Birdsboro Behavior

If you are unhappy with the compromises that BACA has worked out with the Township regarding climbing access, the proper channel would be to file a petition pursuant to the provisions of Birdsboro's Zoning Ordinance, citing your complaints. The Ordinance and other provisions are easily available on-line.

BACA has essentially done that work on behalf of all those that climb at Birdsboro, which is a long and tedious process that involves ALOT of time, effort and negotiation. But if you don't like the compromise, you have the same rights to pursue your grievances under applicable zoning ordinances. Implying that BACA is some sort of secret society, and griping to people on MP who are just doing some nice things for us, does not get you anywhere.

So here is a BIG, BIG thanks to Gayle, Ted and the rest of the BB crew for all of the great work they do. I suppose this thread is ample evidence that no good deed goes unpunished!

JasonP wrote: Climbing is a right.

No, it's not.

As you point out, and we agree, climbing is not a right on private property.

It's not a right on public property either. Elected officials can, and do, pass laws regulating behavior on public land. If those laws don't contravene rights articulated in federal and/or state constitutions, they are valid and enforceable.

Kudos to those who have put the work in to open The Bird and to those who respect use limitations so that it stays open.

Edited to add: Jason, care to flail again? :-)

.
.

Brass monkey i tried to say what he said

Dan Allard wrote: Interesting. I didn't realize there was a formal "Board". I can't find any mention of it anywhere. When and where does this otherwise secret society meet? ;) While I agree that perpetuating third hand information may not be ideal, it may be a better place to start a serious discussion on something as important as access and climber safety than a somewhat vague post on an open forum advertising that you do not understand the problem you are trying to solve. DrewM, thanks for posting that. I'd appreciate hearing more first hand accounts and perceptions from those who were in attendance on Sunday afternoon.

Wait, you didn't even know the board existed and you're telling a board member she doesn't know what the problem is?

Shit, I've never climbed at Birdsboro and even I knew there was a organization that helped with cleaning and access, and that access had been tenuous at times. You might want to do a little more research on the areas you climb at, just to be better informed at the very least.

Janine Connell wrote:If you are unhappy with the compromises that BACA has worked out with the Township regarding climbing access, the proper channel would be to file a petition pursuant to the provisions of Birdsboro's Zoning Ordinance, citing your complaints. The Ordinance and other provisions are easily available on-line.

For what it's worth:
I am not unhappy with the compromises that BACA has worked out with the Township regarding climbing access

and

I am not discounting anyone's hard work.

I am unsatisfied with the way the incident on Sunday unfolded from my point of view and based on my experience I am curious to understand the original post in more depth.

I've asked for more information including where these board meetings are held to help me understand the different points of view of what was a paniced situation, more clearly.

Again, I am not challenging the past efforts towards climbing access.
Rather, I am curious about the specifics of how the shooting "range" is to operate in relation to recreational space.

As such, upon your suggestion, Janine, I went though the borough site which directed me to performing the following search:
http://ecode360.com/search/BI2275?query=rock+climbing&filter=code,newlaw

which did not yield any relevant results.

I did a similar search for "guns", "firearms", "shooting", "range" and the only thing I saw, said that guns were prohibited in recreation areas, with no exclusions noted for officials or otherwise.

I am genuinely interested in other suggestions to find this information (other keywords, links to different official sites, etc) as GMBurns suggests I understand the area better.

Janine Connell wrote:BACA has essentially done that work on behalf of all those that climb at Birdsboro, which is a long and tedious process that involves ALOT of time, effort and negotiation. But if you don't like the compromise, you have the same rights to pursue your grievances under applicable zoning ordinances.

Great, thanks to them for the work they've done, noone's discounting it. I'm interested in working with them to make it better because I have some concerns that may or may not be represented.

Janine Connell wrote:Implying that BACA is some sort of secret society, and griping to people on MP who are just doing some nice things for us, does not get you anywhere.

Griping to people on MP? I asked when and where the meetings where. As a member of the climbing community, am I not entitled to participate in these discussions? As far as I can tell, no details of any such formal "board" is communicated anywhere, the website has very little information other than the history of two respected gentlemen who started the development in 1993 and don't climb here anymore. Maybe I missed the board details, maybe they aren't there. GMBurns, congratulations on your discovery, I look forward to you sharing the information I'm looking for.

Janine Connell wrote:So here is a BIG, BIG thanks to Gayle, Ted and the rest of the BB crew for all of the great work they do. I suppose this thread is ample evidence that no good deed goes unpunished!

Again, their good deeds are not being punished, just looking for information so that we can have a more civilized and intelligent conversation with actual users than a bunch of internet trolls who are ignorant of this unique arrangement.

Janine, thanks for taking the time to write a comprehensible and coherent post and maybe I'll meet you on the rock some day.

-Dan

gblauer wrote: I fully understand the problem I am trying to solve. Bottom line: If an official is using the target range, get out of the way. Exit the reservoir level and climb someplace else. Why is this even an argument? Why is this so difficult to understand? We have worked very very hard to gain open access to the Bird. Why throw attitude at me? You have NO idea how many people have worked hard (on your behalf) to get the Bird to where it is today. Other than climb, what have you done for the Bird? Have you contributed to the bolt fund? Have you participated in the climb and clean? Where do you think the convenience of a porta-potty came from?

Okay. I've obviously struck a nerve.

I asked for details about the nature of the "disturbing confrontations" because I too found at least one of them TREMENDOUSLY disturbing, but I suspect not in the same sense you do, based on the way your initial post was written.
You expressly declined to provide the information I requested, I thought because you said you weren't there and didn't see value in perpetuating third hand information.
Perhaps since then, you have received new info you feel to be more accurate. I can only go off of what I experienced, and what is written here.

If you were talking to me, I have not argued anything yet. I am not interested in speculating our forefathers intent, and also do not see value in trying to explain a unique climbing/gun shooting arena to people who haven't been there.

Regarding attitude, I did ask you explicitly when and where the association's meetings were so that I could become more involved and voice my concerns directly, but again you have declined to provide this information.

To my recollection, we have yet to meet in person or otherwise. That being the case, it is unfair of you to assume how much I know about anything and/or to assume to know and understand my interests well enough to be able to work towards them on my behalf.

Your closing questions seem unnecessarily defensive and rhetorical, but if you are genuinely interested in the answers, again, let me know when and where the meetings are and what your name is and I'll come answer them for you in person.
In the meantime, the answers to none of them have anything to do with the fact that many land users present on Sunday perceived heightened vulnerability, and/or that they might be in danger/their safety was at risk when gun shots unexpectedly started going off around them.

Thanks for keeping an open mind. I assure you we both want the best for the future of climbing in this area.

-Dan

Dan, you should take a step back and realize that you insulted Gail when you said she sounded like she didn't know what the problem was she was trying to solve. That's why you "struck a nerve," as you put it, not because you asked probing questions blah blah blah. If you want to get involved at the quarry why don't you attend the next Climb & Clean in September and get to know the people who have enabled you to climb there?

D. Buffum
You write a lot but say very little.

D.Buffum wrote: Having trouble keeping up? Here's the short version: facile libertarian talking points do not hold up to rigorous analysis.

You are confusing " talking the most" with " making the most compelling argument". I'm sure the English had some rigorous analysis to counter the colonists, but in the end freedom won out over tyranny. Their hard fought victory enables academic douchebags like you to spout leftist idiocy on the internet till the cows come home. I'm glad your ilk didn't prevail back then.

D.Buffum wrote:My apologies to the OP for hijacking your thread. You're doing good work and we shouldn't have distracted from the importance of your message. (Especially since we're both non-locals). I got a bit carried away.

Good form Buffum. I agree. Perhaps we should take our discussion to the Community or at least a new thread if you would like to continue.