Arthur and Michelle…”yes” there will be an agenda made available prior to the meeting. I am meeting climbers before this meeting to get their input to help sharpen the focus and stay on message. In my other life, I am a paid facilitator and value everyone’s time too much (especially after on a long work day, mine included) to waste it with socializing and meandering
Bill…I too do NOT wish to re-invent anything. It seems, at least to me, that this is a natural “next step” in climbing moving from project draws, community draws to steel perma draws and may require more than a tweaking. But I could be wrong. And “yes” I would like to see the RGGCC reestablish the CAC if enough interest can be generated
Hugh…thanks for the taking the first steps of diffusing the situation and getting us moving in a constructive direction. I agree climber behavior is the issue but to change human behavior the new behavior has to be defined, then adequately communicated and then re-enforced either through positive and/or negative re-enforcement. It was my read that we had not “defined” the new behavior, specifically installing steel perma draws v. alum draws v. any draws at the Motherlode, so then we can communicate and start nudging climbers in that direction. Thus the call to meet and define by majority (not perfect) consensus what that behavior would look like.
I suggested a decision making process flexible enough to be applied to all the various land ownership/management (beyond the Lode) but consistent, fair and predictable enough for climbers to get behind. I did so with the continuing need to protect access to climbing still very much a relevant issue (again, hint, hint). I pulled out my notes and found the decision making process and policy for unauthorized routes that the CAC had written and adopted in 2004. It’s a great example of community consensus, responsible action to protect climbing and self-policing, at its best. But that is just the first step, defining the behavior, of a three step process. That leaves communicating and re-enforcing to still be worked out.
Bob…I am sorry for you and other land owners who do have to endure the thoughtless and selfish acts of others. You are correct Rec Use Statues will not shield you from a lawsuit, you would still have to defend against it. I completely agree personal responsibility is always the best policy for all things climbing thus my reference to the Express Assumption of Risk doctrine. “No,” no climbing group trumps the land owners wishes or directions nor can it supersede or alleviate liability.
Matt…I agree the increase in numbers is probably the root of the problem and what has brought all of this to a head. Draws have been hanging (somewhere) in the Red for a while, now. Whereas SOME percentage of undesirable climber behavior can be tolerated/absorbed, increase the number of climbers, you increase the behavior and we increase the pressure to deal with it, as well.
I agree, we are victims of our own good fortune to be blessed with such phenomenal rock. Yes, it is tempting to fantasize about ways to suppress the numbers. Yes, I am mad at all the ways the Red has become popular and popularized and long for the quiet and solitude that we can only reminisce about. But the humans who are lucky enough to live in closer proximity to this rock are not any more privileged than anyone else. Yes, I grouse all the time about those “other” climbers messing things up for us “locals” but I know I have no more right to the rock than anyone else, only more incentive to protect it since it is so damn good and close