Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jammer]

Hey Mike, don't throw it in yet.  Why does this bug you so much?  So that you know, I would rather not have so many people at Rumney to require expansion, but that is not a reality.  I don't like crowded climbing areas, yet the nature of sport climbing draws people who feel safe clipping bolts ... the nature of the beast.  As long as no other area bolts any routes, those who climb sport will have only one place to go.  With this in mind, why not protect the area and the climbing community the best they can? 

Honestly, I'd like to understand where you were going with your comments.

[jammer]

right ...  .  There is enough climbing elsewhere for those who like it natural. 

I kind of agree except for the fact that Rumney climbers will spill out over other areas and may expect the same type of "park-ness"...

If there are no bolts, they will not come!  Rumney, being the only sport area, is where they will gather.  Make it nice and comfortable, easy to access and friendly to sport climbing and they will have no reason to leave.

Sport climbers who venture into trad gain a whole new perspective of climbing, hopefully understanding why we wish to keep it as pristine as it always had been.

[JakeDatc]

You must be from rumney?

you must still think you're in Rumney 1992

right ...  .  There is enough climbing elsewhere for those who like it natural.  

I kind of agree except for the fact that Rumney climbers will spill out over other areas and may expect the same type of "park-ness"...

yea..  like a paved road going to the top and a fence to keep the tourons from falling off?   seems like other areas have that  covered already.  

is the glass covering the Saigon's and the base around it natural too...  just checking.    



Rumney climbers are not your problem.  

So Jake, congrats on comparing apples and oranges.  

First, the hotel at the bottom of Whitehorse is on private land and climbers had no voice in the decision to put it there; most were against it.

Second, the auto road to the top of Cathedral and the fence were installed before the cliff became so popular with climbers.  At the time only a small handful of routes had been established, and the access was provided to allow all visitors to enjoy the uniquely attractive natural feature that is Cathedral.  Unfortunately for climbers, it is both a curse and a blessing.  By virtue of the auto road anyone, including wheelchair bound visitors, elderly, and partyers, can enjoy an environment that would otherwise be unaccessible.  Climbers do use it for quick access to the upper cliff routes as well as for ascents, but many still choose to walk off via the clifftop trail.  As for the glass at the Saigons, dare I venture to guess that is from other usergroups other than climbers?

It's no secret that you prefer tipping your head back and swallowing bucketloads of 3/8" stainless steel, glued in courage.  That is awesome.  However Rumney is 99% a climbers park, purchased with the aid of climbers, and maintained with climber convenience in mind.  How many Rumney trail days have you participated in personally?  How many of the thousand or so routes have you personally established?  Do you carry spare garbage bags to remove trash from other climbers, of which there is an abundance (tape, cig butts, wrappers, bottles, etc) at Rumney?  You seem to get defensive of an area that suits your personal climbing ethic, but what have you given back in return?  I seem to recall a series of posts, since deleted by you, in which you advocate enhancing cliffside trails to accommodate the masses; oh, yeah, it would "protect the mountainside environment (or some such justification)."  I won't argue the merits of that slippery slope, but who exactly are you to bash trad climbers from N Conway by citing nonsensical comparisons?

Rumney is a "climbers park," like it or not.  Some people like it there, and are entitled to go and add to the circus.  The same can be said about the N Conway crags.  A solution to the aforementioned problems at both areas may not be obvious, but it should be clear that a community divided by your kind of vitriol will hurt us all.

See the forum label..  SPORT  guess what,  sport areas are different than trad areas.   guess what  Rumney is different than Conway, different than Gunks, different than RRG, different than NRG  etc   trying to make one like another is not going to work.   Rumney needs trailwork to keep trails from being destroyed and base areas from becoming trashed.  

If rumney is a climbers area then why should it not be run with climbers in mind?   I don't understand how a trail to avoid traffic and a parking lot are bad?   please explain why this is?

Don't talk to be about convenience when you idiots have bolted and chopped how many anchors?   How's Thin Air looking these days?   Chopped bolt studs are so NATURAL    at least at Rumney people can agree and not destroy what we have.  

I climb at sport Rumney and trad at the Gunks both   as well as bouldering at Lincoln woods,RI, pawtuckaway.  I also take trips to red river gorge.    My style of climbing has nothing to do with what i've said.  

I have not been able to do any official trail days at rumney.  I live in south east rhode island  3.5 hours away.   I do however do as much trail maintenance that i can during my climbing days as i can.  I carry a small branch saw that i've cleared small trees and branches from the trail.   I pick up trash if i see it,  i do not notice all that much tape and cig butts around.. perhaps i'm not in the right spot?
I have done at least 5 yearly trail days at Lincoln woods near me.  You don't know me,  don't talk shit about people you don't know asshole.  


i advocated trail work at triple corners because it is no longer a trail.  it is a scree slope of dirty and loose rock with no direction  so people go all over and make it worse.   The gunks have volunteers out every single weekend doing trail work on their approach trails.   I do not see why people are against maintaining an area instead of letting them turn into a pile of shit.  

 i'm done with this shit.   take my vitriol and shove it up your fucking ass.    

Jake, love to see ya out there some time. Mike

Mike G i have no interest in climbing with you. 

[jimmy]

I agree that you have to maintain what you have.  This is not the case where if you build it they will come.  Rumney has been increasingly becoming crowded because there are simply more climbers out there, not because access has been expanded.  If the place is not maintained it will get trashed by ever increasing crowds -- that is just the reality of the situation. It's the same in most climging areas (Gunks is a good example, where trails and lots have been expanded). Nothing will change until the population growth starts getting under control, which isn't happening any time soon.  So you just do the best you can, but that requires a lot of maintenance.  My hat goes off to the folks that set and maintain routes (e.g., thanks Mark) as well as those who establish and maintain trails and access.  If I lived up there, I'd sure be sick of climbers on Buffalo road too.

[DGoguen]

I generally find avalanche forecast arguments to be far more civil.