|
caughtinside
Sep 17, 2003, 8:26 PM
Post #51 of 76
(15711 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
(15711 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
(15711 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
(15711 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
(15711 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
(15711 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
(15711 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
(15711 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2002
Posts: 917
|
Gawd Damn!
|
|
|
|
|
stone_monkey
Sep 17, 2003, 9:05 PM
Post #59 of 76
(15711 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
(15711 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
(15711 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
(15711 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
(15711 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
(15711 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
(15711 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
(15711 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
(15711 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
(15711 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
(15711 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
(15711 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
(15711 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
(15711 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
(15711 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
(15711 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
(15711 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 2, 2002
Posts: 648
|
Where do we write the letters again?
|
|
|
|
|
|
