Indefinite Closure of The Zoo crag in RRG, KY

grug g wrote:

None - I'll never give the AF another dollar. They wasted MILLIONS suing donald trump (who will never be convicted of anything because he is Teflon-Don).  

Local climbing orgs only.

Since the Access Fund itself doesn't have "millions" to spend---and isn't broke, your belief that the AF "wasted millions" of it's funds in that suit is clearly erroneous.

Additionally, you are clearly ignorant of fundamental legal processes, as civil lawsuits ( as in the example you mentioned)--which usually involve financial judgements, are very different from criminal charges, upon which those accused are either convicted or acquitted. So saying that money would be "wasted" in a civil suit against Trump because he will never be "convicted", totally misses the point. And, of course, the "Teflon Don" has been successfully sued multiple times ( not even including, as mentioned above, suits against some of the actions and policies of his first Administration), including the recent one for defamation arising from a sexual assault,  and is also scheduled to be sentenced tomorrow on a CRIMINAL CONVICTION.

Most importantly though, you list yourself as being from Salt Lake, so, if the incoming Administration, arbitrarily and without following appropriate procedures, were to close all Federally-administered lands in Utah to outdoor recreation, including climbing, to expedite resource extraction, do you believe that it would be inappropriate for the AF to bring or join in a suit to prevent such actions?

If you are indeed contributing to your "local climbing orgs", thank you very much, because through such groups is how much of the work of the AF is accomplished.

Alan Rubin wrote:

Since the Access Fund itself doesn't have "millions" to spend---and isn't broke, your belief that the AF "wasted millions" of it's funds in that suit is clearly erroneous.

Additionally, you are clearly ignorant of fundamental legal processes, as civil lawsuits ( as in the example you mentioned)--which usually involve financial judgements, are very different from criminal charges, upon which those accused are either convicted or acquitted. So saying that money would be "wasted" in a civil suit against Trump because he will never be "convicted", totally misses the point. And, of course, the "Teflon Don" has been successfully sued multiple times ( not even including, as mentioned above, suits against some of the actions and policies of his first Administration), including the recent one for defamation arising from a sexual assault,  and is also scheduled to be sentenced tomorrow on a CRIMINAL CONVICTION.

Most importantly though, you list yourself as being from Salt Lake, so, if the incoming Administration, arbitrarily and without following appropriate procedures, were to close all Federally-administered lands in Utah to outdoor recreation, including climbing, to expedite resource extraction, do you believe that it would be inappropriate for the AF to bring or join in a suit to prevent such actions?

If you are indeed contributing to your "local climbing orgs", thank you very much, because through such groups is how much of the work of the AF is accomplished.

You are welcome to keep handing the AF money and seethe with rage at Donny T. Hope it works out for you. 

grug g wrote:

You are welcome to keep handing the AF money and seethe with rage at Donny T. Hope it works out for you. 

Often when some one is loosing an argument because they have been presented with actual facts they resort to insults.  Of course being fact checked hasn't stood in the way of the POTUS elect - so maybe you have a long successful career ahead.  Congratulations.  

Eric Engberg wrote:

Often when some one is loosing an argument because they have been presented with actual facts they resort to insults.  Of course being fact checked hasn't stood in the way of the POTUS elect - so maybe you have a long successful career ahead.  Congratulations.  

with a similar episode having been experienced at Roadside, i would have thought the local community would have been keeping an eye out for precursor conditions of the same sort developing at other locations in order to try to intervene and head off something like this from reoccurring 

Damn, if the owner was smart they’d just start charging $30 a head like every other privately owned crag in the red 

tom donnelly wrote:

You are quite incorrect and cherry picking to think that only the "libs" are out trashing lands.

Peter Beal needs to actually get out in rural Kentucky and West Virginia and see the trash accumulation (especially in the creeks) from the non-libs. There’s entitlement on both sides, it just looks vastly different. One is shitting in the woods (on someone else’s property), the other is leaving actually shitters in creeks (on public or state owned land). 

Not Not MP Admin wrote:

Damn, if the owner was smart they’d just start charging $30 a head like every other privately owned crag in the red 

I'm not sure if you're purposefully hyperbolizing or are just ignorant. No crags in the Red currently charge for access. Two areas, Muir Valley and Cathedral Domain, charge $15 and $5 respectively per car for parking. They are the only spots in the Red currently that have any fee associated with visiting. Cathedral Domain being on the outskirts of what folks consider the Red, and hardly being a popular area, I would be hesitant to even include. The owners of the Zoo are an older couple who are hardly interested in making a buck off the area. Believe it or not many people in rural, impoverished, Eastern Kentucky, especially those from older generations aren't that motivated by money or becoming rich.

bernard wolfe wrote:

with a similar episode having been experienced at Roadside, i would have thought the local community would have been keeping an eye out for precursor conditions of the same sort developing at other locations in order to try to intervene and head off something like this from reoccurring 

We were. Covid happened, too many people started coming, too much development in terms of the area and climbing, increased traffic, and access which was less than handshake deal to begin with can be damaged. Cabin development in the area has increased real estate prices to the point where garbage land which used to go for less than 1k an acre, is now somehow considered valuable. A lot of the folks developing or buying cabins are climbers, we did it to ourselves. 

Not Not MP Admin wrote:

Damn, if the owner was smart they’d just start charging $30 a head like every other privately owned crag in the red 

For those who do not regularly climb at the Red - currently there no areas that require each climber to pay for climbing privileges.

Grayning Fork, aka Roadside,  asks to consider donations of 2-3 USD per person
Muir Valley has paid parking - 15 USD per car, climbers are not counted
Cathedral Domain kindly asks for donations - Edit - Eric pointed out 5USD per car for parking
Motherlode hill - IIRC parking at the top is free now
Torrent Falls is free to climb if you rent - this may be wrong.

More exhaustive and detailed information may be found here - Red River Gorge

Lolz fine, charge $30 to park there if that helps some of you figure out the hyperbole…ain’t nobody being dropped off at Muir   

Alan Rubin wrote:

 I wonder whether the RRGCC was in ongoing communication with the land owner or not. And if they were in communication,  to what extent did the landowner express his concerns over time and what steps were taken to alert the climbing community of those concerns and to try to address them? Yes, the landowner was under no obligation, but it does seem surprising that, given the amount of use over time, that he acted so suddenly.
And, of course, given that it is private property, the RRGCC wouldn't have been able to do any amelioration work without the landowner's permission and support. I recall that it is very steep there, so the erosion is not at all surprising.

I wonder whether the RRGCC was in ongoing communication with the land owner or not. And if they were in communication - They weren't.

To what extent did the landowner express his concerns over time and what steps were taken to alert the climbing community of those concerns and to try to address them? They Didn't/There weren't any.

And, of course, given that it is private property, the RRGCC wouldn't have been able to do any amelioration work without the landowner's permission and support. Bingo

Hopefully, the landowners will eventually be willing to work with the climbing community through the RRGCC to be able to steward the land properly. In the coming months or years, efforts will be made to restore access either by agreement or acquisition. It would be helpful if the RRGCC were the only contact point to communicate with the landowners. Folks can easily be overwhelmed, writers from climbing magazine reaching out, individuals reaching out on their own accord, or otherwise harassing the landowners is detrimental to the process. 

The best thing folks can do in the meantime is respect the landowners wishes by not trespassing, a single bad interaction can cause a closure or continued lack of access for everyone. 

Not Not MP Admin wrote:

Lolz fine, charge $30 to park there if that helps some of you figure out the hyperbole…ain’t nobody being dropped off at Muir   

We have people walk in to Muir from rentals or a handful of local houses regularly as well have people get dropped off regularly. Like every day... 

Hopefully this can be like a roadside closure scenario that resolves itself after a bit and isn’t actually a long term “solution”. Granted, I haven’t spent time in the red since 2014 but certainly seems the days of chickens and goats waking you up from the backyard of Miguel’s, and not waiting in lines to climb anything remotely considered “classic”, are long, long gone. From a far, I must say, hopefully closure like this can set a tone for the amount of overuse I can only imagine takes place these days. 

Not Not MP Admin wrote:

Peter Beal needs to actually get out in rural Kentucky and West Virginia and see the trash accumulation (especially in the creeks) from the non-libs. There’s entitlement on both sides, it just looks vastly different. One is shitting in the woods (on someone else’s property), the other is leaving actually shitters in creeks (on public or state owned land). 

I'd love to get out there sometime soon! It's been a while since my last trip.

That said my point had nothing to do with trash or so-called "liberals". The Zoo is closed to climbing for whatever reason, and not necessarily because of trash. More likely it had to do with noise, dogs, and other classic climber behaviors. I don't think climbers understand how obnoxious their behavior has become in the eyes of many landowners and managers. Claims on social media, cited in my original post, that landowners don't have the right to say who can come on their property or are "Karens" for wanting better behavior, don't go unnoticed by owners or land managers. I know for a fact that land managers here in Boulder read similar posts from MTBers on FB groups all the time. These posts can really hurt access efforts by responsible groups and users.

Most climbers in the Red are visitors, typically from much higher-income zip codes, with leisure and funds (to climb rocks, of all things) that many locals can only dream of. The entitlement attitude from outsiders will not help access issues.

Peter Beal wrote: Most climber in the Red are visitors, typically from much higher-income zip codes, with leisure and funds (to climb rocks, of all things) that many locals can only dream of. The entitlement attitude from outsiders will not help access issues.

Entitlement or ignorance? I was once young and ignorant, which looked very entitled retrospectively. 

Go Back to Super Topo wrote:

Entitlement or ignorance? I was once young and ignorant, which looked very entitled retrospectively. 

If you think you can afford to be ignorant in certain circumstances, you’re probably acting like you’re entitled. We’ve all been there and when there were a lot fewer climbers it wasn’t as consequential. Visiting climbers claiming ignorance and ruining access for locals, for example, is especially not cool.

grug g wrote:

Wow.   

Hey, I agree and would do the same thing. Or keep it private and only let trusted individuals know about its existence. 

I side with the land owner on this. Either people are free to do as they choose with their property or they aren't. 

If we can regain access in time that would be awesome. But I'd also hope the climbing community would use this as a moment for introspection. 

Peter Beal wrote:

If you think you can afford to be ignorant in certain circumstances, you’re probably acting like you’re entitled. We’ve all been there and when there were a lot fewer climbers it wasn’t as consequential. Visiting climbers claiming ignorance and ruining access for locals, for example, is especially not cool.

I think the thing with ignorance is that you don't know....

Go Back to Super Topo wrote:

I think the thing with ignorance is that you don't know....

As a certain deceased Sec of Defense said "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tends to be the difficult ones."

Knowing how to behave in natural areas doesn't fit in either the known or unknown unknowns or at least it shouldn't.