RRC Archives

Shannon wrote:It has been said that one solution does not necessarily fit all situations, with which I agree. Perhaps a decision making process adaptable to different situations using consistent (agreed to) standards might yield useful guidelines. I have tried to capture most of the viable suggestions presented in a coherent approach. I would like to see some community supported guidelines for climber behavior that could be distributed, shared, posted, for ourselves, our friends and admiring visitors as climbing continues to grow in popularity. It turns out opportunities to climb on more and more land continues to grow (hint, hint) but along with those opportunities comes the attending need to encourage responsible climbing to ensure continued access to what we have and what will come.

So far most of the perma draw, project draw discussion has centered around the Motherlode with occasional reference to the PRMP, Muir Valley, Roadside and even FS land. So, one way to handle all these scenarios suggests that any guidelines needs to start there, with who owns or manages the land.

DECISION PROCESS—Start with expressed statements or direction about climber behavior by land owner/manager. If no statement has been made, ask for direction, if possible. If no statement is possible to obtain then use a hierarchy of principles to craft preferred behavior subject to (majority, not perfect) climber consensus agreement, then use group (negative and positive) reinforcement to encourage voluntary compliance.

A hierarchy of values or principles could look something like this:

Hierarchy of Principles/Values
1.) Compliance with land owners/mangers
2.) Safety for self/others
3.) Conservation (avoid or mitigate adverse environmental impact)
4.) Consideration of others
5.) Convenience for self and others
6.) Custom
I would like to see that ALL climbing activity (regardless whether trad, sport, beginners or experts) start with the premise of absolute, or express assumption of risk. Use the current legal status for climbing liability, “Express Assumption of Risk: Courts consistently uphold express assumption of risk when the plaintiff's participation is clearly voluntary, such as the decision to engage in risky recreational pursuits. [See Restatement § 496B; see also, e.g., Woodall v. Wayne Steffner Productions, Inc., 20 Cal. Rptr. 572 (Cal. Ct. App. 1962).]

Under this analysis, using others gear, pre-placed trad gear (recent Long Wall accident) webbing, bolt anchors, project draws, perma-draws, etc., is still and will always be the climbers absolute responsibility. Period.

FYI…Project draws under the law are not necessarily abandoned property. They are unattended property. It is the intent of the owner that generally controls. The FS may consider project draws that way but they do so for convenience and because they give notice, as a land owner/manager can, and should. But when there is no clear guidance on the subject, it is the intent of the owner of the property whether it was meant to be unattended or abandoned, and therefore subject for seizure.

Suggested recommendations:
1.) Land owner/manager direction controls. Owners/mangers direction should be sought and followed. If we can’t find out then…
2.) Safety considerations suggests no unattended perma draws, regardless who owns/ manages the land, except where preferred by land owner/manager. FA’s may set perma draws (on their routes) and be expected to maintain but are not liable for their condition. If FA’s do not wish to maintain/replace them, then perma-draws, steel or otherwise, should be discouraged.
3.) Project draws are allowed but understood to be for a limited time and if used are at the risk of the user. If project draws are left unattended for more than a year(?) then they are subject to removal.
4.) Leaving draws, whether project or perma draws, should be the exception and not the norm to facilitate onsights (for those who might care).
5.) Unilateral action is discouraged unless to promote the immediate safety of self, or others i.e., a clearly worn biner on a project or perma draw, or other unsafe gear.
6.) A designated group, or group activity, could be formed or understood to act on the climbing community behalf to monitor the condition of project/perma draws.

As to #5, the RRGCC had created a Climbing Advisory Council of elected climber volunteers with a Fixed Anchor Replacement (FAR) Committee in 2004. I personally would like to encourage the RRGCC to consider activating this group again. These were climbers who offered to serve on the committee and were voted on by their fellow climbers. Terry Kindred served as the first Chair of this committee, which eventually led to Team Suck. It doesn’t have to be elected, it could be voluntary, it doesn’t have to be so formal. But the point is group (consensus) action is better than individual, unilateral (controversial) action. So, come let’s come up with a preferred way to handle things.

Lots of great ideas have been put forward. We should, and can have agreement and use as guidelines that can then be distributed and amended over time, as things change and are are needed.

I will tell you that I am (still very much) involved in securing climbing access so having group consensus, support and compliance is as relevant and necessary as ever for the future of climbing. The crowds are still coming and in a way it seems a lot of the issues are really about what the FS likes to call "inter user group conflict."

I heard a request for a meeting, possibly in Lexington, on this subject…I can offer exceptional meeting space (free, easy access, ample parking, etc.) for 50+ people in Lexington to facilitate a timely resolution to this. We can do M-F after work hours, if that would help. I heard some say that there was not enough notification given for the Miguel meeting, so this is a suggestion to try again and widen the scope of discussion.

I applaud all those who have taken the time to make thoughtful posts and appeals to “do something.” It is encouraging to see there is a sense of community that still exists and civic-minded climbers who care. If meeting in Lexington has appeal to draft and adopt some version of what I and others have proposed then allow me to suggest Wednesday, November 9, 5:30 pm at 560 East Third Street. This should be enough time to give notice to those interested and still have time to organize and take action by the suggested Thanksgiving date. Or, in the alternative November 16, is also available.

I, for one, am about taking action that leads to solutions. I say, let’s do something, sooner rather than later.

Shannon Stuart-Smith

littleboxes15 wrote:Assuming a relatively high attendance rate, may I suggest that you look into having an experienced facilitator manage this meeting. This is clearly a contentious subject that taps into some deeper issues within the Red. Having a "referee" can greatly increase the productivity of such meetings, while limiting the potential for a full on shit showdown that only further fractures our community.

krampus wrote:please don't make community laws based on only a small sample of its constituents.

ynp1 wrote:GAY!!!

Hierarchy of Principles/Values
1.) Compliance with land owners/mangers
2.) Safety for self/others
3.) Conservation (avoid or mitigate adverse environmental impact)
4.) Consideration of others
5.) Convenience for self and others
6.) Custom