RRC Archives

Captain Static is on the money. The problem is defining what "responsible" climbing is and then proceeding to share our definition, and enforcing that idea through whatever means are necessary.

Shouldn't we all think that whatever we value the most we should do the most to protect? If not, than I for one have lots of gear to sell...

Saxman wrote:

chriss wrote:I love ignorant statements such as this one.

I would shoot you in the leg just to watch you squirm math boy. I still say HP40 is the model of how to deal with idiotic spoiled climbers. Intelligent discourse without threat of reprimand for breaking rules does little for far too many climbers.

Sorry Bram, that was not directed towards you, it was for the other ignoramus that quoted you.

Caribe wrote: The crag is not a place for the dog.

I guess Caribe made the ruling, so no dogs allowed..... I am pretty sure dogs have been at the crag, as long as climbers have been. To make the blanket statement that the crag is not a place for dogs is just idiotic. Maybe you mean unruly, loud, abrasive dogs. Who knows, next your going to be saying the crag is no place for kids, no place for non-climbers, hikers, etc... I mean really, where do we draw the line.

Saxman, so you support a guy shooting a stray dog in the head with a shotgun in front of people? Because that is HP40 and that is why I don't go.

this thread is retarted - esp saxman, electric discipole, anticlimber, zspider and very esp captain static who wont even let people look at his dog

What are the odds that climbers with ill trained dogs (or children) spend a decent amount of time training to climb? Spend some time training your dog and maybe there wouldn't be a problem.

I can't say I agree that the crag is not the place for a dog but its not like dogs have been a part of the crag for as long as climber have been climbing. "Crag dogs" are a fairly resent trendy thing to sport climbing and boundering areas.

captain static wrote:...It is about one of the RRGCC's main tenets, responsible climbing. What is responsible climbing? ...As far as level of consciousness I think we are talking about two different groups of climbers: 1) those who should know better but who continue to act irresponsibly and 2) those who are clueless. ...

Unfortunately I think a lot of people coming to the Red fall into the clueless category. That is where we have some tough work to do. For the non-local visiting climbers, many fall in the clueless category. ...Most people are more than happy to listen and learn more. It would be good if more of us could think of ourselves as ambassadors, to reach out and talk to climbers about responsible climbing, about access issues. Even then with the large numbers of people coming to the Red, how do we reach them all?

...

Bill, you make a good point about clueless climbers. (We prefer to think of them as inexperienced, rather than clueless.) And, we agree, most are nice people who are more than receptive to learn.

That is precisely why we decided to conduct a free 2-day climbing camp on Memorial Day Weekend for these folks. Liz and I have put our time, facilities, and money where our mouth is and created this camp at Muir Valley, which we hope will be at least an annual event.

Our guess that they would be receptive is an understatement. The 24 spots in the camp filled in two days with 9 more on a waiting list and more contacting me each day!

You asked how do we reach these people.

Now, I’ll throw a challenge YOUR way. For those out there with significant climbing experience who wish to teach “the tenets of responsible climbingâ€

As a landowner who opened their property to climbers. Here are a few oberservations.

Climber visitation has increased dramatically over the past 8 years. Therefore the impact on land and resources has increased.

With the increase in visitation. rules had to be established at Torrent.

It is unfornutate that the rules had to be put in place in the first place because they were just common sense and common courtesy issues.

We implemented the lease laws, because we like dogs, and other pets. This failed miserably. People simply would leash their dogs and maintain them on a leash.

We implemented a "No Dog" policy. This worked for a little while (a month or two) and then the rules were stretched and stretched until this policy failed.

The crag was closed.

It is not a matter of people not knowing ther rules and pleading ingnorance. When Torrent closed, we did not have the problem of people coming on the property and climbing. We thought we would, but we did not. They knew climbing was closed. I have not had to police it. It has been great.

The point is: when we put signs saying "No Dogs" people ignored it. When we put out the sign: "No Climbing" people adhered to it.

So, tell me where the disconnect is.

Sorry, I did not proof my comment.

We implemented a leash law and it worked for a month at best. Then that rule was abused. Dog owners would let their dogs loose as soon as they were out of our line of site. Many times it was ignored completely. That is when we implemented the "No Dog" rule.

We understand and sympathize with the Myers' problems at Torrent.

As a point of clarification, climbing at Muir Valley is NOT in jeopardy. Our concerns are with irresponsible dog owners and not climbers in general.

Rick