|
|
|
|
roughster
Sep 14, 2003, 3:52 AM
Post #1 of 76
(22472 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
http://www.rockclimbing.com/routes/listArea.php?AreaID=5684
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
GOLD FIELDS DISTRICT
AUBURN SECTOR
ORDER NO. 03-691-02
April 15, 2003
Technical climbing is prohibited on any geological feature within the Auburn State Recreation Area. Technical climbing is defined as climbing up or down a geological feature using some type of apparatus to assist with the accent or decent. Apparatus includes, but is not limited to, ropes, anchors, bolts, active or passive protection, (cams, nuts, etc.), carabineers, chains, and/or harnesses.
Exceptions to this order may only be granted in writing by the District Superintendent, Gold Fields District, 7806 Folsom-Auburn Road, Folsom, CA 95630.
Nothing herein shall be construed in derogation of other provsions of law.
Jacqueline Ball (signature)
JACQUELINE BALL
District Superintendent
AUTHORITY:
State of California; Public Resources Code , Section 5003 and 5008.
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 3, sections 4307, 4319, & 4326.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have sent an email to the Access Fund rep working on the issue and will relay the answer from him and the Access Fund when he responds.
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Sep 14, 2003, 3:52 AM
Post #2 of 76
(22472 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
Linked to Auburn
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Sep 14, 2003, 4:07 AM
Post #3 of 76
(22472 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Wow. That's gotta suck, what with all the work you've done in there. Any chance if you getting one of those exceptions?
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Sep 14, 2003, 4:16 AM
Post #4 of 76
(22472 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: Wow. That's gotta suck, what with all the work you've done in there. Any chance if you getting one of those exceptions? DMT
I doubt it. She put that in there because ironically enough, the Placer County Search and Rescue use some of the routes that we have put up as a training grounds sort of deal.
Hopefully the Access Fund will be willing to take it to the next level. If not, we will have to do something locally. Right now the route count is closing in on 50 and some of the newer stuff is amazing.
At this point, I think most people associated with this area just want to come to some sort of resolution one way or the other. More to come...
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Sep 14, 2003, 5:02 PM
Post #5 of 76
(22472 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
bump
|
|
|
|
|
osho
Sep 14, 2003, 9:23 PM
Post #6 of 76
(22472 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 16, 2002
Posts: 69
|
Wow definitely bad news for Sacramento area climbers. How did you become party to this letter? April 15, 2003 was a good lil while ago now. Beats me why they want to prohibit climbing while allowing most other recreational outdoor activities... I guess to protect the "natural" quarried cliffs.
Have you looked at the various codes and regulations sited as the AUTHORITY? Just out of curiosity, I looked them up briefly.... to try to get a general idea of what they were about... here's my results...
State of California; Public Resources Code , Section 5003 and 5008 seem to mainly be about them being able to establish and enforce rules for the managed land.... pretty wordy stuff with lots of specifics... pretty boring to read.
The Code of regulations was the more interesting read.
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 3:
4307:
(a) No person shall destroy, disturb, mutilate, or remove earth, sand, gravel, oil, minerals, rocks, paleontological features, or features of caves.
(b) Rockhounding may be permitted as defined in Section 4301(v).
4319: No person shall engage in games or recreational activities that endanger the safety of persons, property, resources, or interfere with visitor activities except as permitted by the Department. No person shall hold, sponsor, lead, or otherwise have control over a game or recreational activity occurring wholly or partially within or on any property owned, operated or administered by the Department without an approved Special Event permit if any of the criteria set forth in section 4301(j) apply.
4326: No person shall
(a) violate any provision of an order posted pursuant to the provisions of section 4301(i) hereof including, but not limited to, prohibited areas, use periods, no alcoholic beverage areas, no smoking areas and no parking areas, where posted in accordance with 4301(q), or,
(b) violate any provision or restriction of a Special Use, Special Event, Film or Collection permit issued pursuant to these regulations.
|
|
|
|
|
troutboy
Sep 14, 2003, 10:06 PM
Post #7 of 76
(22472 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2003
Posts: 903
|
Just curious..
Are all those misspellings a result of retyping or did this state agency really put out an "order" prohibiting climbing with ascent, descent, provisions, and carabiner spelled incorrectly ?
Also, it seems they forgot to prohibit free soloing :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
johnfromohio
Sep 14, 2003, 10:15 PM
Post #8 of 76
(22472 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 287
|
i noticed that, you can free solo AND BOULDER.
|
|
|
|
|
phreakdigital
Sep 14, 2003, 10:19 PM
Post #9 of 76
(22472 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2002
Posts: 228
|
well this is definetly bad news, but with enough public support these things can be changed...maybe Ahhhhnold will help us climbers out.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Sep 14, 2003, 10:58 PM
Post #10 of 76
(22472 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
All the misspellings were in the original document.
I believe the CCR sections cited give the area manager authority to issue orders like this one.
However, I don't typically use ropes to 'assist' with my ascent!
Regardless, work is being done to resolve the situation...
and yes, the routes are killer.
|
|
|
|
|
collegekid
Sep 15, 2003, 1:11 AM
Post #11 of 76
(22472 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2002
Posts: 1852
|
stupid gooberment. I hope this is cleared up quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
collegekid
Sep 15, 2003, 1:30 AM
Post #12 of 76
(22472 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2002
Posts: 1852
|
have you yet tried getting people to write letters to Ms. Ball? If you could flood her office with hundreds of letters from area climbers, all in support of opening the area to climbers, she couldn't ignore it. Hand out envelopes to the area gyms that are pre-addressed, so that all people have to do is write a few lines and mail it in. Either that or start a petition or something.
Even better than that, write some letters to people above Ms. Ball, explaining how she failed to help you in your cause. There's gotta be some simple solution to this...
I don't understand why you are urging people to call the access fund..why don't they just call Ms. Ball instead? I'm sure she would love to get a bunch of calls right in the middle of her lunch break. She needs to be constantly reminded that there are MANY people that feel the same as you, and that until she looks further into the matter, climbers will keep nagging her about it. Have you gotten any local support? what about the climbers that are getting kicked out on a daily basis?
|
|
|
|
|
hallm
Sep 15, 2003, 1:40 AM
Post #13 of 76
(22472 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2002
Posts: 170
|
If you don't have any luck with the Access Fund escalating this, let me know. I could probably get my law firm to take this on as a pro bono project. Last time I sued the State of California on a pro bono matter, we won $280,000. I am sure we could make a Park Superindendent see the error of her ways (that is, if she is outside of her authority).
|
|
|
|
|
nobody
Sep 15, 2003, 1:45 AM
Post #14 of 76
(22472 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 23, 2002
Posts: 44
|
In reply to: I could probably get my law firm to take this on as a pro bono project.
Now that sounds good - better than letters or the Access Fund.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Sep 15, 2003, 2:43 AM
Post #15 of 76
(22472 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
I have spoken to Ms. Ball personally, and tried to get an exception for myself in the absence of a longer term resolution.
After that failed, we discussed at length why climbing currently is not allowed, and what climbers need to do to change that.
Climbing is not allowed in the SRA right now, because it is not a 'recognized use.' However, right now the SRA general plan is being revised. We hope to include climbing as a recognized use. Ms. Ball says that personally she does not oppose climbing as a future activity in the SRA. It is my belief that the order was issued to back up her subordinate, who is the local manager responsible for the SRA.
Why the local manager doesn't want climbing is a mystery. She has given several reasons, most of which are flimsy at the very best. Parking issues, safety issues and jurisdictional issues are all at the fore. THey are all ridiculous in light of the fact that just about every user group under the sun has their way in the SRA. Hikers, runners, horsefolk, cavers, tubers, rafters, swimmers, bikers and drunks are out there having a heyday whenever they feel like it. Plus, there is an additional parking lot discovered by roughster and I, which has been gated off but will easily accomodate 30 plus cars.
Further, I believe there should be minimal environmental concerns, given the activities of other user groups and the fact that all the climbing is located in a QUARRY!
So, to summarize, I believe climbers can and will gain access by working with the SRA superintendent to get climbing recognized as a 'use' within the meaning of the new general plan. The downside is that this might take as long as a year and a half, and there has been considerable foot dragging on some of the folks over there in getting back to me.
It is my belief that a law suit is not in the best interests of climbers at this time. I know that the current situation is not ideal, but I would rather work with the state, rather than compel them through litigation.
I and others will continue to climb there for the time being, and will continue to keep a low profile.
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Sep 15, 2003, 3:25 AM
Post #16 of 76
(22472 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
Dave has very adequately summed up the Access Funds stand up to this point, however, with this order, things may start moving forward towards "some" action. One of the expressed Access Fund's concerns was the fact that an official "Order" had not been issued. Well, the nature of the posted Order solves that mystery.
In light of this, we hope to schedule some sort of meeting to at least bringing the issue to the forefront of the Activity and Use Plan drafting. The problem we have is the SRA is sending one message (we don't care if climbing happens once it is recognized) but then their actions show something totally different (outlawing climbing on ALL rock formations, not just the quarry).
I have sent an email to the Access Fund rep and ask him in light of the order how we should proceed, and hopefully will hear back from him within the next few days.
Hallm I will add you to my list of people who are interested in the situation and very much appreciate the offer presented. I may contact you about the situation further depending on how things are proceeding with the AF.
Aaron
|
|
|
|
|
osho
Sep 15, 2003, 6:21 AM
Post #17 of 76
(22472 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 16, 2002
Posts: 69
|
In reply to: Plus, there is an additional parking lot discovered by roughster and I, which has been gated off but will easily accomodate 30 plus cars.
Well it really seems that they no longer want people driving that far in.... I always find it humorous that the handicap parking is right behind the locked gate.
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Sep 15, 2003, 6:34 AM
Post #18 of 76
(22472 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: In reply to: Plus, there is an additional parking lot discovered by roughster and I, which has been gated off but will easily accomodate 30 plus cars. Well it really seems that they no longer want people driving that far in.... I always find it humorous that the handicap parking is right behind the locked gate.
Jevan,
The additional parking is actually located further up the (49) closer o the Active Quarry, but it still appears to be in the SRA land block. I am trying to work with a Title Company to determine exactly who owns access to the upper parking lot.
|
|
|
|
|
scuclimber
Sep 15, 2003, 6:43 AM
Post #19 of 76
(22472 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2003
Posts: 1007
|
Keep us posted... I'm very interested too.
Colin
|
|
|
|
|
hallm
Sep 15, 2003, 7:01 PM
Post #20 of 76
(22472 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2002
Posts: 170
|
Please keep me updated. Although I have never been to the state park, it sounds like a great area and would hate to see it lost to climbers.
Has anyone considered going to the state representatives (assembly and senate) for that area and discussing the issue with them. Sometime that will really grease the wheels when trying to resolve a dispute with a state department.
Good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
toonarmy
Sep 15, 2003, 7:25 PM
Post #21 of 76
(22472 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2003
Posts: 133
|
In reply to: Technical climbing is prohibited on any geological feature within the Auburn State Recreation Area. Technical climbing is defined as climbing up or down a geological feature using some type of apparatus to assist with the accent or decent. Apparatus includes, but is not limited to, ropes, anchors, bolts, active or passive protection, (cams, nuts, etc.), carabineers, chains, and/or harnesses.
Under my twisted reading, it only prohibits aid climbing and rappeling and allows for the use of "apparatus" for reasons other that to "assist" with the ascent and descent. You have to interpret "assist" very narrowly, but it's a try. Regardless, free soloing is still allowed.
Of course, being a smart ass would probably not be the best tactic in the long run.
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Sep 15, 2003, 9:09 PM
Post #22 of 76
(22472 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
Yep, its crazy to think that now Free Solos may be the only future developments at Auburn ;) There is a pretty long traverse that could be cleaned that would be fun for bouldering. It would be interesting to clean it all up and boulder the crap out of it till a ranger came down and tried to kick us out so I could shove the Order back in their face, but as you said,
Being a smart ass probably won't get us anywhere :(
|
|
|
|
|
osho
Sep 15, 2003, 10:28 PM
Post #23 of 76
(22472 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 16, 2002
Posts: 69
|
Well it seems they could just write up another "order," prohibiting bouldering and free-soloing and still cite the same California Code of Regulations as Authority.
Or possibly even using the current order... by considering climbing shoes or climbing chalk as being "some type of apparatus."
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Sep 15, 2003, 11:20 PM
Post #24 of 76
(22472 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: Well it seems they could just write up another "order," prohibiting bouldering and free-soloing and still cite the same California Code of Regulations as Authority. Or possibly even using the current order... by considering climbing shoes or climbing chalk as being "some type of apparatus."
But from the protaganists point of view, that would exactly be the point :lol: The fact of the matter is, they have made it pretty clear as to their intentions about climbing for the time being. It is only through their ignorance did they leave out bouldering/soloing. I'm sure they would opt to correct their "mistake" given the chance.
From here on out the stakes seem to have been elevated for both sides.
From their perspective if someone (a climber) now gets hurt climbing at Auburn they have created the liability since it is now thier duty to enforce it.
From the climber side, getting cited or having some sort of legal charge pressed against you is a legitimate concern since their is actual legal language specific to climbing.
See below:
In reply to: 831.7. (a) Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable to any person who participates in a hazardous recreational activity, including any person who assists the participant, or to any spectator who knew or reasonably should have known that the hazardous recreational activity created a substantial risk of injury to himself or herself and was voluntarily in the place of risk, or having the ability to do so failed to leave, for any damage or injury to property or persons arising out of that hazardous recreational activity. (b) As used in this section, "hazardous recreational activity" means a recreational activity conducted on property of a public entity which creates a substantial (as distinguished from a minor, trivial, or insignificant) risk of injury to a participant or a spectator. "Hazardous recreational activity" also means: (1) Water contact activities, except diving, in places where or at a time when lifeguards are not provided and reasonable warning thereof has been given or the injured party should reasonably have known that there was no lifeguard provided at the time. (2) Any form of diving into water from other than a diving board or diving platform, or at any place or from any structure where diving is prohibited and reasonable warning thereof has been given. (3) Animal riding, including equestrian competition, archery, bicycle racing or jumping, mountain bicycling, boating, cross-country and downhill skiing, hang gliding, kayaking, motorized vehicle racing, off-road motorcycling or four-wheel driving of any kind, orienteering, pistol and rifle shooting, rock climbing, rocketeering, rodeo, spelunking, sky diving, sport parachuting, paragliding, body contact sports (i.e., sports in which it is reasonably foreseeable that there will be rough bodily contact with one or more participants), surfing, trampolining, tree climbing, tree rope swinging, waterskiing, white water rafting, and windsurfing. For the purposes of this subdivision, "mountain bicycling" does not include riding a bicycle on paved pathways, roadways, or sidewalks.
So the public entity is safe from legal action from the above, UNLESS some of the following are true. The problem is by creating an Order against climbing, it makes the bold statements true:
In reply to: (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision (a), this section does not limit liability which would otherwise exist for any of the following: (1) Failure of the public entity or employee to guard or warn of a
known dangerous condition or of another hazardous recreational
activity known to the public entity or employee that is not
reasonably assumed by the participant as inherently a part of the
hazardous recreational activity out of which the damage or injury
arose. (4) Damage or injury suffered in any case where the public entity
or employee recklessly or with gross negligence promoted the
participation in or observance of a hazardous recreational activity.
For purposes of this paragraph, promotional literature or a public
announcement or advertisement which merely describes the available
facilities and services on the property does not in itself constitute
a reckless or grossly negligent promotion.
You may wonder how this is applicable until you look at the Placer County Tourism Website:
http://www.placer.ca.gov/visit/102-todo.htm
In reply to: Spine-Tingling Sports Downhill skiing at world-class ski resorts Snowboarding High Sierra mountain biking Bungee jumping Rock climbing Mountaineering Hot air ballooning
Remember that is an OFFICIAL Placer County Website as is evident by the ca.gov extension. Continuing on:
In reply to: (d) Nothing in this section exonerates a public entity or a public employee from liability for injury proximately caused by a dangerous condition of property if all of the following occur: (1) The injured person was not guilty of a criminal offense under
Article 1 (commencing with Section 552) of Chapter 12 of Title 13 of
Part 1 of the Penal Code in entering on or using the property.
The access to the quarry is LEGAL because other user groups are allowed recreational use.
In reply to: (4) The public entity or the public employee had actual knowledge
of the condition and knew or should have known of its dangerous
character a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken
measures to protect against the condition.
This actually opens the SRA up to litigation from the Arens family as this order shows the SRA knew of the inherent dangers of the land, yet did nothing against it at the point where Kirk Arens died. I should contact the family and ask if they would be interested in a multimillion dollar lawsuit against the SRA???
In reply to: (e) Nothing in this section exonerates a public entity or a public
employee from liability for injury proximately caused by a dangerous
condition of property if all of the following occur:
(4) The public entity or the public employee had actual knowledge
of the condition and knew or should have known of its dangerous
character a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken
measures to protect against the condition.
Which is the catch all. If it is illegal for me to climb there, the SRA by their order, has taken on the responsibilty of keeping me out of the area and to take, "measures to protect against the condition"
If I get hurt and can prove they not only knew the dangers, but did nothing to prevent me from getting hurt, they are legally liable per the law. This whole things shows the absolute ignorance of the SRA as it comes to the legislation pertaining to the property they are charged with managing. Literally as sad as this is, the first person who climbs at Auburn and get substantially hurt will have the legal means to sue the crap out of the SRA and win big $$ because of the election to try and legally "oulaw" climbing.
Ironically enough, if they would have left it alone and not created that order or tried to enforce any type of action prohibiting climbing the CA Code of Regulations is VERY specific to say they are not liable.
|
|
|
|
|
mtnrsq
Sep 16, 2003, 12:15 AM
Post #25 of 76
(22472 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 30, 2003
Posts: 70
|
In reply to: I and others will continue to climb there for the time being, and will continue to keep a low profile.
Now that is a sure way to build a good rapport with Ms. Ball..... Give the uninformed land management people ammunition to show that you are part of the problem and not part of the solution.
|
|
|
|
|
mungeclimber
Sep 16, 2003, 8:52 PM
Post #26 of 76
(14844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 2, 2002
Posts: 648
|
In reply to: In reply to: I and others will continue to climb there for the time being, and will continue to keep a low profile. Now that is a sure way to build a good rapport with Ms. Ball..... Give the uninformed land management people ammunition to show that you are part of the problem and not part of the solution.
Yeah, i would stay out, but be absolutely on their ass about access and be pro-active in moving through the gub paperwork.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Sep 16, 2003, 9:18 PM
Post #27 of 76
(14844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
In reply to: In reply to: I and others will continue to climb there for the time being, and will continue to keep a low profile. Now that is a sure way to build a good rapport with Ms. Ball..... Give the uninformed land management people ammunition to show that you are part of the problem and not part of the solution.
Well mr. mtnrsq, you don't really know that much about the situation or my rapport with Ms. Ball, do you? By 'keep a low profile' I mean not getting spotted by rangers, which if you know the area, is easy to do.
I would not climb there if I believed it would have an impact on access. People have been climbing in the SRA since at least the late 80s.
|
|
|
|
|
osho
Sep 16, 2003, 9:55 PM
Post #28 of 76
(14844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 16, 2002
Posts: 69
|
In reply to: By 'keep a low profile' I mean not getting spotted by rangers, which if you know the area, is easy to do. I would not climb there if I believed it would have an impact on access. People have been climbing in the SRA since at least the late 80s.
While it is pretty unlikely you'll be spotted by any of the rangers... there is nothing beyond laziness that keeps them from actually walking all the way up to the walls. And while I agree its a very improbable event... its far from impossible.
You seem overly defensive... I know you have the best intentions for Auburn... and I agree its highly doubtful that your actions will be creating any real problems. But no reason to be so flamy at people for stating the obvious... it's a negative thing if you're spotted climbing there... and if you're not climbing there, its a 100% guarantee of you not getting "caughtinside."
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Sep 16, 2003, 10:23 PM
Post #29 of 76
(14844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
Weren't you there last weekend?
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Sep 16, 2003, 10:30 PM
Post #30 of 76
(14844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: Weren't you there last weekend?
Easy guys. I know for a fact that we are all on the same team as it is related to getting access secured.
I can see Jevans and Daves points both, and I would say that each has a legitimate angle. In the end, awareness of the process, current situation, and concerns is a good thing.
The AF has had the order for a whole 2 days now, lets give them a chance to respond and get their take on it before we all get too riled up :)
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Sep 16, 2003, 10:32 PM
Post #31 of 76
(14844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
I enjoy getting riled up. 8)
At least I can get wireless internet in class. Cy pres and variance doctrines really aren't that interesting...
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Sep 16, 2003, 10:45 PM
Post #32 of 76
(14844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: I enjoy getting riled up. 8) At least I can get wireless internet in class. Cy pres and variance doctrines really aren't that interesting...
*shakes fist* Back when I was youngster and went to school we had to use Wireless Abacasus!
:lol:
|
|
|
|
|
drkayak
Sep 16, 2003, 11:09 PM
Post #33 of 76
(14844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 22, 2002
Posts: 136
|
In reply to: ... there is nothing beyond laziness that keeps them from actually walking all the way up to the walls. .
Last time I got busted for climbing at Auburn the Rangers 4x4 up to the walls.
Possibly some road dis-improvement is in order. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Sep 17, 2003, 12:58 AM
Post #34 of 76
(14844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
I saw tire tracks up there. Which area were you climbing when they drove up?
|
|
|
|
|
gawd
Sep 17, 2003, 2:04 AM
Post #35 of 76
(14844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 193
|
i guess chipping and being a grod bolter does have it's drawbacks eh? maybe you and your tough guy posse of grid bolters will think tiwce before going ahead with the destruction of public propperty. maybe if we are lucky, theu can get repartitions from the people whom ruined the walls with bolts and chipping.
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Sep 17, 2003, 10:12 AM
Post #36 of 76
(14844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: i guess chipping and being a grod bolter does have it's drawbacks eh? maybe you and your tough guy posse of grid bolters will think tiwce before going ahead with the destruction of public propperty. maybe if we are lucky, theu can get repartitions from the people whom ruined the walls with bolts and chipping.
Interesting perspective gawd (especially since it is so far out in left field and well beyond reality). Please inform us on how you came to the grid bolting and chipping conclusion? Suerly you have climbed extensively here and know the routes and walls then right?
Because if you don't and are just spewing, well then, we done have ourselves a personal attack/troll/flame now don't we?
|
|
|
|
|
osho
Sep 17, 2003, 10:30 AM
Post #37 of 76
(14844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 16, 2002
Posts: 69
|
In reply to: Weren't you there last weekend?
First time I'd been there in months and months... real nice weather that day.
Personally I've yet to ever see a ranger at auburn other than in the entry parking lot. And I agree, if you know your way around there, its pretty easy for the most part to stay well hidden and out of sight.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Sep 17, 2003, 4:44 PM
Post #38 of 76
(14844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
In reply to: In reply to: Weren't you there last weekend? Actually it was the weekend before last :P First time I'd been there in months and months... real nice weather that day. Personally I've yet to ever see a ranger at auburn other than in the entry parking lot. And I agree, if you know your way around there, its pretty easy for the most part to stay well hidden and out of sight.
I agree. That's the thing about Auburn, the weather is always nice! Unless of course there is a giant thunderstorm over Woodland/Davis but not Vacaville.
There was some chalk on Howler Monkey. Was that you guys?
|
|
|
|
|
drkayak
Sep 17, 2003, 5:33 PM
Post #39 of 76
(14844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 22, 2002
Posts: 136
|
In reply to: I saw tire tracks up there. Which area were you climbing when they drove up?
The last time I was ran out was about 2 years ago. We were just standing around talking to some kids from Auburn who claimed to be doing aid climbing higher up in the quarry. The ranger was very harsh, told us to collect our gear and leave, now!
|
|
|
|
|
hallm
Sep 17, 2003, 5:48 PM
Post #40 of 76
(14844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2002
Posts: 170
|
Quote from Cal. Dept. of Parks and Recreation: "Auburn SRA is made up of the lands set aside for the Auburn Dam. California State Parks administers the area under a contract with the US Bureau of Reclamation."
Sounds to me like the land is owned by the federal government, not the state. If that is the case, I am not sure California state statutes can support any land use rules for the park, and that any authority to control use of the land must be grounded in federal law.
If that is the case, the order would be of no effect.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Sep 17, 2003, 6:01 PM
Post #41 of 76
(14844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
That's correct. It is federal land, but there is a management grant to the state somewhere.
Senator Doolittle has been wanting to put in a dam for 20 years, which would put the area under water, including the quarry. However, earlier this summer, a compromise was made, and it was decided that the Folsom dam would be expanded, and raised 10 feet.
From what I've read in the paper, at this point an Auburn dam is politically impossible. But it has left a jurisdictional mess. This is one of the reasons the people I've talked to cite for all the slow going.
They have to get their general use plan approved by the feds as well, just another thick layer of bureaucracy to wade through.
Perhaps the dam compromise will change things, but I was left with the impression that the BLM was previously resistant to changes in usage because the whole area could be flooded.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Sep 17, 2003, 6:01 PM
Post #42 of 76
(14844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: maybe if we are lucky, theu can get repartitions from the people whom ruined the walls with bolts and chipping.
It's a freaking quarry. There is mining junk laying all around. Every cliff there was blasted from the deep cool earth. Every single stone exposed was done so with hammer, chisel, drills and dynamite.
Not only that, not only that my ignorant friend, but the cliffs are upstream of the site of the proposed Auburn Dam. Of course you know nothing about that either I guess.
That dam was supposedly buried by Congress two years ago. Recent events suggest that dam is not as dead as we'd hoped. It is a very strong possibility now, that work will begin anew on the dam in the next 10 years. We only need another extended drought followed by catastrophic floods, as in 96, to force the issue. Sacramento is the largest urban area in the US to suffer such extreme flood risk. And it is an extreme.
There is nothing to reimburse. The John Q Public doesn't give a tinkers damn about those quarries. Only one misguided employee of the public who acts as if she owns the area.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Sep 17, 2003, 6:07 PM
Post #43 of 76
(14844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: From what I've read in the paper, at this point an Auburn dam is politically impossible.
Nope. Things have changed. With Doolittle now permitting the work on the Folsom dam, he can expect (and will demand) quid pro quo for his little project at Auburn. The back room handshake has already been done. Now its just a matter of waiting for the right moment.
We only need one more drought and a flood to cement the deal.
And if California keeps expanding it's population and the 10% growth rate around Sacramento sustains, there WILL BE NO CHOICE but to build that dam anyway.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
drkayak
Sep 17, 2003, 7:29 PM
Post #44 of 76
(14844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 22, 2002
Posts: 136
|
I used to be active in the Friends of the River organization and from what I have read the Auburn Dam is a financial impossibility. It was conceived of in the days when the Corps of Engineers had huge budgets. In today's dollars it would be the most expensive dam ever built in America.
As far as water storage, during the drought years there was not enough water coming down the American drainage to even fill Folsom Lake. Much less another huge lake up stream. Of coarse, they could fill Auburn Dam during a flood year. It would stay full just long enough to kill all the vegetation in the canyon. Then it would sit mostly empty till the next flood.
I recently read they have approved closing the diversion tunnel at the dam site and allowing people to float the river down to Folsom lake.
|
|
|
|
|
gawd
Sep 17, 2003, 7:45 PM
Post #45 of 76
(14844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 193
|
you justify bolting/chipping over devloping an area because it is a quarry? that is not sound logic. just because someone else did it, i can too? do you people teach your children these virtues as well? pfft, pathetic really.
also i see the damn stands for the greater good of all the people of the sacramento area, whereas climbing serves a few people. and it seems that they are ego driven as well.
also on a side note. roughtster has threatend to ban me because i do not agree with his ethics in developing an area. he states that since i disagree with grid bolting, chipping or other dubious ethics that i am trolling him. i would say remove your personal bias from moderation.
and secondly if this is so, why were the people whom threatend me and my family viz this website never banned or tarpitted? seems ludicris really. you have uphold a standard and again this website falls short.
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Sep 17, 2003, 7:54 PM
Post #46 of 76
(14844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: you justify bolting/chipping over devloping an area because it is a quarry? that is not sound logic. just because someone else did it, i can too? do you people teach your children these virtues as well? pfft, pathetic really.
I don't justify the over developing or chipping in any way since that isn't happening. The only thing not logical here is the fact that you are making stuff up about a place you have no clue about.
In reply to: also i see the damn stands for the greater good of all the people of the sacramento area, whereas climbing serves a few people. and it seems that they are ego driven as well.
As if any of us have any real expectation that we could stop thye dam being built so they will allow us access to a quarry? Man, seek help.
In reply to: also on a side note. roughtster has threatend to ban me because i do not agree with his ethics in developing an area. he states that since i disagree with grid bolting, chipping or other dubious ethics that i am trolling him. i would say remove your personal bias from moderation.
I didn't threaten to ban you. I warned that your above was a personal attack which is against TOS and further attacks woudl result in being yellow tarpitted. This is per the TOS.
In reply to: and secondly if this is so, why were the people whom threatend me and my family viz this website never banned or tarpitted? seems ludicris really. you have uphold a standard and again this website falls short.
Are you sure the people who did weren't WARNED and refered to the TOS? That is all you have been here, WARNED and refered to the TOS. I see you like to over state your case don't you?
|
|
|
|
|
gawd
Sep 17, 2003, 8:05 PM
Post #47 of 76
(14844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 193
|
you threatend me with moderation for something that you are taking personal. did i list any names or routes? no! i listed what i have heard of the area. i do not know you, and really am glad for that fact. so i believe you are the one whom is attempting to take this personal. you are taking it personal and then attempting to use your powers to silence someone whom disagrees. i believe another poster who questioned your ethics was also threatend with moderation.
you read my words wrong as well. if they build the damn! great! if they do not great! but for the area, the more responsible use would for the damn, which benefits everyone of the sacramento area. where as the bolted routes only serve a small portion of the people for the area. the damn has greater good. never did i say it was the damn vs sport climbing in the decision to close the area. you are again attempting to build something that suits you from nothing.
i really think someone who is not able to seperate personal emotions from a job that requires an objective standpoint should not be in a mod or admin position.
you are a selfish person to think that only your wants and deisres for an area are the most import. and bolting after stated closures reinforces that.
|
|
|
|
|
killclimbz
Sep 17, 2003, 8:14 PM
Post #48 of 76
(14844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2000
Posts: 1964
|
Roughster,
Seems like everyone likes to jump to conclusions when gawd is around. He probably touches rock once or twice a year if at all. His opinions speak the language but are uninformed and he can hardly back them up. He's is more of an imp than anything. Some amusing posts. I doubt he even knows how to clip a draw correctly, much less place a cam or nut.
The situation at Auburn sucks, especially if it is a state recreation area. I think I read this is ran by the State Parks. They also run Castle Rock and other parks with climbing. Why is there no problem there? Seems like some uninformed management. Especially since you guys are bolting a freak'in quarry. I was kind of hoping to visit your area this winter or maybe early spring when I'm out in the Bay visiting the pods. Hopefully, you guys are able to solve this situation. Battles like this will happen, even if you try to contact a land manager before you bolt half the time you get no response because they have no idea what you mean. After a given period with no answer of course you go ahead and bolt it. I think I've stated before we have a couple of ticking bombs out here that are great climbing areas that could go sour in the next year or two. Keep us apprised.
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Sep 17, 2003, 8:17 PM
Post #49 of 76
(14844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
Trolls are fun, especially when they get riled up after getting called on trolling. You need to take a chill pile gawd. You have had a warning via PM to stay within TOS. It is not the end of the world.
If you follow the TOS from this point on, you have nothing to fear. I mean surely an upstanding citizen of RC.com such as yourself would have no problem following the guidelines set out in the TOS correct?
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Sep 17, 2003, 8:23 PM
Post #50 of 76
(14844 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
killclimbz:
1st paragraph agreement :)
As for Auburn, I agree there is no logic. There are 14 other state park "units" or areas under state management that allow climbing. They all use the exact same set up codes of regulations and laws and have no problem with it.
I guess it is just going to take some time to bring them around to it. The AF has brought this up with them, I have brought it up with them, Dave has brought this up with them, etc... It is frustrating working at their pace though since it does involve both the BofRec and SRA as well as the CA budget, which is what they cite as being the #1 thing holding things up. No funds.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Sep 17, 2003, 8:26 PM
Post #51 of 76
(15740 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
In reply to: the more responsible use would for the damn, which benefits everyone of the sacramento area. where as the bolted routes only serve a small portion of the people for the area. the damn has greater good.
You're such a clown gawd.
This post shows just how little you know about the area. "a few bolted sport routes" are not the only natural resource in the area. It is a recreational zoo. Trail runners, mountain bikers, horse people, dirt bikers, hikers, families, rafters, tubers, beach goers and party animals all use this area. The quarry is a very small part of the SRA. Why can't climbers recreate? We don't have the impact that motorcycles, bikes or horses do.
And I think the fact that the area was chipped with DYNAMITE before any of us got there is more than adequate justification for bolting.
What a sad little man you are.
|
|
|
|
|
gawd
Sep 17, 2003, 8:29 PM
Post #52 of 76
(15740 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 193
|
also to note, i have written and included a link to the named land manager. i am sure she will be glad to see she has been insulted in this and another thread.
and roughster, please show me where i have trolled? your personal interpetations are very incorrect, and extremly biased.
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Sep 17, 2003, 8:34 PM
Post #53 of 76
(15740 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: also to note, i have written and included a link to the named land manager. i am sure she will be glad to see she has been insulted in this and another thread. and roughster, please show me where i have trolled? your personal interpetations are very incorrect, and extremly biased.
gawd you want to talk about petty, selfish, and completely self serving? Do we see a pattern here with this and your Camp 5 thread? What good will PMing the Auburn SRA to the presence of this thread do other than serve your own PETTY ego stroking?
|
|
|
|
|
killclimbz
Sep 17, 2003, 8:37 PM
Post #54 of 76
(15740 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2000
Posts: 1964
|
In reply to: also to note, i have written and included a link to the named land manager. i am sure she will be glad to see she has been insulted in this and another thread. and roughster, please show me where i have trolled? your personal interpetations are very incorrect, and extremly biased.
gawd, do you climb at all? I'm sure you are trolling, but this is a stoopid thing to do. Then again go for it, you just might get climbing at an area you frequent banned by these type of actions.
Good reply and very amusing, though your mastery of English needs some work.
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Sep 17, 2003, 8:42 PM
Post #55 of 76
(15740 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
Actually I think it would be pretty enlightening for the SRA to read this thread. If anything it will hopefully bring a greater understanding of the legal issues involved with the current access situation and also to serve as a notice that climber ARE serious about getting access resolved to the area.
I won't thank gawd (heheh that sounded funny) for doing it, especially since it is only done in spite and pettiness, but I will also refuse to become riled up about it which is really his only goal...which also leads back to exactly what got him into trouble in the 1st place, making posts specifically to rile up people up :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
hallm
Sep 17, 2003, 8:43 PM
Post #56 of 76
(15740 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2002
Posts: 170
|
Informing the area supervisor will do nothing.
I think Gawd may believe that doing so (if he in fact did so) will lead to heightened patrols of the climbing areas. With the fiscal mess California is in, we don't have money to keep regular law enforcement with full personnel, much less the Parks and Recreation Department.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Sep 17, 2003, 8:48 PM
Post #57 of 76
(15740 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
In reply to: Actually I think it would be pretty enlightening for the SRA to read this thread. :lol:
After initial annoyance with gawds petty threat, this is the conclusion I reached also. Nothing damning has been said in this thread. They know we want to climb there.
|
|
|
|
|
cloudbreak
Sep 17, 2003, 8:55 PM
Post #58 of 76
(15740 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2002
Posts: 917
|
Gawd Damn!
|
|
|
|
|
stone_monkey
Sep 17, 2003, 9:05 PM
Post #59 of 76
(15740 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 18, 2002
Posts: 54
|
In reply to: also to note, i have written and included a link to the named land manager.
waaah roughster/rrradam/ptpp/curt keeps picking on me I'm gonna go tell my mommy.........
No class at all, and no balls either.
|
|
|
|
|
bldr
Sep 17, 2003, 9:33 PM
Post #60 of 76
(15740 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 35
|
This topic makes me wonder why (some) climbers feel it is their right to climb anywhere that climbing is possible. Just because the quarry has climbing potential should that really mean climbers have a right to be there?
Sure the land is set aside for the public use, but someone has been given the task of overseeing that use, and it is their discretion as to what uses are allowed. Sure climbing has been taking place for a long time at the quarry, but has it ever been fully legal? I understand that roughster just received the order explicitly stating that climbing was not allowed, but climbing has never been explicitly allowed. If I remeber correctly roughster is not the first developer for that site, I wonder what caused others to stop route development? Perhaps other route developers stopped because climbing is/was not allowed in that location.
I think this topic is right inline with trouble the climbing community is having all over. Yes climbing access is threatened in a lot of areas, but just because it can be climbed do we really have a right to be there? I personally feel that route development in an area like Auburn should not have happened. Climbing in Auburn is not welcome, yes you can be careful and hide from the rangers but are you really doing what's right and whats best for the climbing community?
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Sep 17, 2003, 9:43 PM
Post #61 of 76
(15740 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
In reply to: Sure the land is set aside for the public use, but someone has been given the task of overseeing that use, and it is their discretion as to what uses are allowed.
Bingo. It is for public use.
It is up to their discretion. But they have a duty as public officials to have reasons for their actions. I am unpersuaded by the reasons given by the SRA as to why we can't climb the same cliffs that search and rescue uses for training.
And by your rationale, climbing areas can be closed anywhere a public supervisor feels it's warranted. So, we shouldn't work to get access to those areas?
You think climbing there hurts the 'climbing community?' I disagree. If people don't care about the area, they won't try to gain access. If people don't climb in the area, they won't care.
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Sep 17, 2003, 9:51 PM
Post #62 of 76
(15740 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: In reply to: Sure the land is set aside for the public use, but someone has been given the task of overseeing that use, and it is their discretion as to what uses are allowed. Bingo. It is for public use. It is up to their discretion. But they have a duty as public officials to have reasons for their actions. I am unpersuaded by the reasons given by the SRA as to why we can't climb the same cliffs that search and rescue uses for training. And by your rationale, climbing areas can be closed anywhere a public supervisor feels it's warranted. So, we shouldn't work to get access to those areas? You think climbing there hurts the 'climbing community?' I disagree. If people don't care about the area, they won't try to gain access. If people don't climb in the area, they won't care.
Right on the $$ in my book :)
|
|
|
|
|
hallm
Sep 17, 2003, 9:57 PM
Post #63 of 76
(15740 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2002
Posts: 170
|
bldr-
I think you are suffering from a misapprention or unsupported premise. You state that the the supervisor of a public area has discretion to decide what uses are permitted. Not so, statutes and regulations, enacted by the legislature and issued by the proper administrative agency pursuant to law, are what controls the use of public land.
If the supervisor acts outside of the scope of authority granted by law (ultra vires, in legal terms), then their decision to ban or permit any particular activity or use is of no effect. While laws provide some discretion to the administrative branch, discretion is normally limited so that people are treated equally.
It is true that people do not have a right to climb wherever they want (particularly on private lands). But, on public land, the presumption is that all use is allowed unless it is destructive of another's use.
In this particular situation, climbing is allowed on almost every other State Park and State Recreation Area. It seems that it is just the opinion of one park supervisor that climbing should not be allowed at Auburn. That to me seems to be beyond the grant given to the park supervisor.
If the park supervisor is acting lawfully in prohibiting climbing, then we can always try to get the law changed. That is the hall mark of a democratic society, if you don't like what is going on, get a group together and lobby for change.
Now, there could be good reasons for not allowing climbing in any particular area. But you have not (nor has anyone else, that I am aware of) provided any for a ban on climbing at Auburn. If you can come up with one, feel free to let us know.
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Sep 17, 2003, 10:01 PM
Post #64 of 76
(15740 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: I think this topic is right inline with trouble the climbing community is having all over. Yes climbing access is threatened in a lot of areas, but just because it can be climbed do we really have a right to be there?
The Auburn State Recreation Area is public land specifically set aside for recreational use for the people of California. If climbing is not allowed at an area like this, where is it?
When other CA land managers here that the Auburn SRA successfully closed Auburn, do you not think it will give them additional firepower to close the land they manage to climbing should they chose?
In todays day and age of land management, ALL climbing areas should be protected and fought for if located on public lands. What we fight for now, will set the stage for the next generation of climbers. I would hate to think that when my kids grow up they most likely will not be allowed to barely climb outdoors at all if the current trend in land management continues :(
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Sep 18, 2003, 9:53 PM
Post #65 of 76
(15740 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: you justify bolting/chipping over devloping an area because it is a quarry?
Um, I don't personally justify chipping no. Bolting, absolutely. Come to think of it, I have little problem with chipping in a quarry. I don't encourage it, but it doesn't bother me to be frank.
In reply to: that is not sound logic.
OK Mr. Spock, what ever you say, hehe.
In reply to: just because someone else did it, i can too? do you people teach your children these virtues as well?
I teach my children its OK to established bolted rock climbs on public cliffs in areas where such practices are accepted by the local climbing community and the law, yes I do. I show them that most closed quarries are garbage dumps and permanent scars upon the land. I tell them greedy capitalists sucked what wealth they could from the ground and abandoned the mess for the public, for me and my children to pick up the tab. So I encourage them to pick up the odd bits of litter we find, to make these places cleaner than when we arrived. I tell them there are sometimes diamonds in the rough, pearls among swine, treasures literally in the trash heap, for climbers. I tell them how climber's can and have become stewards of the lands they clean up, because they cherish these places so.
What was once a useless bramble filled hollow at the base of a crappy piece of quarried limestone is now a place of human activity, happy people, enjoying themselves. The place is cleaner and the people there do not pollute. Rather they pick up things and improve the place. Remember, this isn't the John Muir wilderness, this is the bottom of a quarry pit with old rubber tires and drill bits laying around. Now it's a playground for smiling people who aren't out to hurt anyone or anything. And these are good climbs too. Excellent climbs!
It's public land and it was a useless garbage dump until these guys started doing something about it. Think of these routes as an adult playground apparatus. The only harm in it is that some cold hearted public servants grow Lordly in their administration of our public trusts.
In reply to: also i see the damn stands for the greater good of all the people of the sacramento area, whereas climbing serves a few people. and it seems that they are ego driven as well.
Ah, staying on the "needs of the many over the needs of the one" theme, eh Mr. Spock! Well done! Well done Sir. It's a 'dam' by the way. It is not logical to misspell words in a duel of wits. It demonstrates your firepower all too clearly.
I say, let them drown!
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
superlob
Oct 29, 2003, 7:40 AM
Post #66 of 76
(15740 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2003
Posts: 30
|
Heard any new news? Would love to help out more also as this is a great place for the bay/sac climbers to escape to for the weekend.
|
|
|
|
|
maculated
Oct 29, 2003, 8:07 AM
Post #67 of 76
(15740 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 23, 2001
Posts: 6179
|
I don't know how I missed this . .. oh wait, I was on a road trip :P
Guys, if there is anything I can do to help, please tell me. Losing Auburn would be a major travesty to the climbing community of California, even if they don't know it yet.
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Oct 29, 2003, 12:57 PM
Post #68 of 76
(15740 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
In reply to: Technical climbing is prohibited on any geological feature within the Auburn State Recreation Area. Technical climbing is defined as climbing up or down a geological feature using some type of apparatus to assist with the accent or decent. Apparatus includes, but is not limited to, ropes, anchors, bolts, active or passive protection, (cams, nuts, etc.), carabineers, chains, and/or harnesses.
you can still free solo.
and it DOES suck.
|
|
|
|
|
skippy420
Feb 16, 2005, 9:17 AM
Post #69 of 76
(15740 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 16, 2005
Posts: 2
|
Its good to see so many people care about our access rights. I am local to the area and have climbed sporadically in the auburn area since 1997. It sounds as though there is 2 Auburn area crags that have been talked about. One is on the 80 side of the American River where the offroad area is located at. I am not sure about the status of that area but Its so chossy and scary that it really is only to be used for repelling and geology finds. The Spreckles Quarry is a beutiful and well developed area that was developed by friends of mine in the mid 90's. Unfortunately a good friend of mine died while doing a rope jump off of a tyrollean strung accross the Auburn (a.k.a. Spreckles) quarry. After this tragic event the authorities became aware of the climbing and decided to close the upper part of the quarry to all visitors. The lower part of the quarry was closed to climbing but is still a great place to have a picnic. Hope this sheds a little light as to why its no longer to be used as a climbing area.
Jared
|
|
|
|
|
robs
May 10, 2005, 12:14 AM
Post #70 of 76
(15740 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 4
|
Hey,
I recently moved to Grass Valley and have been to the quarry a couple of times. I was hoping to get involved in efforts to get the area opened to climbing.
The Auburn Journal recently ran a front-page article on climbing in the quarry: http://www.auburnjournal.com/...ories/01cliffs19.txt
The same individual mentioned in the article subsequently wrote an editorial to the newspaper: http://www.auburnjournal.com/...etters/04letters.txt
None of the anti-climbing arguments make any sense. I've tried to contact Gordy Ainsleigh via the newspaper, but haven't had any luck so far. Sadly, I wasn't able to make it to the last board meeting. I'll try next time.
Is anyone here still active on this?
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
May 10, 2005, 12:45 AM
Post #71 of 76
(15740 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
The situation at Auburn never fails to amaze me. Jill is the manager for the area, and her justification for not allowing climbing is that THERE IS NOT ENOUGH PARKING FOR CLIMBERS, yet there anyone else there can park. This includes hikers, runners, swimmers, drinkers, cavers, mountain bikers and rafters. I don't understand why they have more of a right to park then I do. Or when I am ok while I hike the 2 miles into the crag, but am a problem once I pull the rope out of the pack.
What makes this even more outrageous is that there is a SECOND PARKING LOT that is even closer to the upper quarry. It is gated, and is easily as big as the lower parking lot.
In my opinion, the article did a good job of accurately portraying what's going on at Auburn. Jill doesn't want to be bothered. There's a study that says there's no detrimental impact from climbing. Yet climbing is still not allowed.
The climbing is good. I've spent over 40 days in that quarry, and I've gone into Auburn for a meal every time, supporting the local economy. Plus, Auburn is climbable year round.
The Access fund is involved, but have not made any progress so far as I know.
The situation always bums me out, because there is absolutely no reason to not allow climbing there. I for one will continue to climb there, and I would encourage others to do the same.
|
|
|
|
|
scuclimber
May 11, 2005, 6:36 PM
Post #72 of 76
(15740 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2003
Posts: 1007
|
I didn't know Gordy Ainsleigh was involved. He is an awesome individual. Same guy who established the Western States 100. Does his board position mentioned in the article give him any real power?
Colin
|
|
|
|
|
pushsendnorcal
May 11, 2005, 6:46 PM
Post #73 of 76
(15740 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 15, 2003
Posts: 207
|
oh well
the place is a pile anyways
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
May 11, 2005, 6:50 PM
Post #74 of 76
(15740 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
In reply to: oh well the place is a pile anyways
You haven't been there lately. Hey, don't you just boulder anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
mungeclimber
May 25, 2005, 6:32 AM
Post #75 of 76
(15740 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 2, 2002
Posts: 648
|
Where do we write the letters again?
|
|
|
|
|
scuclimber
Feb 16, 2006, 8:51 AM
Post #76 of 76
(13395 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2003
Posts: 1007
|
Thought I'd resurrect this because Auburn is in my backyard when I'm at my folks house. What's going on? Same shenanigans as before?
Colin
|
|
|
|
|
|
