|
|
|
|
roughster
Sep 14, 2003, 3:52 AM
Post #1 of 76
(22401 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
(22401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
Linked to Auburn
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Sep 14, 2003, 4:07 AM
Post #3 of 76
(22401 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
(22401 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
(22401 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
bump
|
|
|
|
|
osho
Sep 14, 2003, 9:23 PM
Post #6 of 76
(22401 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
(22401 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
(22401 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
(22401 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
(22401 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
(22401 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
(22401 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
(22401 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
(22401 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
(22401 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
(22401 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
(22401 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
(22401 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
(22401 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
(22401 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
(22401 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
(22401 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
(22401 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
(22401 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
(22401 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
