JeffCo DRAFT Climbing Management Guidelines Released
|
I don't know when this was posted, but JeffCo's Climbing website now has a draft "Climbing Management Guidelines" posted.
Draft JeffCo Climbing Management Guidelines P1 Draft JeffCo Climbing Management Guidelines P2 Draft JeffCo Climbing Management Guidelines P3 Draft JeffCo Climbing Management Guidelines P4 Draft JeffCo Climbing Management Guidelines P5 |
|
Wait, is this a joke? Who came up with this? Mandatory rapelling off of all routes, and all permas banned? Was this written by someone who does not understand sport climbing and that not all techniques apply to all routes? Basically, no lowering and no permas would mean that all really steep routes are essentially closed, unless you toprope at the end of each session to clean it. |
|
the schmuck wrote:Wait, is this a joke? Who came up with this? Mandatory rapelling off of all routes, and all permas banned? Was this written by someone who does not understand sport climbing and that not all techniques apply to all routes? Basically, no lowering and no permas would mean that all really steep routes are essentially closed, unless you toprope at the end of each session to clean it.well, that'll do away with all the "someone stole my draws, can i have them back for beer?" threads. |
|
Monomaniac wrote:*Mark Dixon special: Lowering from anchors is banned (rappelling is mandatory)To be fair, this falls under guideline. But yeah, how does one politely respond to this complete non-sense? |
|
Monomaniac wrote:Mark Dixon special: Lowering from anchors is banned (rappelling is mandatory)Be an interesting rappel from Sonic Youth. Or Primo. Or Wall of Justice. Glad Jeffco is making me safer. What a total disaster. |
|
reboot wrote: To be fair, this falls under guideline. But yeah, how does one politely respond to this complete non-sense?the purpose of a public comment period is to solicit public comment. write a well reasoned, neutral toned letter to the correct authorities. |
|
Mark E Dixon wrote: Or Primo.Glad that's NOT in JeffCo & I've already done sonic youth. |
|
Pretty clear they have been misguided by someone who doesn't climb difficult sport routes. The rappelling thing is a joke...at least they didn't specify a fine for that. (edit. jk, they did. nice.) |
|
reboot wrote: Glad that's NOT in JeffCoFinally some good news for me today! |
|
David Barbour wrote: The rappelling thing is a joke...at least they didn't specify a fine for that.Don't be so sure. Under the rappelling statement they cite C.17, which, if you follow to the end of the document, states that violation of this code carries a $125 fine. That document is so misguided that it is hard to know where to begin. I agree with others that posted in the last few days that this essentially amounts to a halt in route development. No offense to Monty or any of the other FHRC folks, but getting their permission to put up a route is completely antithesis to my -- and almost certainly others -- sense of what it means to do route development. As far as I am concerned, if this document goes through it is an unmitigated disaster for the climbing community because of the implications for setting precedent. It was one thing when it was just Boulder because nobody in the sane outside world would use Boulder as an example for how to run a ship (e.g. I don't see the rest of the world trying to demand that everyone ride their bike and recycle their car). But now we have Staunton SP and CC? My worry is that this will set a precedent for other agencies to follow, which really eats sh*t. Sigh. |
|
ton wrote: the purpose of a public comment period is to solicit public comment. write a well reasoned, neutral toned letter to the correct authorities.That usually requires something reasonable & logical to work with. For instance, you'd have to be Jesus to response with a well-reasoned, neutral tone to the crap Donald Trump has been spewing around. |
|
J. Albers wrote: Don't be so sure. Under the rappelling statement they cite C.17, which, if you follow to the end of the document, states that violation of this code carries a $125 fine. That document is so misguided that it is hard to know where to begin.Whoops, yeah, that's insane. |
|
reboot wrote: That usually requires something reasonable & logical to work with. For instance, you'd have to be Jesus to response with a well-reasoned, neutral tone to the crap Donald Trump has been spewing around.come one now, there's no need to approach Godwin's law in this instance. i actually agree with some of the stuff in the draft. (i would imagine you could find some stuff you'd compromise on, too.) and it wouldn't be hard to set out pros and cons to each of the major points. it is logical. you just don't agree with it because you come from a different point of view. got any attorney friends? they tend to be pretty good at seeing both sides and might help draft a letter. |
|
ton wrote: i actually agree with some of the stuff in the draft. (i would imagine you could find some stuff you'd compromise on, too.)And I (personally) actually would rather see NOTHING in the guideline implemented (I'm sure I'm not alone). I can see how some of the guidelines could improve the experience of some of the climbers, but that's besides the point. |
|
I can't make the meeting tonight so I sent an email with some of my concerns. Here's what I got back: |
|
I also sent an email with some feedback, as I cannot attend the meeting tonight. Im probably going to catch crap for this, but i like the pet policy. Im tired of seeing abandoned dogs at the base of multi-pitch routes... |