He would probably know. Bob may as well.

tbwilsonky wrote: until then, i'll be putting up other shit at places with solid access.
tommy

or develope the next Little Rock City with crappy access, but just don't tell anyone.

tbwilsonky wrote:why do people insist on comparing apples and oranges? 1) there is no single governmental or individual body we can piss off to close all the areas.

Are you talking about the bouldering area or the Red in general? If we piss off the forest service enough they could close all climbing in the DBNF!

In an earlier post, you mentioned that you thought the bouldering might be on forest service land, are you aware of the rules for developing new climbing/bouldering on forest service land?