I am starting a new thread here so we can discuss the access issues that we face climbing in CT. The bolting ethics thread seemed to be getting off topic, but to address that situation, the access, ownership and stewardship issues need to be clarified.
The local AF affiliate should be taking the sharp end on this but since there is not a free exchange of information with them and the climbing community, I'll ruffle some feathers in an attempt to get some things changed, or at least get them to cough up some information to educate us on what is happening in our local scene. And, yes I have asked, the answer was to the effect of what can you do for the RMF? ...Huh?
There are many layers to what we face here; I believe that the policies on climbing at the Traprock areas need to be addressed first. As you read the most current climbing guide for CT, the author presents 4 pages of information on access to climbing. The author explains pretty well the contrived policies on climbing and further discusses what could or should be done to secure access; I am reluctant to quote him without his permission. It seems that there has been no successful movement since 1992 in the CT General Statute 52-557g which gives private land owners some protection from liability but does not afford the same protection to municipalities, causing them to adopt some double edged policies. Not good, not good...
This is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg, there could be pages dedicated to exploring what is going on- I will again admit my ignorance to the steps that have been taken this far. I'd like to encourage everyone, particuarly Connecticut climbers, to join in this discussion as it is time to examine how we do things here in Connecticut and come up with a game plan to make some positive changes.
Right On! - JimO

It would be nice to discuss Beach Rock, as I know that is a favourite crag of some people, and closed for security reasons, despite the fact that you can mountain bike and hike along the top of the cliff and around the base. I know I would have checked it out when I lived in CT because I lived only about 1/2 hour from the crag.

-chris

I'll help in getting the discussion rolling, if that's at all possible. It's seems that one of the more difficult problems to deal with is that crags simply can't be monitored 24/7. If a person (or group of people) is motivated enough, they can always find a time to go chop bolts when no one else is around.

I know that in the past climbers have placed bolts and then setup surveillance to catch [a particular climber] in the act of chopping the bolts. I believe it worked and that's why he is now officially/legally banned from certain crags with private ownership. He is now privy to this particular strategy and therefore able to wait-out the surveillance. Like I said, you can't watch every piece of rock in CT 24/7.

If you place fixed protection, you're contributing to a vicious cycle in which people place bolts and then someone destroys them. Over time it's the traprock that pays the price, permanently. At least if no one is placing fixed protection than no one has the opportunity to damage the rock by removing/destroying said fixed gear. I'm not saying this situation is ideal; I'm just saying at least the rock isn't suffering permanent damage with the current situation.

Someone who says...

“Once I chop a route, it will remain chopped, no matter how many times I have to return to keep it that way. Until the bolting stops, apparently the cliffs will have to be destroyed to save them.”

..Obviously is not in a rational frame-of-mind.

IMO, the bottom line is:
At the least the rock isn't suffering currently.

--Marc

Good point Mark, It's frustrating that is the realitiy. But at least the rock is still intact.

So what is the RMF up to these days anyways? Their website doesnt have a working link for joining and the forum looks to be down also.