I'd like to just clarify a bit in response to jclimbs, " As far as establishing fines for violations, I don't care how old you are! If you are old enough to climb there on your own you are old enough to be responsible and act accordingly. Respect, responsibility and accountability should have no age exemptions."
Would you want to be fined for:
knocking down lichen off rocks?
knocking down loose rock? (aren't you supposed to do that in sport climbing areas?)
failing to walk single file on a path?
climbing a rock route in the winter using crampons? ice axe? pitons? ice screws?
leaving your gear, markers whatever there?
using colored webbing at rappel points if not otherwise in place?
What is "socially acceptable" mixed climbing?
Never on Sundays? or only on rock routes already impacted with bolting? or prohibitions on it generally ( aren't there something like 50 ice/mixed clmibs here?). Has it caused a lot of damage or something?
So it should be that the regulations that are compatible with what responsible climbers do anyway. I reviewed in the Mountaineering Freedom of the Hills book published by the Seatle mountaineers which also publishes a bunch of stuff about climbng in the White Mountains. Their last chapter on environmental impact is really good and the above list are some suggestions for minimum impact mountaineering. How they describe mixed climbing (Mixed Terrain) in a couple of paragraphs would also be a good common working description to use so that everyone knows what is being talked about. Again you might have some people who don't climb not really understand what it is all about.
So to try a different perspective I was trying to say that controlling conduct can be overdone. There is sometimes bad law/rules, sometimes good law/rules executed in draconian ways, petty regulations that make no sense , invasion of personal decision making ( I always like the NH sensiblities in making the wearing of a seatbelt required for kids but optional and recommended for adults, that's good rule making to me). People suffer if when and as they are cited for violating any law or rule. Let's get those murders and thieves but really too much regulation can be ineffective and work against the very objectives it is trying to accommodate (take for example the new Oregon law requiring climbers to wear beacons--so not all rule makers know anything about climbing).
Personally I don't think it is healthy to have so little confidence in our youth that we have to write a guide book for every step they make and being in the developmental stages, and not the military, obeying rules and regulations sometimes is not the very first thing they think of. Think of the famous observation that in alpine climbing if you don't see a sign marked "crevasse" then you don't need to look for any.
So as someone already pointed out, if they use climbing standards to develop their plan, it can be a great plan and have a positive impact on climbing at Rumney. But it can also be the opposite. So why not express concerns rather than assume it will all be done just as every climber would wish? And be reasonable?
And I wonder why it is happening anyway? Was it expected? Are climbers not self regulating properly there? What does the place look like? These are just things to think about and comment on to them and I only mention them for that purpose alone.
As has also been said, improving the parking would be highly desirable to someone like me. But as has also been noted on this thread, $$$ may come from your pockets to do it.
I thought it looked like a truly great place to climb but it's not likely that I will find myself impacted one way or the other by the plan because I can't get to climb, including there, often enough as it is!
Best wishes for some good climbing!
Author
Topic: Forest Service - management plan investigation at Rumney (Read 135 times)