RRC Archives

So when is the meeting in December? Would be nice if it was on a weekend so more people could attend.

Ian- If you go back and find my initial post you'll see that for me safety was a motivating factor in removing the PD's. Ive made it perfectly clear that everyone had their own reasons for taking the draws down at the undertow. Zach had his and I had mine. Ive apologized for the way in which the draws came down but I've also put forth a lot of effort to bring the community together to move forward and to keep the unfolding story factual. If you'd been to the last meeting you'd know that the discussion centered around the pros and cons of pd's and REALISTIC solutions to the pd issue. You'd also be aware that my opinion is that the steepest, hardest to clean routes should be fixed with pd's and that cleaning draws and anchors should be left on routes that the community agreed needed them. Before anyone else posts about what they think should be on the table for discussion please be informed about what is actually being discussed. If you would like to see the notes from the meeting contact Josephine.
So you're in the loop Ian I was in the minority regarding my stance on where pd's should be. Most people at the meeting seemed to lean more towards an all or nothing stance as far as the pd's are concerned. Michelle has expressed to me that she would like some kind of video conferencing option for the next meeting for the people who would like to attend but cannot. Is there anyone in the community that can help make this happen? Also, if people could post preferable dates and times for the next meeting I'll be sure and let Shannon know what times might work best for everyone.

I put my opinions first cus that's what you wanted

cletuswilcox wrote: So your for pd's....why?

I never said I was, it's this "either for or against" attitude that you keep pressing on everyone ( I now assume it was you at the meeting aggressively trying to force people to take a side) that is polarizing and ultimately hurting the community

cletuswilcox wrote: What are your ideas on the sustainability of fixed gear at the crag? How do you suggest the community come up with more funds to buy pd's and how do you think we can get more volunteer effort to maintain them? What are your ideas on pd's in regards to land owner liability? How does a fixed gear ethic and a leave no trace ethic co-exist at the same crag?

If PD's are not permanent then treat them like project draws and take them down when they are no longer safe. Its not up to the community to replace gear or bolts or anchors or anything really. Thank god we have some super sucky team that has taken it upon themselves to help with that when they can. I don't take that for granted and when we do we may lose their help, and that would suck.
I accept any decision a land owner makes about their property for whatever reason, be it liability, access, convenience, or good ol crotchetiness. Leave no trace? polease

cletuswilcox wrote:Krampus- Thanks for completely misrepresenting the meeting and the people who participated. I dont recall anyone dwelling on 5.10 climbers dogging up 5.12's at the undertow (maybe it was mentioned but it was not a topic of conversation). The meeting wasnt a waste of time and the people who came do care so please just speak for yourself.

cletus, quit trying to play the martyr, rallying pity seems unbecoming of you, and I don't even know you. Hang dogging was mention several times, In fact the first 20 or so minutes when everyone opposed to PD's got to speak, I think that the only people who didn't mention the hang dogging aspect in one way or another were Hugh and Dave (again,I couldn't see, I was merely and auditory observer), who were not even present when the draws were taken down.

cletuswilcox wrote: If the issue of PD's, in your mind, dosent directly correlate to safety/crowd control issues then what does?

The crowds will still come, stupid people will still be there. As was mention in the meeting safety issues should be met with education, I didn't need the meeting to tell me that. The crowds come because we invite them.

cletuswilcox wrote:How are you under the impression that pd's are a long standing climbing ethic?

The one time I was able to speak at the meeting was to clarify that the vote was weather or not it would be ok for you to steal everyone's project draws, and it was clarified that that is in fact what you were talking about. Those have been around since I started climbing in 1999.

cletuswilcox wrote:I would be surprised if the climbers that dont care and "just want to climb" that you referred to in your post are taking any initiative to inspect, maintain/replace the fixed gear they're climbing on.

I should hope they are, personal safety is ones own responsibility, always was and always should be. Didn't need a meeting to tell me that either.

cletuswilcox wrote: Well....if like myself you're interested in this conversation coming to an end with an ethic/policy that the community can stand behind I'd suggest that you refrain from making posts that in no way bring us closer to that goal.

again quit playing the martyr, I just want this ridiculous conversation to end, I don't believe the community should stand behind anything other than land owners requests and general safety. If PD's are not permanent then treat them like project draws and take them down when they are no longer safe.

krampus-After the draws were removed people wanted to establish a consensus. I dont know any way to come to a consensus without including in the discussion people's stance on pd's. In my opinion inflamatory posts and rumors are whats polarizing the community. Did you miss the part of the meeting where Dario (the land owner) stated that he will not make a decision on pd's and is leaving that decision for the community to make for themselves. Check the notes from the meeting, I didnt mention hangdogging on routes at the undertow at all. If I sound like a martyr its because I seem to be the only one interested in keeping the conversation FACTUAL. The call for a vote was to establish where the participants of the meeting stood on pd's, PERIOD. I dont think Shannon would have been too supportive of concluding the meeting with a vote on whether "stealing" people's draws was an accepted practice at the red.

I have not and will not request an opinion from a land owner.

Side note: despite my opinion of the meetings content, the manner in which it was conducted was very professional. We are very lucky to have such a broad spectrum of community members.

get a room, you two.

(and let me watch)

toad857 wrote:(and let me watch)

oh, kin-kay

Stop saying safety. Its real simple. when you say you are removing something for safetys sake you are in effect saying that you are removing all unsafe gear and what is left is approved by you as safe. When you do this you are giving a sense of assurance to the people that follow you. You are taking on the liability for their safety. It will negate the usuage of the "Recreational" statute. It makes you liable, it makes the land owner liable and if some organization backs your effort, it will make them liable. So for the sake of everyone involved stop using the word SAFETY

the lurkist wrote:So there is a meeting in December. This time, show up. Dustin, I know you had no reason to miss the last one. Grad School? Please. Michelle? Work? Lame... I came in scrubs WITH my five year old straight from work.
You think it is a self selecting group of rule makers preaching to the choir? You want a voice? Sac up and show your face at the next meeting. I do not want to hear your mealy mouth whining that, " Those mean people are making rules that cramp my style." Even Joe Haynes came. Jesus, how unempowered can you be?
Come to the community discussion.

who are you and what have you done to Hugh?






That post was incredibly mean. I know you're wicked smart - and surely you must realize that there's more to things than what meets the eye. Just to fill you in, Michelle worked until 9:30 pm that day. She also met with Shannon for 2 hours in a meeting to discuss this prior to the event. When she was done with work, Shannon was the first person she called. I really think a personal attack on someone who has done SO MUCH for this climbing community is highly uncalled for. I don't know Dustin as well as Michelle, but I would also give him the benefit of the doubt that if he could have been there, he would have.







I decided to move to Lexington because of the Climbing COMMUNITY that the RRG has. I didn't find that anywhere else. This issue is not only tearing apart the community, but it's also caused some serious harm to the community in regards to future events. For the good of all, I urge everyone - what ever your views - be kind and quit with the personal attacks. NO ONE deserves to be bullied on this issue.