ACCESS TO ROADSIDE - closed unttil further notice

Posts here will show on front page
Post Reply
Shamis
bottom feeder
Posts: 1343
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 8:11 am

Re: ACCESS TO ROADSIDE - closed unttil further notice

Post by Shamis » Wed May 25, 2011 10:51 am

bob wrote:The parking area for Roadside is a county park ... it is owned and maintained by Wolfe county. I would think that Wolfe County would be less than enthused with a need for further patrols and oversight at an area on their outermost boundary.

Any charge for a "service" comes with a legal requirement of "due diligence". If I charge you to park at Torrent then I have to have a "safe" parking area for you; I have to maintain, police, and be a presence ... all at a cost. When you propose this as a "solution" you are proposing that owners spend ... this will not go down well. Property owners should not have to go to any expense to allow access and should be able to be assured that access will cost them nothing … we need to be able to police ourselves. It is true that some will violate the trust but, if we do not step up to the need to be a good steward we will lose, not only the access that exists we will also lose the potential climbing that is out there.

Again and again and again ... if you force me, as a private land owner, into the position of having to be the enforcer then I will take the avenue of least effort and cost and (ban/close/not open) the property to climbing ... this costs me nothing surveillance costs me daily.
I'm sure you could figure out a way to break even on the deal, and delegate all tasks to somebody else. If you think the land, and the horde of new climbers are all going to manage/police themselves then you are living in a dream world. You can sperge about the climbing community all you want, but the fact remains that the number of climbers is growing fast, and even the climbers that want to help police things really have no authority to do anything short of fisticuffs.

User avatar
ReachHigh
Don's Love Child
Posts: 1784
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 12:17 pm
Location: Ashland, KY
Contact:

Re: ACCESS TO ROADSIDE - closed unttil further notice

Post by ReachHigh » Wed May 25, 2011 10:58 am

Shamis wrote: I'm sure you could figure out a way to break even on the deal, and delegate all tasks to somebody else. If you think the land, and the horde of new climbers are all going to manage/police themselves then you are living in a dream world. You can sperge about the climbing community all you want, but the fact remains that the number of climbers is growing fast, and even the climbers that want to help police things really have no authority to do anything short of fisticuffs.
that's a lot of work for a land owner, they should not have to take it upon them selves to regulate climbers. We are failing and it shouldn't be up to the land owner to fix this.
"there's a line between self improvement and self involvement"
"Dogs are nature's pooper scoopers ."

User avatar
climb2core
Loser
Loser
Posts: 2224
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 12:04 pm

Re: ACCESS TO ROADSIDE - closed unttil further notice

Post by climb2core » Wed May 25, 2011 11:01 am

caribe wrote:
climb2core wrote:Parking fees could reduce patronage at select crags. Which may be a good thing for something like RS. But it will not deter overall numbers at the Red. I don't believe RS is being closed due to lack of funds for up keep. If that were the case, Grant would have said as much. Again, raising money for RRGCC is a good thing too. Parking fees will not provide long term sustainability though.
1) Parking fees would be good for RS. 2) It is no longer all about RS.

Ha Ha, Caribe, you crack me up. You pick apart research as if you a have a fucking clue as to what a parking fee would due to traffic at the Red and long term sustainability. What is YOUR real world experience with land management models? What other US based models can you site as examples. Instead of just saying we need parking fees, do us all a favor and seek out qualified expert opinion. Maybe you are that guy, but from your current posts it doesn't come across.
Last edited by climb2core on Wed May 25, 2011 11:11 am, edited 1 time in total.

Climbingrocks
Gumby
Gumby
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 7:29 pm

Re: ACCESS TO ROADSIDE - closed unttil further notice

Post by Climbingrocks » Wed May 25, 2011 11:06 am

Then just charge for the PMRP

User avatar
caribe
Archer Jerry
Posts: 2447
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 9:37 pm
Location: the 1980's
Contact:

Re: ACCESS TO ROADSIDE - closed unttil further notice

Post by caribe » Wed May 25, 2011 11:12 am

bob wrote:Any charge for a "service" comes with a legal requirement of "due diligence". If I charge you to park at Torrent then I have to have a "safe" parking area for you; I have to maintain, police, and be a presence ... all at a cost.
$10 to park at your own risk with a warning not to leave valuables in their autos. What are they going to take you to court for, a broken window? At some point this has to be workable.

The Graining Fork Nature Preserve clearly delineates the boundaries and these include the Road Side Parking Lot. http://www.gfnp.org/Site/Boundaries.html
There may be easement/ trash pickup, issues/ agreements with the park between the river and the parking lot. Charging for parking may not work for RS if you are correct about who owns it Bob. Between you and the website there are two opinions.

Barnacle Ben
Poser
Poser
Posts: 265
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 9:23 am
Location: Denver, CO

Re: ACCESS TO ROADSIDE - closed unttil further notice

Post by Barnacle Ben » Wed May 25, 2011 11:18 am

Kentucky Recreational Use Statute wrote:(d) "Charge" means the admission price or fee asked in return for invitation or permission to enter or go upon the land but does not include fees for general use permits issued by a government agency for access to public lands if the permits are valid for a period of not less than thirty (30) days.
emphasis added.

For all intents and purposes, parking at Muir (or PMRP) is tantamount to using the land at Muir. You would be hard pressed to argue 'hey, we're not charging you to use the land, just charging you to park on the land.' It's a distinction without a difference, as they like to say, and I don't think a court or an insurer would buy it.
"But the motto was, never think you're that cool - you're still just climbing rocks...in the woods...with bugs...and everyone thinks you're crazy."

- Dave Graham

User avatar
climb2core
Loser
Loser
Posts: 2224
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 12:04 pm

Re: ACCESS TO ROADSIDE - closed unttil further notice

Post by climb2core » Wed May 25, 2011 11:21 am

Barnacle Ben wrote:
Kentucky Recreational Use Statute wrote:(d) "Charge" means the admission price or fee asked in return for invitation or permission to enter or go upon the land but does not include fees for general use permits issued by a government agency for access to public lands if the permits are valid for a period of not less than thirty (30) days.
emphasis added.

For all intents and purposes, parking at Muir (or PMRP) is tantamount to using the land at Muir. You would be hard pressed to argue 'hey, we're not charging you to use the land, just charging you to park on the land.' It's a distinction without a difference, as they like to say, and I don't think a court or an insurer would buy it.
Not that I am buying into parking fees as the solution... but what if RRGCC bought the parking lot and charged for it? Then walk across the road on to the Preserve property.

User avatar
caribe
Archer Jerry
Posts: 2447
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 9:37 pm
Location: the 1980's
Contact:

Re: ACCESS TO ROADSIDE - closed unttil further notice

Post by caribe » Wed May 25, 2011 11:21 am

climb2core wrote:Instead of just saying we need parking fees, do us all a favor and seek out qualified expert opinion.
I am not just saying we need parking fees. I am offering some argumentation regarding that fact. I am using the research that you posted which is apparently in favor of the parking fee proposal. What more can you possibly want from me? The experiment is worth running. There might be something hidden and there might be unintended consequences, but why should we go another year bitching about the same issues?

If Bob is right about the parking area across from RS then the parking fee idea is a non-starter for RS obviously.

toad857
Loser
Loser
Posts: 1691
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 12:31 pm

Re: ACCESS TO ROADSIDE - closed unttil further notice

Post by toad857 » Wed May 25, 2011 11:25 am

This same discussion has been had multiple times... (Muir, then Torrent, now Roadside). But it doesn't go anywhere!

Parking fees & permits are active solutions... (constant attention & manpower). They would certainly drive down attendance & raise money, but too difficult to implement, evidently. Certainly for PMRP. Move on.

I think what's needed are passive solutions (closing a crag entirely is one). What about others? Someone mentioned a rotating closure for all crags. That is still a good idea, and it's easily done.

User avatar
caribe
Archer Jerry
Posts: 2447
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 9:37 pm
Location: the 1980's
Contact:

Re: ACCESS TO ROADSIDE - closed unttil further notice

Post by caribe » Wed May 25, 2011 11:28 am

Barnacle Ben wrote:For all intents and purposes, parking at Muir (or PMRP) is tantamount to using the land at Muir. You would be hard pressed to argue 'hey, we're not charging you to use the land, just charging you to park on the land.' It's a distinction without a difference, as they like to say, and I don't think a court or an insurer would buy it.
Could someone who has experience with KY Rec. Land Use Law comment with some explanation? I am curious about what KY law says about this. Ben you may be right. In that case the proposal is dead. :|

toad857
Loser
Loser
Posts: 1691
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 12:31 pm

Re: ACCESS TO ROADSIDE - closed unttil further notice

Post by toad857 » Wed May 25, 2011 11:30 am

I'm sure it could be worded in an acceptable way: "Erosion fee"

pkananen
Poser
Poser
Posts: 368
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 10:20 pm
Location: cinci

Re: ACCESS TO ROADSIDE - closed unttil further notice

Post by pkananen » Wed May 25, 2011 11:39 am

caribe wrote:
Barnacle Ben wrote:For all intents and purposes, parking at Muir (or PMRP) is tantamount to using the land at Muir. You would be hard pressed to argue 'hey, we're not charging you to use the land, just charging you to park on the land.' It's a distinction without a difference, as they like to say, and I don't think a court or an insurer would buy it.
Could someone who has experience with KY Rec. Land Use Law comment with some explanation? I am curious about what KY law says about this. Ben you may be right. In that case the proposal is dead. :|
What if they were owned by separate legal entities?

Barnacle Ben
Poser
Poser
Posts: 265
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 9:23 am
Location: Denver, CO

Re: ACCESS TO ROADSIDE - closed unttil further notice

Post by Barnacle Ben » Wed May 25, 2011 11:41 am

caribe wrote:
Barnacle Ben wrote:For all intents and purposes, parking at Muir (or PMRP) is tantamount to using the land at Muir. You would be hard pressed to argue 'hey, we're not charging you to use the land, just charging you to park on the land.' It's a distinction without a difference, as they like to say, and I don't think a court or an insurer would buy it.
Could someone who has experience with KY Rec. Land Use Law comment with some explanation? I am curious about what KY law says about this. Ben you may be right. In that case the proposal is dead. :|
Hey, what makes you think that I'm not that person?

To be honest, it's been a while since I've looked at that type of issue, and I no longer have access to Lexis or Westlaw, but I can tell you that there was little to no Kentucky case law on that issue. I'm just explaining how an argument like that (we're not charging you to use it, just to park on it) would probably play out in the real world.
"But the motto was, never think you're that cool - you're still just climbing rocks...in the woods...with bugs...and everyone thinks you're crazy."

- Dave Graham

Feanor007
Poser
Poser
Posts: 235
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 2:04 am
Location: England, somewhere inside, drinking
Contact:

Re: ACCESS TO ROADSIDE - closed unttil further notice

Post by Feanor007 » Wed May 25, 2011 11:42 am

Caribe
Other than pay the bills . . . You are talking about the UK. Taxes support the natural areas you are talking about. Money is not an issue. They are trying to limit access and it is not working for a bunch of nature-hungry Britons looking to breath on holiday away from Manchester.
Wrong. Stanage, the most popular single cliff in the country, and perhaps the world (would have to check numbers as it is much bigger than say roadside) may go up for sale soon. There was just this week awhere a crag was closed b/c of unauthorized guiding and cottage owner's complaints about noise, impact etc. Land is a completely different issue in the UK where there is NO gov't ownership in the way we know as virtually every piece of land was parcelled out to magnates starting c. 900 AD. There is 'right to roam' where land owners are not allowed to deny access to the highlands and the BMC negotiates lots of access issues. At least no one has blown up a crag to stop access. Happened in the 60's in the Peak District. The UK doesn't own, say Lake District National Park, they mandate how the private owners must run their land.
The structure of climbing in that gorge nowhere like that of the study you are quoting
Correct. Land ownership and access are infinitly more complex in the UK due to literally thousands of years of negotiation over rights of way, rights to graze, owership, etc.
hey, if you yell to your belayer saying "why charles III, you are quite possibly the worst belayer ever" will he throw his tea on you?
-scott

Meadows
Puppy Pimp
Posts: 5425
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 12:03 pm
Location: Singing in the sunshine - laughing in the rain

Re: ACCESS TO ROADSIDE - closed unttil further notice

Post by Meadows » Wed May 25, 2011 11:44 am

For those with the great idea of charging for parking, are you volunteering your efforts to monitor the parking every day? Or is this another great idea for someone else to enact? High-level ideas are great, but don't forget the logistics.

When did money become the issue here - did I miss something in Mr. Stephen's post?

Back to Roadside ... is a sign posted about its closure?

Post Reply