by absolutsugarsmurf » Sat Nov 25, 2006 9:05 am
I've been climbing in the Red for about four years now, and Torrent Falls was one of the first crags I'd ever visited, and has been an area that I've re-vistited with some frequency. Additionally, I've stayed at the b&b on (3 weekends in four years) occasions. Perhaps it's been that I typically don't climb at Torrent on weekends (although I have climbed there on weekends), but in the four years I've been climbing I haven't really seen behavior that I would classify as egregious, and definately none that I would call malicious. As a general observation, behavior there has seemed on par with that you'd see at any crag. At least by the climbers. Except for the donation box. That isn't an issue climbers face anywhere else in the Red, and in my limited travels, I've only seen two areas with fees, so the donation model is definately not the "expected situation" when one is out climbing. Not that that is an excuse for not donating, but I just never thought it was really clear if donations really were donations or not. How is it really a donation if it's expected? Semantics. This is especially true if you don't read these boards frequently.
So the question is, was typical climbing behavior only unnaceptable at Torrent due to it's duel nature as crag/buisness? Or should there be a major effort to educate climbers in Leave No Trace policy and general friendliness at all crags? Although I have to say when I visit other crags I am never struck by the damage done by climbers nor by a lack of goodwill. Hell, hike out to Eagle Point or Wall of Denial, or Half Moon. Then go to a crag not visited by non-climbing tourists and compare the state of the landscape. I promise you'll see a major major difference, and not a positive one. What I'm asking is, how is it that we take care of crags like Pebble Beach, but we litter, curse, and let our dogs run wild around Torrent? This comment is meant both to be a question and somewhat tounge in cheek.
The majority of the sentiment on this board has been to vilfy ourselves and our community and to thank Mark and his family for putting up with our crap. The one dissedent poster got called a JACK ASS (which was very constructive). I'm not saying that we shouldn't examine the behaviour of the climbing community for areas of improvement. However, it seems clear that there are issues here that never really got worked out with the land owner, and one can't help but feel they were mostly economic in nature. I think it's perfectly reasonable for some resentment towards an individual who would profit (though how much I don't know) from an access oriented event and then immediately close his property to climbing. It seems very disingenuous. I wonder if I am one of the few who feels this way, or if it's the sentiment no one wants to express for fear of further pissing Mark off.