|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Jan 29, 2007, 6:17 PM
Post #1 of 29
(2124 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
Congratulations n00bs, here is your rewards.
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.courierpostonline.com/...EWS01/701290338/1006
Rock climbers seek legal foothold
Monday, January 29, 2007
By RICHARD PEARSALL
Courier-Post Staff
Contending that what they do is no more dangerous than horseback riding or mountain biking, a group of rock climbers is asking the state to recognize climbing in all its forms as a permissible activity in state parks.
Climbers now have to visit a State Park office and get a waiver before they can pursue their hobby.
They have asked the Department of Environmental Protection to change the park code to explicitly authorize climbing.
"It's more a question of parity than anything else," said John Anderson, a 44-year-old Mount Holly resident who heads Access NJ, a grass-roots association of climbers pushing the state to change its stance.
"No other user group has to fill out a waiver," said Andy Norvin, 30, an attorney in Florham Park and also an Access NJ member.
"We're not saying that climbing is without risks," Norvin said, "but there are equally dangerous activities that are allowed -- mountain biking, horseback riding, boating."
Norvin cited the horseback riding accident that paralyzed actor Christopher Reeve to emphasize his point.
Dana Loschiavo, a spokesman for the Department of Environmental Protection, cited parachuting and scuba diving as two other activities that require waivers to pursue on state land.
"We're trying to strike the right balance between the competing interests of recreation and the safety of our visitors," she said.
She said the department reviews the administrative code for the Division of Parks and Forestry every five years.
It has fielded comments and will make a decision on its latest revision of the code by April 15.
Anderson grew up in Oak Ridge, a community in North Jersey, and has climbed in the Himalayas.
Climbers take great care when pursuing their hobby, Anderson said, training extensively before moving up a ladder of difficulty that ranges from 5.0, "easy," to 5.14 "a blank rock wall."
Knowing "that gravity can bite limits the number of people who try it," Anderson said.
"Its a knee-jerk reaction that this is a very dangerous sport," Norvin said.
|
|
|
|
|
bizarrodrinker
Jan 29, 2007, 6:33 PM
Post #2 of 29
(2084 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 20, 2005
Posts: 2316
|
It seems as though the climbers are permitted to climb if they sign said waiver. So what's the problem?
They want you to sign a waiver at gyms too, but no one seems to be complaining.
|
|
|
|
|
wanderlustmd
Jan 29, 2007, 6:39 PM
Post #3 of 29
(2076 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 24, 2006
Posts: 8150
|
bizarrodrinker wrote: It seems as though the climbers are permitted to climb if they sign said waiver. So what's the problem? They want you to sign a waiver at gyms too, but no one seems to be complaining.
State parks are supposed to be for everyone. Not that gyms aren't, but since you have to pay it becomes a service = people responsible = liability = waiver. Since the park belongs to the people, in essence, there shouldn't be a waiver (in theory)
If the environment/bystanders are not being jeopardized, who cares? Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
Oh yeah, it started when people sued McDonald's over hot coffee.
|
|
|
|
|
bizarrodrinker
Jan 29, 2007, 6:52 PM
Post #4 of 29
(2042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 20, 2005
Posts: 2316
|
wanderlustmd wrote: bizarrodrinker wrote: It seems as though the climbers are permitted to climb if they sign said waiver. So what's the problem? They want you to sign a waiver at gyms too, but no one seems to be complaining. State parks are supposed to be for everyone. Not that gyms aren't, but since you have to pay it becomes a service = people responsible = liability = waiver. Since the park belongs to the people, in essence, there shouldn't be a waiver (in theory) If the environment/bystanders are not being jeopardized, who cares? Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Oh yeah, it started when people sued McDonald's over hot coffee.
The fact is there is an significant impact on envioronment. Vegetation gets trampled, idiots paint trees to mark their trails, people leave trash, cigarette butts etc, people get hurt. There is a laundry list of reasons that people don't want climbers around.
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Jan 29, 2007, 7:04 PM
Post #5 of 29
(2020 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
majid_sabet wrote: Congratulations n00bs, here is your rewards. In reply to: Contending that what they do is no more dangerous than horseback riding or mountain biking, a group of rock climbers is asking the state to recognize climbing in all its forms as a permissible activity in state parks. Climbers now have to visit a State Park office and get a waiver before they can pursue their hobby. They have asked the Department of Environmental Protection to change the park code to explicitly authorize climbing. "It's more a question of parity than anything else," said John Anderson, a 44-year-old Mount Holly resident who heads Access NJ, a grass-roots association of climbers pushing the state to change its stance. "No other user group has to fill out a waiver," said Andy Norvin, 30, an attorney in Florham Park and also an Access NJ member. |
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Jan 29, 2007, 7:20 PM
Post #6 of 29
(1992 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
marc
Give it some time and I bet every park will follow the same requirement
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Jan 29, 2007, 7:53 PM
Post #7 of 29
(1938 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
majid_sabet wrote: marc Give it some time and I bet every park will follow the same requirement
Given enough time, every park will close due to the flagrant lawsuits that are allowed to proceed.
I'd like to have the state job of running around and putting a protective coating over every thorn on a rose bush so nobody could sue for scraps, cuts, loss of work, rehab, suffering, emotional distress, negligence, medical costs, attorney fees and court costs.
We've got to nip these problems in the bud.
|
|
|
|
|
AngusBeefheart
Jan 29, 2007, 8:00 PM
Post #8 of 29
(1922 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 26, 2006
Posts: 68
|
hell, NC state parks make you register at the trailhead before you go climbing, so what?
at worst having people read and sign a waiver will keep the sport climbers away, at best the parks will have documented how many people climb and will realize that it's plenty popular.
|
|
|
|
|
truello
Jan 29, 2007, 8:31 PM
Post #9 of 29
(1878 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2006
Posts: 737
|
I can see the complaints that climbing is outlawed but signing a little waiver is a minor nuisance that, like stated above, is no different than signing one at a gym.
It may also keep people who shouldn't be climbing out, or make them think twice before putting up badly placed bolts.
|
|
|
|
|
ebonezercabbage
Jan 29, 2007, 8:56 PM
Post #10 of 29
(1847 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 10, 2004
Posts: 151
|
"bizarrodrinker wrote: The fact is there is an significant impact on envioronment. Vegetation gets trampled, idiots paint trees to mark their trails, people leave trash, cigarette butts etc, people get hurt. There is a laundry list of reasons that people don't want climbe rs around.
Actually, u can say the same thing about horseback riding, mountain biking, even hiking. I dont think the environment issue has weight here, because we're not talking about access. The place already has access to potentially environmental issues, we are talking about singling out one particular sport.
I am not saying i'm for or against the wavier. I'm indifferent towards it. But i can see a reason for it. My question is, why dont the other sports have one too? I'd agree that they are equally dangerous ( or close ).
Perhaps its how climbers are viewed. The old hack, "skeezy rock climbers," might have something to do with it. Although our gear is sometimes outragiously expensive, looking at it from a novice perspective, you'd never know it. ( i can buy rope at the walmart for 20 bucks) They probably look at us as poor, unworking slobs that climb around on rocks all day looking for a quick buck. Whereas, say horsebackriding, those funny looking ( but expensivelooking) suits and hats, not to mention the price of the horse, is viewed as a noble pursuit. They seem them as rich and well-to-do, unlikely to sue if they fall off their ( pun ) high horse.
I dunno, just some thought.
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Jan 29, 2007, 9:04 PM
Post #11 of 29
(1835 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
Interesting...
A park in Ohio that allows climbing (Hinckley) requires you to fax a copy of your home-owners insurance policy to show that you have liability insurance before they allow you to climb there...
It's annoying, but it makes sense, if you consider that the clifffs are right next to the hiking trails, so if I knock down a rock that hits a passer-by hiker ,and the passer-by hiker then sues the Park for creating unsafe conditions, park can pass the responsibility back to me...
Unfortunately, a more likely scenario is that the said passer-by, who DIDN'T sign any waivers, knocks down a rock ( on purpose, quite often!!! ) that hits ME in the head... But oh well, I signed a waiver... I knew the risks associated with climbing :)
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Jan 29, 2007, 9:38 PM
Post #12 of 29
(1780 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
lena_chita wrote: Interesting... A park in Ohio that allows climbing (Hinckley) requires you to fax a copy of your home-owners insurance policy to show that you have liability insurance before they allow you to climb there... It's annoying, but it makes sense, if you consider that the clifffs are right next to the hiking trails, so if I knock down a rock that hits a passer-by hiker ,and the passer-by hiker then sues the Park for creating unsafe conditions, park can pass the responsibility back to me... Unfortunately, a more likely scenario is that the said passer-by, who DIDN'T sign any waivers, knocks down a rock ( on purpose, quite often!!! ) that hits ME in the head... But oh well, I signed a waiver... I knew the risks associated with climbing :)
So if you get a rescue, park will turn around and bill your insurance to cover the cost ?
|
|
|
|
|
hanginaround
Jan 29, 2007, 9:57 PM
Post #13 of 29
(1742 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 28, 2004
Posts: 126
|
I think NJ should make you sign a waiver before driving in their tiny little state. That might save some real coin. ;-(
|
|
|
|
|
flowin
Jan 30, 2007, 12:01 AM
Post #14 of 29
(1672 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 23, 2005
Posts: 120
|
I understand your point, but with all the closures and access issues, a wiaver seems a small price to pay. As climbers we have to out think them (or solve the problem as boulders) and sign the waive and have a good time! What ever keeps them off our backs.
|
|
|
|
|
erin
Jan 30, 2007, 2:49 PM
Post #16 of 29
(1534 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2005
Posts: 149
|
majid_sabet wrote: Congratulations n00bs, here is your rewards. -Climbers take great care when pursuing their hobby, Anderson said, training extensively before moving up a ladder of difficulty that ranges from 5.0, "easy," to 5.14 "a blank rock wall."
I thought 5.15 was "a blank rock wall". 5.14 has at least one crimp on it.
|
|
|
|
|
d1ll1gaf
Jan 30, 2007, 3:22 PM
Post #17 of 29
(1505 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 119
|
lena_chita wrote: Interesting... A park in Ohio that allows climbing (Hinckley) requires you to fax a copy of your home-owners insurance policy to show that you have liability insurance before they allow you to climb there... It's annoying, but it makes sense, if you consider that the clifffs are right next to the hiking trails, so if I knock down a rock that hits a passer-by hiker ,and the passer-by hiker then sues the Park for creating unsafe conditions, park can pass the responsibility back to me... Unfortunately, a more likely scenario is that the said passer-by, who DIDN'T sign any waivers, knocks down a rock ( on purpose, quite often!!! ) that hits ME in the head... But oh well, I signed a waiver... I knew the risks associated with climbing :)
Is this a public or private park? If it is public land I have a problem with this policy. Home owners insurance (well a good idea) is not required by law, and as such to require it for the use of public land is discriminatory against people who decide that they don't require home owners insurance, or simply don't want it.
|
|
|
|
|
norm1057
Jan 30, 2007, 6:20 PM
Post #18 of 29
(1448 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 21, 2006
Posts: 104
|
Ridiculousness! (new made up word?) So what this requirement to sign a waiver is saying:
Public lands to include national forests, BLM, and even state parks belong to, are paid for, and should have open access to by the people who own them. With this reasoning, I maybe should sign some type of waiver to access the 5 acres where I have made my home. That would not be any more ridiculous!
All special interest groups should be treated equally regardless of the "special interest." The best option for all concerned would be to do away with such waivers on all public property and hold people accountable for their actions. This is becoming such a foriegn concept in this great country.
|
|
|
|
|
betaben
Jan 30, 2007, 6:39 PM
Post #19 of 29
(1432 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 3, 2002
Posts: 726
|
Hinkley is part of the Cleveland Metro-Parks, Which therefore is public land, but is city owned. The cities liabality insure requires this. If they did not have this policy there would be no climbing at all allowed.
This policy has been in place for years and I do not know of any other area that requires it.
Ben
|
|
|
|
|
dynoho
Jan 30, 2007, 8:26 PM
Post #20 of 29
(1377 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 16, 2006
Posts: 285
|
d1ll1gaf wrote: Is this a public or private park? If it is public land I have a problem with this policy. Home owners insurance (well a good idea) is not required by law, and as such to require it for the use of public land is discriminatory against people who decide that they don't require home owners insurance, or simply don't want it.
And those who rent would be completely screwed. I believe that a rental policy would only cover contents, not liability...
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Jan 30, 2007, 8:44 PM
Post #21 of 29
(1359 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
In reply to: "We're trying to strike the right balance between the competing interests of recreation and the safety of our visitors," she said.
How, exactly, does a waiver ensure safety? It does not. It would be more accurate for her to assert that NJ is trying to strike a balance between recreation and liability.
Point 2: Majid, I don't think this will spread. If anything, it sounds to me like this is one policiy that won't survive much longer. Now, signing in at trailheads, a la North Cackalacka, that is here to stay. But so what? As an SAR professional yourself, surely you have to admit that a roster of every climber on the mountain could come in mighty handy if the shit hits the fan.
|
|
|
|
|
truello
Jan 30, 2007, 10:13 PM
Post #22 of 29
(1327 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2006
Posts: 737
|
dynoho wrote: d1ll1gaf wrote: Is this a public or private park? If it is public land I have a problem with this policy. Home owners insurance (well a good idea) is not required by law, and as such to require it for the use of public land is discriminatory against people who decide that they don't require home owners insurance, or simply don't want it. And those who rent would be completely screwed. I believe that a rental policy would only cover contents, not liability...
The park in Ohio lena_chita is referring to also accepts proof of rental insurance.
It does suck for me because I am in a situation where i'm renting but its not worth getting renter's insurance (I am moving mid-February so I have basically been living out of my suitcase).
|
|
|
|
|
bobruef
Jan 30, 2007, 10:48 PM
Post #23 of 29
(1294 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 884
|
betaben wrote: Hinkley is part of the Cleveland Metro-Parks, Which therefore is public land, but is city owned. The cities liabality insure requires this. If they did not have this policy there would be no climbing at all allowed. This policy has been in place for years and I do not know of any other area that requires it. Ben
Hey ben, long time no see!
How is land owned by the city not public? If its a city park, wouldn't that make it public land? I wasn't aware there was a distinction between federal public land, state public land, and city public land.
Am I missing something here, or just failing to understand the rationality of having seperate rules/access for federal and city public lands. I guess I can understand if the land was used for military, admin, public works purposes, etc.. there would be limited access. Buti f its owned by the government, and its for the general use of tax paying members of society, then can there really be a difference?
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Jan 30, 2007, 10:51 PM
Post #24 of 29
(1291 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
Jay
Having climbers info with as much detail they could provide on file will come handy when sh*t hits the fan however , cash is getting low in most small Gov. organization and responding to a typical SAR call cost money. In most places, cops and rangers do not volunteer their free time to come and find you and paying over time could kill an agency if they get SAR every other weekend. I been noticed that few small agencies are working on charging for SAR . Typically most big parks do not charge for SAR unless you do some thing dumb but you see parks are trying to cover themselves from a lawsuit cause some as*hole with a fat attorney started this problem and once a park starts to enforce such laws, others parks will follow. They may not do it right away but they will try to cover their ends from law suits. in this particular case, they are discriminating against climbers to do paper work but when a surfer goes out there, he does not have to fill out paper work cause he is low risk. If every one must sign in then I am ok with it but asking for copy of my insurance before I walk in to park to climb is some thing I do not agree.
(This post was edited by majid_sabet on Jan 31, 2007, 6:19 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
bent_gate
Jan 30, 2007, 11:09 PM
Post #25 of 29
(1276 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2004
Posts: 2620
|
lena_chita wrote: Interesting... A park in Ohio that allows climbing (Hinckley) requires you to fax a copy of your home-owners insurance policy to show that you have liability insurance before they allow you to climb there... It's annoying, but it makes sense, if you consider that the clifffs are right next to the hiking trails, so if I knock down a rock that hits a passer-by hiker ,and the passer-by hiker then sues the Park for creating unsafe conditions, park can pass the responsibility back to me... Unfortunately, a more likely scenario is that the said passer-by, who DIDN'T sign any waivers, knocks down a rock ( on purpose, quite often!!! ) that hits ME in the head... But oh well, I signed a waiver... I knew the risks associated with climbing :)
Well this is news to me. Are you saying home-owners insurance may cover me for damage done to someone or something while I am climbing somewhere?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
