Rumney Reopening?

Russ Keane wrote: " infected/infectious climbers lining up"

Practically no one in the general public has it.  The initial outbreak is over.  With the shut down, we now know who has it and who doesn't, and it's time to adjust our thinking.  How long will you go around and assume everyone has it?   You're welcome to stay home.  No one is making you, or people in your household, come to Rumney (or wherever).  It's time for people to focus on their own personal jurisdiction and stop asserting rights over everyone else.    The "infected people" aren't coming to your house and touching your stuff, so there you go, your safety is assured to that extent.  

Just to address this locally, Campton just got its first case- a Chesley's employee tested positive this week. We don't actually know who has it, and opening up Rumney to the surrounding cities is certainly one way to get more of the virus up here than we had before. I'm all for a walk-in opening, but otherwise the more we can slow the movement of the masses the better.
If you just moved to the area feel free to email me and I can suggest some potential areas for you to get your fix. 

Thanks, that's nice of you.  I know the area pretty well and enjoy trad anyway, so I am happy at the moment.  My impatience is not so much that I can't live without Rumney Rocks, it's just that I am tired of the same old story about "community infection rates" and the exact same strategies and thinking patterns now as they were in March.  We've got to move forward, learn and observe, and be sesnsible.  it's getting old.

Russ Keane wrote: "but could quickly ramp up"

Could, yes, which means maybe, which means no one knows for sure.  Anyway, a few climbers at an outdoor crag in Northern NH is not going to make a substantial impact on a "new outbreak".  It comes down to reasonableness.  The lockdown measures were never meant to last forever.  People have done their part, now it's time to move the needle back a little.  No one's asking for rock concerts or baseball games, for gods sake can we get some perspective.

We are not talking about "a few climbers" in northern NH, rather a very popular area in the center of the state and within a couple hours of a large population. No, they don't know exactly, but scientist have a pretty good rough idea through modeling of what happens when you have people circulating in close proximity with a highly infectious disease and still no vaccine or effective treatment.

Don't forget the gyms are closed.

Russ Keane wrote: You gotta admit, the whole thing is fairly absurd.  These measures are complex and difficult to implement.  And honestly not even pertinent or impactful.   Outdoor recreation is nothing in the grand picture of population density and human proximity.  One restaurant in a city has more people in a confined space than all of main cliff at Rumney.   Aliens are looking down on us now, laughing at the frantic way we are trying, trying SO hard, to do the right thing in the face of this novel virus.

Keep in mind, while restaurants do have a higher density of people, they also have staff sanitizing every table and piece of equipment as soon as someone leaves. Are you going to be repelling over a route and spraying it down every time someone climbs it?

Tina Andreski wrote:

Keep in mind, while restaurants do have a higher density of people, they also have staff sanitizing every table and piece of equipment as soon as someone leaves. Are you going to be repelling over a route and spraying it down every time someone climbs it?

This is not an opinion on the wisdom of opening a crowded crag like Rumney. However, please remember that the primary mechanism of transmission is through respiratory droplets over an extended period of exposure. This means that restaurants and bars, regardless of surface decontamination protocols, pose some of the highest risk for infection due to the presence of multiple individuals in a confined space with turbulent air flow. “Rappelling” a route that may have trace viral particles is extremely unlikely to transfer a significant viral load whether one “sprays it down” or not. Now, having someone cough/yell/sneeze on you or using a public toilet is a whole other matter. 

Eli Buzzell wrote:

Just to address this locally, Campton just got its first case- a Chesley's employee tested positive this week. We don't actually know who has it, and opening up Rumney to the surrounding cities is certainly one way to get more of the virus up here than we had before. I'm all for a walk-in opening, but otherwise the more we can slow the movement of the masses the better.
If you just moved to the area feel free to email me and I can suggest some potential areas for you to get your fix. 

"I'm all for me being able to use the crag, as long as other people can't."

This attitude is quite challenging for me. I understand and accept if the experts / powers that be make a decision that the public health risks are too high to reopen the area, but the constant morality play of who is "local" and thus has the "right" to go to the crag is tiresome -- and just a rehash of the locals vs visitors debate that occurs in climbing access issues in perpetuity. We should make a decision about either closed vs open, and then if open how can we take steps to decrease overcrowding (i.e. car lottery, registration, etc). 

Not to mention the impossibility of enforcement -- e.g. close the parking lot and prevent street parking around Plymouth which would turn in to a game of "who knows someone near Rumney that will let us park at their house".

Also, as the person above posted, fomite transmission is probably not a significant cause of disease burden - so as long as people don't congregate, they can probably climb the same things with minimal risk. How to prevent congregation at a place as crowded as Rumney is a different issue. 

Cres Simpson wrote:
"I'm all for me being able to use the crag, as long as other people can't."

This attitude is quite challenging for me. I understand and accept if the experts / powers that be make a decision that the public health risks are too high to reopen the area, but the constant morality play of who is "local" and thus has the "right" to go to the crag is tiresome -- and just a rehash of the locals vs visitors debate that occurs in climbing access issues in perpetuity. We should make a decision about either closed vs open, and then if open how can we take steps to decrease overcrowding (i.e. car lottery, registration, etc).

Not to mention the impossibility of enforcement -- e.g. close the parking lot and prevent street parking around Plymouth which would turn in to a game of "who knows someone near Rumney that will let us park at their house".

Also, as the person above posted, fomite transmission is probably not a significant cause of disease burden - so as long as people don't congregate, they can probably climb the same things with minimal risk. How to prevent congregation at a place as crowded as Rumney is a different issue. 

It's a game that would prevent an extra ~1000 people from entering Grafton county every weekend. Particularly when they're the people that are willing to drive the furthest. 

I'm not worried about the rocks so much as the people that stop for gas, food, trinkets, extra chalk, toll booths, and gas again somewhere else on the way home. I have spent tons of time in places that have a really strong "LOCS ONLY" culture and I too find it annoying and petty. In the present case of the CDC recommending you not drive more than 10 minutes from your house however, I think this is a case where "LOCS ONLY" actually has some application. I'm not coming down to Cambridge right now to enjoy Harvard Square every weekend, but Rumney is actually 10 minutes from my doorstep.

I am content with Rumney being closed. 

Cres, local is a viable way of keeping the numbers down and if you are walking/biking to the crag you are not spreading it  geographically much. I for instance, would love to be cragging with friends in this beautiful weather, but I don't live in the village, so stick to some occasional obscure bouldering near where I live. Otherwise, I just have to think of something else to do for a while.

The Washington Post just reported a peak 17% decrease in carbon emissions during the lockdown. The largest absolute component of that was surface transport; I'm sure me and my friends not making weekend trips up to NH and the Gunks played its part in that decrease. Food for thought.

Jay Knower wrote: I believe Rumney is the only public-land climbing area that's closed in the Northeast (I could be wrong). Additionally the only places closed in the WMNF are Tuckermans and Rumney.

Clearly Rumney is being held to a higher standard for reopening, and I'm not sure why that is.

I do know that the RCA and Access Fund are working on it, and I trust they'll make the right decision for the health and safety of this area, but as per the timeline and/or benchmarks, I have not heard anything.

My guess is the parking situation (and maybe camping too?) is keeping it closed.  I had occasion to talk with one of the rangers recently about the WMNF's "semi-reversal" on closing trailhead parking lots in the WhtMtns.  Originally most all had been closed, but about a week later they opened some, but not all.

I postulated to this ranger that it seemed to me that those parking lots which had been reopened were on roads (e.g. Kanc, Rt 302) where it was probably far more dangerous to walk along the roadway for 50 or 100yds (from where your car was safely parked off the shoulder and "off the road") than to catch Covid-19 in the parking lot. I got no direct comment, but my "theory" was not contradicted. Remember, WMNF never closed the trails themselves.

On any good day the Rumney parking lot is packed car-to-car, person-to-person.  I think that was/is the main concern, not climbers on the rocks which is pretty dispersed except for your immediate partner. (Who you've probably ridden in the car with for 2 hrs.! )  

Cres Simpson wrote:
"I'm all for me being able to use the crag, as long as other people can't."

This attitude is quite challenging for me. I understand and accept if the experts / powers that be make a decision that the public health risks are too high to reopen the area, but the constant morality play of who is "local" and thus has the "right" to go to the crag is tiresome -- and just a rehash of the locals vs visitors debate that occurs in climbing access issues in perpetuity. We should make a decision about either closed vs open, and then if open how can we take steps to decrease overcrowding (i.e. car lottery, registration, etc).

Not to mention the impossibility of enforcement -- e.g. close the parking lot and prevent street parking around Plymouth which would turn in to a game of "who knows someone near Rumney that will let us park at their house".

Also, as the person above posted, fomite transmission is probably not a significant cause of disease burden - so as long as people don't congregate, they can probably climb the same things with minimal risk. How to prevent congregation at a place as crowded as Rumney is a different issue. 

Staying local reduces all other possible transmission (gas station, bathroom, etc). As for transmission, the reasonings has been listed in my previous posts

Also, Boston/NYC case numbers vs WMNF counties are way different. If everyone stayed local during the lockdown or followed quarantine, in theory it wouldn’t have spread to other areas. Mid/Northern NH also doesn’t have a significant hospital nearby Incase there are significant cases or they need to transport a severe climbing accident.

I understand the idea behind the lockdown and why we do it. If it was 100-% followed I could agree with it. But if people from MASS/NYC/NJ can drive up and obviously not lockdown, Coos county shouldn’t have to close a single business they have 2 positive cases, they had 1 until a week ago.
Opening areas like Rumney to outsiders just pisses off the locals because without those outsiders, they wouldn’t have gotten COVID cases in the first place. Cities will also recoverEconomically much easier and have access to more amenity/job options in the event this goes on for 2-3 more months. 

Robert Hall wrote:

My guess is the parking situation (and maybe camping too?) is keeping it closed.  I had occasion to talk with one of the rangers recently about the WMNF's "semi-reversal" on closing trailhead parking lots in the WhtMtns.  Originally most all had been closed, but about a week later they opened some, but not all.

I postulated to this ranger that it seemed to me that those parking lots which had been reopened were on roads (e.g. Kanc, Rt 302) where it was probably far more dangerous to walk along the roadway for 50 or 100yds (from where your car was safely parked off the shoulder and "off the road") than to catch Covid-19 in the parking lot. I got no direct comment, but my "theory" was not contradicted. Remember, WMNF never closed the trails themselves.

On any good day the Rumney parking lot is packed car-to-car, person-to-person.  I think that was/is the main concern, not climbers on the rocks which is pretty dispersed except for your immediate partner. (Who you've probably ridden in the car with for 2 hrs.! )  

Rob,

Since NH as a state doesn’t prohibit out of state travelers, the USFS (who is federal) decided they would try to limit the exposure to those areas and attempt to shrink the number of people who visit their district. The seasonal staff was not around, be popular areas were at summer capacity or greater.
If you went to Covered Bridge or another parking area in those days, the Kanc was filled with just as many cars (over 50% from out of state). Clearly the attempt do ask people to stay local didn’t work.
Environmental impact increased , potential for a emergency response increased, etc. After thoseFew days, they decided they couldn’t cut the amount of people traveling and all it did was make the situation worse. 
This weekend will likely see a similar issue. People refuse to cancel their MDW plans and the only option for camping currently is first come/first serve.
If you want more detail let me know and I can explain everything privately. 

Insert name wrote:

Staying local reduces all other possible transmission (gas station, bathroom, etc). As for transmission, the reasonings has been listed in my previous posts

Also, Boston/NYC case numbers vs WMNF counties are way different. If everyone stayed local during the lockdown or followed quarantine, in theory it wouldn’t have spread to other areas. Mid/Northern NH also doesn’t have a significant hospital nearby Incase there are significant cases or they need to transport a severe climbing accident.

I understand the idea behind the lockdown and why we do it. If it was 100-% followed I could agree with it. But if people from MASS/NYC/NJ can drive up and obviously not lockdown, Coos county shouldn’t have to close a single business they have 2 positive cases, they had 1 until a week ago.
Opening areas like Rumney to outsiders just pisses off the locals because without those outsiders, they wouldn’t have gotten COVID cases in the first place. Cities will also recoverEconomically much easier and have access to more amenity/job options in the event this goes on for 2-3 more months. 

I think outsiders can be responsible for a lot of cases but in my time in New Hampshire the people who did mega commutes pose just as much risk to their community. One of my nurses commuted from Bretton Woods to Manchester 3 days a week. My boss commuted from White River to Manchester everyday. I know many people (most are healthcare workers) who live in New Hampshire and commute to Boston. So I don't think that if outsiders had just left the rural counties alone they would be infection free. 

Also any climbing injury that is bad is going to go to a trauma hospital (which I think would be Elliot in Manch).

Separately: 
The best barometer for localness would be capping parking. If Rumney opens with capped parking, the locals should be the first ones to the parking lot. Also if the locals are concerned about being infected by the climbers they can also not climb. I also like to think that if people are driving from further away they can easily avoid stopping anywhere else (most people can drive 300 miles without needing gas).

Trevor Taylor wrote:

I think outsiders can be responsible for a lot of cases but in my time in New Hampshire the people who did mega commutes pose just as much risk to their community. One of my nurses commuted from Bretton Woods to Manchester 3 days a week. My boss commuted from White River to Manchester everyday. I know many people (most are healthcare workers) who live in New Hampshire and commute to Boston. So I don't think that if outsiders had just left the rural counties alone they would be infection free. 

Also any climbing injury that is bad is going to go to a trauma hospital (which I think would be Elliot in Manch).

Separately:
The best barometer for localness would be capping parking. If Rumney opens with capped parking, the locals should be the first ones to the parking lot. Also if the locals are concerned about being infected by the climbers they can also not climb. I also like to think that if people are driving from further away they can easily avoid stopping anywhere else (most people can drive 300 miles without needing gas).

the parking lot and bathrooms are a different issue. The closed lots were originally all the popular trailheads.

 That was lifted because people just parked right next to them and there wasn’t staff to enforce it. Limiting the parking will be the same issue.

I don’t support the lockdown, but it’s up the the USFS and other people if they want you there.

Insert name wrote:

the parking lot and bathrooms are a different issue. The closed lots were originally all the popular trailheads.

 That was lifted because people just parked right next to them and there wasn’t staff to enforce it. Limiting the parking will be the same issue.

I don’t support the lockdown, but it’s up the the USFS and other people if they want you there.

Yeah I do feel that rumney parking enforcement actually occurred prior to this whole thing, maybe it would continue to persist. Like if the public library and AAC campground are closed, I think if anyone parked illegally elsewhere residents of rumney would have them towed. Also if my memory is correct I think closing one of the gates for the main lot and then obstructing half the lot with a police barricade could keep the numbers down. I feel like there is not ample parking around rumney and half the parking lots in the white mountains are so small that the parking lot essentially has become the side of the road.

Russ Keane wrote: It's hard to make the case that the local hospital system would be impacted by people congregating at a day-use climbing area, where anyone from out-of-state would be there for only a day, or maybe 2-3 weekend, and then returning to their home.  Symptoms of any virus would not show for 10-20 days or whatever it is.  So it's not like people touch a climbing hold, then lower down and  have Covid and need emergency care on the spot.  

...which is why nobody is making that case.

It's a lot easier to make a case that out-of-state-ers who are contagious and don't know it will bring the disease to Rumney, leave it on gas station pumps, convenience store handles, and credit card machines, and get locals sick--locals who would then go on to overwhelm local hospitals.

Interesting thread.  My two zinc plated cents: The curve has been flattened, and hospitals have not been overwhelmed.  The percent death rate keeps going down.  Yes, it is much more contagious than the flu, but it doesn't look all that much more deadly.

Whether they reopen now, or six months from now, we ARE going to have a spike in cases.  The only thing that will help is herd immunity.  So why ban climbing and destroy the economy for the same outcome as reopening now, maybe with some limitations like every other parking spot?  I'm 10 minutes from Farley and I frequent obscure areas with no other climbers, yet I can't go climbing because it is closed.  Enough already!.  Ward

Robert Hall wrote:

My guess is the parking situation (and maybe camping too?) is keeping it closed.  I had occasion to talk with one of the rangers recently about the WMNF's "semi-reversal" on closing trailhead parking lots in the WhtMtns.  Originally most all had been closed, but about a week later they opened some, but not all.

I postulated to this ranger that it seemed to me that those parking lots which had been reopened were on roads (e.g. Kanc, Rt 302) where it was probably far more dangerous to walk along the roadway for 50 or 100yds (from where your car was safely parked off the shoulder and "off the road") than to catch Covid-19 in the parking lot. I got no direct comment, but my "theory" was not contradicted. Remember, WMNF never closed the trails themselves.

On any good day the Rumney parking lot is packed car-to-car, person-to-person.  I think that was/is the main concern, not climbers on the rocks which is pretty dispersed except for your immediate partner. (Who you've probably ridden in the car with for 2 hrs.! )  

Right on the WMNF web site a week ago:

The decision to re-open these sites considered safety concerns due to people parking on roadways while not being able to utilize trail head parking areas and the continued demand for recreating locally. The Trail Head closures increased overflow and illegal parking along with increasing pressure on currently open NH State Parks.

Ward Smith wrote: Interesting thread.  My two zinc plated cents: The curve has been flattened, and hospitals have not been overwhelmed.  The percent death rate keeps going down.  Yes, it is much more contagious than the flu, but it doesn't look all that much more deadly.

Whether they reopen now, or six months from now, we ARE going to have a spike in cases.  The only thing that will help is herd immunity.  So why ban climbing and destroy the economy for the same outcome as reopening now, maybe with some limitations like every other parking spot?  I'm 10 minutes from Farley and I frequent obscure areas with no other climbers, yet I can't go climbing because it is closed.  Enough already!.  Ward

Ward, great respect for your climbing and guidebook(s), but the hospitals in Italy, France, Spain, Great Briton and NYC WERE overwhelmed. That's why their deaths rates are 10-15% of the diagnosed cases. Once the primary care system gets overwhelmed, even the "moderately severe", those that need oxygen but not a respirator, die because they can't get it and/or they don't go to the hospital because they have a fear of die-ing or they have poor, or zero insurance, so they die but at home not in the hospital.    Boston was close, very close to being overwhelmed. (A good friend is a pretty high-up doctor in the system and he 100% agrees with what I just said.) 

Death rates, usually expressed as "dead/number of cases" ,  is falling because more people are being tested, so the denominator gets larger. BUT, looking at deaths per POPULATION which is a constant, puts the US figure at 28 per 100,000 of population. The "usual flu" is about 8 per 100,000 in the US. Also, if you cut out the NYC deaths from the US figures the number per 100,000 drops to 21. Current deaths are about 95,000...is it going to stop all of a sudden?  8 vs 28 is nearly 4 times "worse", if we double the deaths eventually it will be nearer to 8 times worse. 

 BTW all those people who say "Look at Sweden they didn't lock down and have a low death rate" are confused by the "cases tested denominator"; if you look at Sweden's death rate per 100,000 of population the number is 37, way higher than USA but not as high as Great Briton's 51. The other european "socialized medicine countries" are way up there too: France 41, Italy 53, Spain 59 per 100,000 of population.

BUT...death might not be the worst thing.  Spending days or weeks recovering in a hospital produces a HUGE bill!  How much do you think is being covered?  I don't know. Twenty-five years ago, when my mother was hospitalized for 8 days in Boston, the total bill was $96,000 (mostly paid by Medicare A & B plus a supplimental policy that was so good it, or anything like it, is no longer available.)  How much does a 2 week stay cost today ?  ...and how much is out-of-pocket...I really don;t want to find out !

Rumney is an overcrowded, over-loved masshole cesspool. The climbing is great but I probably won't be making the trip from Vermont this season even when it does open. Not worth it. :(