Rumney Reopening?

M Sprague wrote: The place would be instantly jam packed if opened now, with people shitting and pissing all over the place, packing all together,  with conga lines of people pawing up and down the same holds of the classics and calling loudly up and down to each other.

Its funny how bolts do that to a crag eh?

There may be no people at Rumney, but at least there's no dogs at at the crag for once. /s

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?

And let’s not forget, restaurants aren’t opening up for dine in service. They’re keeping it outside with minimal seating to maintain contact and distancing. I’m going back to work next week bartending and I won’t have anybody seating at my bar. I’ll be making drinks for outside people. Some places aren’t even having table service. It’s all order your own shit and pick it up at the window.  Russ’ point is moot. 

A Non wrote:

Its funny how bolts do that to a crag eh?

Like anything else attractive to people

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, I'll also put out some love for your guidebooks, but I want to correct some misconceptions here. The death rate is probably going down, but it can go back up. All it would take is for hospitals to be so over full that they're putting patients in hallways again, and we'd be right back to where we were. Unfortunately, due to the actions of some states, I think we're going to see this happen.

Really, I don't know why we're even talking  about death rates, though: we can see very clearly in the number of deaths that this is not comparable to the normal flu. The last time this many people in the US died of flu was in the 1968 Hong Kong Flu outbreak, and we're on track to surpass those numbers sometimes next week. So it looks like the most recent epidemic where more people died will be the 1918 Spanish Flu. And that's a huge embarrassment--the most positive outcome we can hope for is to handle this better than a time when humans didn't even know how to dose aspirin correctly.

Although the "germ theory of disease" was one of the great breakthroughs in all of human history (roughly 1850 to 1906, i.e. in 1850 it was a "new radical idea" few doctors ascribed to, by 1907, after the bubonic plague outbreak in San Francisco, virtually all did.), Viruses had not yet been discovered.

In 1918, since most deaths were caused by pneumonia, the "great hunt" was for a bacteria (like what causes bubonic plague), looking for a cause of what was, in effect, a symptom...or perhaps more accurately a side-effect of the viral infection.

In any event, about 700,000 "Americans" died in the 48 states, at a time when the population was about 1/3 what it is today. (In places like Alaska, not yet a state, some native communities had a 90+% death rate)  So, to exceed 1918 on a "population adjusted" scale, we'd have to have more than 2 million deaths.  Let us hope that is not the case. [ Worldwide the estimates are 10 to 100 million, with most settling on "about 25 million deaths". ]

However, in 1918 there was a comparatively mild Flu in the late winter and spring, then the "real killer flu" hit starting in Nov.  

For more trivia":  the reason it was called the "Spanish Flu" is that Spain was one of the countries hit with the spring version of the flu (and also the fall version). Since Spain was neutral in WWI their newpapers could actually publish what was happening (as opposed to English, French, German and USA papers). Hence "Spanish Flu".  More US soldiers died of the Flu than in combat.  Germany probably lost the decisive battles in 1918 because so many of their forces were sick or had died.  
 

P Chetby wrote:

Wow. "IT IS " a lot scarier when you use bold, italic. Add capital and we're done for. 

Why so touchy about type?

David K wrote:

Ward, I'll also put out some love for your guidebooks, but I want to correct some misconceptions here. The death rate is probably going down, but it can go back up. All it would take is for hospitals to be so over full that they're putting patients in hallways again.

As an ER doc in a state not hit particularly hard, ironically these last few months have been the only time in my career we haven’t had patients overflowing into hallway beds. 

The mortality rate of the disease is what it is. We never really got to the point in the US, even in New York, where many people were getting denied care and dying because of it. The current case fatality rate that we see reported is likely more accurate because of expanded testing rather than anything else. Most educated guesses—and that’s all we have at this point—would be around 0.8% of people who get CoVID 19 die from it. 

Jimmy Downhillinthesnow wrote:

We never really got to the point in the US, even in New York, where many people were getting denied care and dying because of it.

But it's worth noting it did happen in other countries (the Lombardi region of Italy comes to mind) and it would have happened here (at least in NY) for sure had we not had "stay at home" orders in place.

proto G wrote: But it's worth noting it did happen in other countries (the Lombardi region of Italy comes to mind) and it would have happened here (at least in NY) for sure had we not had "stay at home" orders in place.

Agreed. I can’t imagine the decisions doctors in Italy and Spain had to make. 

B Gilmore wrote:

This is extremely elitist, basically a loop-hole way to keep Rumeny open to the "in" crowd.

Good point. But these things are crucial, and every year we fall behind climbing's growing user group. Yes, the wankers spraying about their new routes are elitist and egotistical, but nobody is stopping you from volunteering to help out with trails. Help restore the resource you exploit. Its a free ticket into the "in crowd", which is actually more like the nerd/goth lunch table

Peter Howes wrote:

Good point. But these things are crucial, and every year we fall behind climbing's growing user group. Yes, the wankers spraying about their new routes are elitist and egotistical, but nobody is stopping you from volunteering to help out with trails. Help restore the resource you exploit. Its a free ticket into the "in crowd", which is actually more like the nerd/goth lunch table

100%

Are we exaggerating the volume of crowdedness at Rumney? Someone up thread said "thousands" which is not possible.  Its maybe 200 or 300 at the absolute busiest. And likely more like 50-100 at any given time on a Saturday.  We've taken an idea that "Rumney is getting crowded" and blown it out of proportion. 

Russ Keane wrote: Are we exaggerating the volume of crowdedness at Rumney? Someone up thread said "thousands" which is not possible.  Its maybe 200 or 300 at the absolute busiest. And likely more like 50-100 at any given time on a Saturday.  We've taken an idea that "Rumney is getting crowded" and blown it out of proportion. 

Ok, how about its the most popular crag in New England? I leave the Gunks out cause its not New England.

Russ Keane wrote: Are we exaggerating the volume of crowdedness at Rumney? Someone up thread said "thousands" which is not possible.  Its maybe 200 or 300 at the absolute busiest. And likely more like 50-100 at any given time on a Saturday.  We've taken an idea that "Rumney is getting crowded" and blown it out of proportion. 

Russ, you just moved here and still think there are portajohns in the small lot. Maybe your information is a bit behind the times. 

The forest service has built two new toilets, there is a new direct parking area for the west crags, people also now park across the street at the AAC, and sometimes people park at the church and walk all the way down buffalo road. Every weekend you can not find a parking spot after 10AM, the camping fills up on Thursday night, the AAC bunkhouse is always booked, and there are several new local hostels. 
I think the estimate of 1000 people a weekend is justified.

Insert name wrote:
The issue I think a lot of people have is that it sucks to be told to lockdown, yet you watch a ton of people travel to your state and not follow any of the rules . Alaska just basically lifted their lockdown to state residents. But all out of staters travelers must quarantine at a given address for 14 days. This means the locals can live life far more normal (or hide inside)

You (and several others in this thread) have repeatedly made the point that basically if nobody from MA/NJ/NY were to venture to NH, people in NH could live their lives without fear because there's (so far) a low burden of infections there.

Here's the problem with that theory: based on the last data easily Google-able, 10% of NH residents pay income tax -- i.e. work -- in MA. Let's make the generous assumption that 75% of people are working from home right now, that means 2.5% of NH residents are commuting to and from MA multiple days per week to work. It's not like you're forcing those people to self-quarantine - they're "locals".

Again, whether the crag should be opening with appropriate social distancing requirements or stay closed is a matter of debate about how effectively we can distance people and whether the risk is worth it. But this specious argument that NH can close its borders and be protected somehow is just that - specious. NH relies on MA (mostly Boston) for a substantial portion of its economic activity, so even if tourism is completely restricted there is going to continue to be spread of the infection from areas of higher prevalence to areas of lower prevalence. I work at a hospital in Boston and I have numerous coworkers who commute to NH, southern Maine, etc - all of those people are potential infection risks, and I don't see anyone jumping to make their neighbors stay in a hotel "down south" or quit their jobs.

NH relies on MA/Boston for a substantial amount of economic benefit, and us Massholes like to be close to NH for the ability to adventure outdoors - it's a symbiotic relationship. I suspect the crag will stay closed all summer, and that may be the right decision -- I'll leave that to the experts. But weekend warriors heading up to climb or hike or whatever are not the only (I would submit probably not even the primary) source of new cases brought to NH. Unless the state of NH is willing to close off the border to the huge volume of economic activity that it relies on, substantial numbers of people will be commuting back and forth and posing a risk.

The truth is that this will come down to politics - the reason the Gunks already has partially reopened and is working on a tentative reopening for climbing is because the property has a strong vested interest in being open (making money). Rumney has an entity on one side who doesn't really care that much if it's open (WMNF) and an entity on the other side that really, really, really doesn't want it to reopen (the town of Rumney/Plymouth). Given those odds, I suspect it will stay closed all summer and maybe the rest of the year. 

Oh whew. I was worried we had a shortage of white, male engineers running a top-down nanny state for the rest of climbing community.  What a relief that the climbing organizations can decide for us how to behave. Yes, Rumney is often a complete shite show on a nice Saturday, but full-on closure is not the only solution. With creative problem solving, resourcefulness, and outreach to all members of the community, we can move past the hyper-rigid rule structure and directives that the old guard in New England has a tradition of imposing on all of us. We need some diversity of thinking and of presence beyond the rules of the climbing organizations. (Not a woman in sight on this forum, for example.). No clear attempt has been made to group source effective ways to find the grey between the black and white of opening and closing. Kudos to those on this forum who have supported creative ways we might re-open.

And as a side note: many people are still climbing at Rumney (of course they are) as evidenced by the chalk. No one wants to post about it, but climbing at the crag continues.

Luke Mertins wrote: There may be no people at Rumney, but at least there's no dogs at at the crag for once. /s

Too bad. Lots of us love dogs at the crag. They are way less noisy than screaming climbers and often smarter and friendlier. I always make sure to thank people personally for bringing their dog to make up for those who grumble about it.

Raoul raoulhervez wrote: Oh whew. I was worried we had a shortage of white, male engineers running a top-down nanny state for the rest of climbing community.  What a relief that the climbing organizations can decide for us how to behave. Yes, Rumney is often a complete shite show on a nice Saturday, but full-on closure is not the only solution. With creative problem solving, resourcefulness, and outreach to all members of the community, we can move past the hyper-rigid rule structure and directives that the old guard in New England has a tradition of imposing on all of us. We need some diversity of thinking in the climbing organizations and of presence. (Not a woman in sight on this forum, for example.). No clear attempt has been made to group source effective ways to find the grey between the black and white of opening and closing. Kudos to those on this forum who have supported creative ways we might re-open.

And as a side note: many people are still climbing at Rumney (of course they are) as evidenced by the chalk. No one wants to post about it, but climbing at the crag continues. 

Revolution now!

Power to the people!!!

Take back Rumney from the oppressive patriarchy!!!!

While we're at it, let's follow Raoul's advice re: the Adirondacks, quoted below-

​Adirondacks suggestion​​​

The authors of the Adirondacks Climbing book are also the administrators of this page. They tightly control gradings of the routes on Mountain Project and match them to the grades in the book. In many senses, this defeats the purpose of mountain project. Climbers come to the page for a more modern and updated view of grades, with a wider breadth of beta- and they get that for other climbing areas, (for example, the Gunks). THey can't get this additional beta for the Adirondacks areas because of the tight control by the page administrators/book authors. What's the point of providing the same exact beta on MP that can be found in the book? Let people comment AND provide their own estimate of grades. Use this average to regrade routes. Why force one person's views on everyone by allowing them to totalitarian control of a regional page based on their own specific ethics?

Mark E Dixon wrote:

Revolution now!

Power to the people!!!

Take back Rumney from the oppressive patriarchy!!!!

Better yet, let's all follow a lecture on rule observation and the democratic process  by on the topic of "private property" posted on Mountain Project by Mr. Dixon in 2013.

Amen Brother. You said it. Let's amend the (un-democratic) process that has decided for all of us that no one should climb at Rumney, that we should not travel more than a half an hour from our homes, and that we shouldn't put gear in our mouths because it could spread covid (I immediately dropped a .75  that was lodged between my back molars and that I would otherwise have forgotten about had the rule of law not made it apparent.)