|
villageidiot
Jan 15, 2007, 8:16 PM
Post #1 of 6
(542 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 11, 2005
Posts: 68
|
this area should be removed b/c of access issues.
|
|
|
|
|
markc
Jan 16, 2007, 7:47 AM
Post #2 of 6
(516 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 2194
|
Is it your opinion that all crags with access issues should be removed? I know of a few closed crags that are listed in the DB. If nothing else, they serve as a reminder of access issues and clearly inform new people of the access status.
There are no directions listed for Woodland, and the description clearly states, "the climbs are located on private land. People parked on privated land have been tickted. Those parked legally have be warned that they will be arrested if they return." I respect your opinion, but I don't see the harm.
|
|
|
|
|
villageidiot
Jan 16, 2007, 8:26 AM
Post #3 of 6
(500 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 11, 2005
Posts: 68
|
I would not advocate remving all crags with threatened access. However, climbing at woodlands seem to be tolerated only b/c the volume is low.
The last few years have been kind of rough for the SWPA area and West Viginia. Krahlicks was closed completely, Nelson's Rock was closed (as I understand), the White Rock's purchase is tied up, and now it looks like access at Coopers could be restricted.
Am I being selfish, perhaps? I have since left Pittsburgh, but I really don't want to see any more areas closed for my friends back there.
Peace.
|
|
|
|
|
markc
Jan 16, 2007, 10:39 AM
Post #4 of 6
(480 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 2194
|
I'm still in the area, and I'm hurting much like your friends. My point was that anyone looking here for information on Woodland would learn about the access issues. They would also have no way of finding Woodland based upon the info here. There are no directions or GPS coordinates. It might be a long shot, but seeing another area with access issues may inspire some to get involved where they can.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jan 16, 2007, 11:28 AM
Post #5 of 6
(464 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 15781
|
I agree, Mark. Another reason to leave it up: it acts like a keep-out sign post. Erasing it will lead to somebody else, who may not know the access problems, reposting it and next time, there might be directions. The option that works best is to keep it posted with an explicit message about its access, i.e., "Closed."
|
|
|
|
|
dharmatreez
Jan 16, 2007, 1:29 PM
Post #6 of 6
(437 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 25, 2005
Posts: 225
|
villageidiot wrote: ...climbing at woodlands seem to be tolerated only b/c the volume is low...
BUT it is still illegal on private property
the mentality of keeping a place secret (not posted), so that a few that know about it, and can continue to climb there in Guerilla style is in bad form
this is rampant in PA, but is usually of spots on public land
[even worse, but i have been debunking those myths as i can, ie... Hunters (Rocky Ridge Natural Area), Rock Run]
keeping a place worthy of climbing posted and labeled BOLDY that it is CLOSED (arretinator is good at this, the CLOSED even flashes at you) is the best avenue, it allows those who can to work on access if the landowner is willing to do so
as to other closures, if the private propery owner wishes to blast the rock away or paint it all pink with purple dots, they CAN.
just because there is a rock, does not give "climbers" the entitlement to access
the Bellefonte Quarry is a good case, amazing climbing i've been told on top quality limestone, lots of 5.11s and 5.12s (along with hundreds of climbs) right in central PA, but the owners of the Lime company do not want climbers there (or anyone for that matter), so even though it is so close to me, it is out of mind, just because i climb doesn't give me special privilage to sneak in for the rock, just as a yocal who might want to cliff dive there into the water on a hot summer day doesn't have access rights either
now if i was fortunate enought to have rock on my property, i would certainly allow climbers, but i am a climber, someone who isn't that owns property has a completely different set of usage ideas
get in touch with the Access Fund regional coordinator for your area, talk to them, talk to the owner, talk to the area climbers that might be visiting and get them to stop until or if access is granted, but keep it posted (without directions) for awareness
a few "entitlement" drones could endanger any future relationships with the owner and climbing community, if he/she finds climbers trespassing now, then they could conclude that all climbers are cut from the same cloth and would be turned away from working with them in the future, but dropping it off the radar is only going to allow people who stumble across it somehow to not realize the access issues and further the "problem"
happy trails and safe climbing
jason
(This post was edited by dharmatreez on Jan 16, 2007, 1:32 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
