|
kriso9tails
Oct 19, 2001, 11:04 PM
Post #1 of 11
(3643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
As climbers we have no right by law to climb. Climbers can be kicked out and crags shut down for any reason (or lack thereof) unless you happen to be the land owner.
I don't agree with this. The outdoors is for everyone to enjoy (or some b.s. like that) so we should, as creatures of the earth, have a right to use the land. Many of the reasons given for crags being shut down seem to be crap and are stupid excuses to control all activity by climbers. As much as I think climbers have an inate/inalienable right to climb outdoors, I don't think that we have the right to climb everywhere. Endangered species and significant artifacts should be preserved above recreational activities, but where should the line be drawn.
Essentially, when/ where should we have a right to climb, and when should climbers just back off?
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Oct 19, 2001, 11:15 PM
Post #2 of 11
(3643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
This is a very complicated issue, as there are many different sircumstances that can apply. I think we should be able to climb on any public land. i.e. USFS, USNP, BLM, State, County, or City. Private land is at the discretion of the owner. I personally wouldn't want climbers in my 'back yard' if I had good rock there.
Unfortunately, we all pay the price of the bad apples that give us a bad name. The people who don't know how to act with respect to the land: irresponsible bolting, load and abrasive people, litterers (beer cans/bottles, finger tape, & food wrappers), people who don't follow posted rules (I saw a climber tearing apart Joshua Trees to start a fire once), etc...
The Access Fund does a lot of damage control after Areas begin to get heat. And even purchase and donate Areas after climbing bans were placed in such Areas, everyone who climbs should contribute something.
rrrADAM
|
|
|
|
|
pushfurther
Oct 19, 2001, 11:15 PM
Post #3 of 11
(3643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2001
Posts: 2112
|
are you an AF or another climber's advocacy group member?
|
|
|
|
|
downshift
Oct 20, 2001, 1:21 AM
Post #4 of 11
(3643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2001
Posts: 589
|
Every time I've been told I couldn't climb in a certain place was not due to environmental perservation it all came down to liability of the land owner. Unfortunately in the sue everybody frame of mind this happens with alot of sports / activities. Some places develop waivers other frown at the idea saying they wouldn't really hold up in court. It unfortuante there no form of climber insurance that would take liability off the land owner. On a perfect world I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
metoliusmunchkin
Oct 20, 2001, 1:54 AM
Post #5 of 11
(3643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2001
Posts: 1410
|
I agree completely with rrrAdam. I believe that climbers earn the right as curtious citizens to climb on any land owned by the government. I too would not want climbers climbing in my back yard if I did not want them there, though, I have seen it been done.
In some areas, owners of the land which contain good boulders, or large mountainous regions are nice enough to allow (and sometimes even encourage) that climbers use their property to climb. Though, I know that this is not the case everywhere.
So far, I have not been 'shut down' from a crag, or have been kicked off private property because of climbing, but I can see how this can become a problem in some areas. In my opinion, the only way to avoid getting crags shut down, is to avoid any 'non-climbers' to see what the climbers do, anyone who doesn't think climbing is right of course. And, also trying to avoid climbing on any private property, or no illegal areas (such as climbing on a route on the side of the highway).
I think I have my two-bits worth now.
|
|
|
|
|
mountainmike
Oct 20, 2001, 4:00 AM
Post #6 of 11
(3643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 67
|
On public land we should be able to climb as long as we don't take away from someone else's ability to enjoy nature and as long as we are not causeing damage to the environment. I agree with everyone else, if I had a good spot to climb on my land I don't think that I would want most climbers out there. But in Arkansas where I used to live, one of the places that we climbed at was on private land. Everytime we went out there we had to go to the owner and ask for permission. Which they always gave. It was one of the cleanest places that I have ever climbed. Everyone that climbed there was very respectful to the land and the land owners. I think that it represents the majority of the climbing community. It is the few bad apples that give us problems.
|
|
|
|
|
kriso9tails
Oct 20, 2001, 4:30 AM
Post #7 of 11
(3643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2001
Posts: 7772
|
It can (unfortunately) be assumed that not all climbers will do their part and will be jerks and cause problems for the rest of us. Do you think that we should take responsibility more as individuals, or as a community of climbers?
|
|
|
|
|
rrrADAM
Oct 20, 2001, 5:43 AM
Post #8 of 11
(3643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 19, 1999
Posts: 17553
|
Both.
Individually we can do our part, which includes, in my book, holding the 'bad apples' accountable when we see it. This means telling them they're behavior is 'ant-access'. I have empty trash bags in my pack for taking out others' trash.
As a coalition, we must join or form advocacy groups, such as the ones 'kriso9tails' described or The Access Fund.
rrrADAM
|
|
|
|
|
mountainmike
Oct 20, 2001, 5:53 AM
Post #9 of 11
(3643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 67
|
It is important to do are part as individauls so that we can help improve the whole group. But I think that it is more important what we do as a group because the group is what the rest of the world sees. Plus an individual can do some amazing things but when we come together as a group the things that can be accoplished are endless.
Michael
|
|
|
|
|
jds100
Oct 22, 2001, 11:00 PM
Post #10 of 11
(3643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2001
Posts: 1008
|
I know the issue of liability in the states I frequent (Missouri and Illinois) is a done deal: use of private and public land is done at the risk of the user. The land owners are not subject to suit from anyone using the land, unless the user has paid for the 'right', and there would usually be a contract waiving liability.
I do think the main problems are the assumptions that climbers/ boulderers will misbehave, lack of knowledge and information about climbing impact, and that there is a liability risk (and perhaps a loss of privacy). Education of the land owners and land managers in southern Illinois went a long way toward getting climbing recongnized as a valid use of the public resources.
|
|
|
|
|
beta
Oct 23, 2001, 12:58 AM
Post #11 of 11
(3643 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2001
Posts: 204
|
Some of the park lands locally have some great boulders, now you may have to deal with cactus growing at the base, in that case take your chances or find another boulder. The problem is broken glass, EVERYWHERE!!!!!, it's not the boulderers doing it, it is the kids partying, Hey,no problem, I used to be a kid, I still party, but throwing bottles at the rock, bummer.
It is a real pain to clean up. I have actually taken a rake with me to try to gather it together and pack it out.
I hate the fact that climbers who, for the most part try to protect climbing areas are "painted with the same brush" as people who don't seem to understand that a broken bottle takes a lot of time to clean up and don't care about what they are doing to their planet, AAARRRGGGHHH!!!!!! sorry, this could turn into an epic ramble.
Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
|
