Castle Rock Guides staking "claims" with a top rope

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 61 - 80 of total 113 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

apogee

climber

Jul 17, 2011 - 12:42pm PT

It's worth keeping in mind that this thread has troll-like characteristics to it. If not driven by a simple jdf-like goal to simply inflame, one has to wonder what the OP's motivations were.

Zeke, you know what your CRSP SUP says better than I do, but as a longtime holder and manager of SUP's & CUA's on various public lands, I also know that for all of the details included in some of them, there are usually wide gray areas that leave management strategies up to the judgement of the program. My point is, while CRSP may not be explicit in whether fixed ropes are acceptable, most experienced, professional guiding programs (yourself included, of course) and the climbing public know that leaving ropes fixed on a bunch of climbs, leaving them unattended for long periods of time, or even excluding/preventing access to them by other users, are just not reasonable or professional practices. I know that we are in agreement on that point.

Legal implications aside, purposely dropping the gear of someone who pissed you off is a dick-move, even if they really were jerks- most of us would agree on this point, too.

I have commonly encountered organized groups at various crags who dominate the area, and oftentimes attempt to exclude access to any others while they are present. This is a common occurrence, and the comments and experiences of many in this thread attest to it- and again, it tends to occur with non-professional instructional programs- the public is unable to make the distinction, however, and the truly professional guiding programs get the negative blowback.

As you suggested, a friendly discussion with large groups like this is the best strategy for resolution- both in the short term, and more importantly, in the long term- regular instances of conflicts are sure to invite increased regulation.

Avoiding these conflicts in the first place is obviously the goal- strategies such as choosing obscure, lesser-known crags are quite effective, as are just being flexible to other users. Of course, there are areas where this is tough to do- sounds like CRSP is one of them, with a very small number of usable sites. I have to say, though, that a program has a choice of areas in which to operate- my own program has specifically chosen to not operate in some select, popular sites in So Cal because they have limited sites where it's tough to have groups &/or they create too many conflicts with the public or other groups. (Stoney Point has become one such location.)

And lastly...I will float the undoubtedly unpopular view that there is no distinction in access rights to public vs. guided groups. They are all citizens of this country, with a right to access the same lands, even if they paid someone to take them there. The bottom line is that the climbing resource really is limited, and we all have a responsibility to use it reasonably, and to respect others rights to have the experience they seek.

cleo

Social climber

Berkeley, CA

Jul 17, 2011 - 12:44pm PT

Jim - that's true. Having been part of large groups like that on occasion, I always try and make a point to share ropes with other arriving climbers (or offer to move them if they are into leading, although, not always immediately - waiting 20 minutes for a couple of people to climb is not unreasonable).

Some really fun days have ensued by sharing ropes with other groups (including the occasional guided group). At a crag like CRSP, which (imho) only has a small handful of easier, worthwhile roped routes, and is super close to an urban area, one has to expect to be sharing with a lot of other people. Hogging = definitely uncool, and expecting priority to lead easier routes without waiting a bit for a TR to clear is also unrealistic!

Doug Robinson

Trad climber

Santa Cruz

Jul 17, 2011 - 12:47pm PT

Castle Rock State Park is crowded. There are many ways to ease the situation besides sharing. I developed an alternative beginner site and used it about half the time. Talked it up with other guides. We rarely saw anyone there except guided groups.

donini

Trad climber

Ouray, Colorado

Jul 17, 2011 - 12:50pm PT

Setting top ropes in popular areas is common (see definition for popular area) but not cool. Someone who wants to lead a climb should always get preference over a top rope- that's what its all about, leading.

klk

Trad climber

cali

Jul 17, 2011 - 01:14pm PT

the problem isn't the gangroping (well, it sort of is, but that's a different issue).

there are two problems in the csrp scenario, the first is the issue of setting TRs early to claim the area and then leaving them unattended. i just don't see that as a viable longterm practice at CRSP, where there is a really limited quantity of quality rock. JT is different, probably for the foreseeable future.

Zeke's position is that as long as he stays within the letter of posted policy, everything is peachy. That means he and his underpaid serfs could guide until dark, take the ropes down for fifteen minutes while the clients are stumbling back to the cars, then re-install them and stake their turf for the next day-- over and over, since it wouldn't violate the 24hr abandonment policy.

i idon't see much of a future for zeke's preferred practice.

lots of areas in the alps, many services do as DR did at CRSP, i.e., develop semi-proprietary areas. at other popular locations ive seen, it's first come-first served.

politeness and management issues aside, i think it's insanely dicey for a guide service (or other organization like the BSA or whatever) to hang-- and then leave unattended --ropes on a cliff in a state park in a major metropolitan area that is frickin crawling with kids and families and randoms. just a matter of time before you have something bad happen that doesn't involve other climbers at all.

first six yr old to yard up and then pitch from on of those unattended ropes is gonna create major problems for everyone.

apogee

climber

Jul 17, 2011 - 01:19pm PT

coz, skip is agreeing with you. Might want to take note of that.

zeker

Trad climber

bishop

Jul 17, 2011 - 01:36pm PT

I was not @ castle rock last tuesday, and more importantly, some folks here stated I'm a "weak man" for stating the simple truth/law. REALLY! My point in general was its not cool to purposely damage someone's gear for ANY reason and climbers should communicate and work issues out, not resort to such things as damaging gear, calling cops/rangers, etc which rarely results in any action to anyones advantage anyway. As usual only a few people actually post real names on this forum and in the end its only a handful of folks like Doug R, John/Apogee, Coz/Scott cozgrove and a few other folks who have any intelligent statements to make. Calling people names, and being rude, etc is uncalled for here.

If I ever have any issues @ the crag with any of you or you have issues with me for any reason, commercially related or otherwise, lets just talk, its not that hard, you all seem to have alot to say on a forum, why not say this stuff in person? I'm sure we can work it out.

After all, we are all climbers
Zeke Federman - My real name, contact me via email me if you have any issues with me or wish to have a real conversation - info@sierrarockclimbingschool.com

Jake M.

Trad climber

Santa Cruz, CA

Jul 17, 2011 - 01:47pm PT

I taught climbing at Castle rock for over 10 years and every service I ran into, including us, got up early and set up TR's at Goat rock when we had larger groups. Never once did I think I was taking a route away from a "unguided" climber, since Goat rock is a beginner area with routes in to 5.4-5.6 range, ideal for first timers. Climbers with any experience go elsewhere.

The early TR set up was done both to save time once the clients arrived, and stake our claim in terms of other guide services. I knew, and had friendships with, many of the regular guides at Goat rock. We all understood the unwritten protocol, and actually worked together (by moving our own ropes to accommodate the other instructor's clients) in an effort to make sure everyone got the climbing time they paid for. We even coordinated with each other on occasion to avoid overcrowding.

I remember having positive interactions with other instructors and climbers, and believe this is a non-issue.

In my opinion, this thread may have been started by a unfamiliar Goat Rock guide who got "beat" out to the rocks. My advice, talk to the people in the parking lot, set up ropes next to theirs, be firm about your clients' needs, and work it out. They are in the same boat as you and will understand.

apogee

climber

Jul 17, 2011 - 01:50pm PT

"...this thread may have been started by a unfamiliar Goat Rock guide who got "beat" out to the rocks..."

Very good possibility. Such sour grapes incidents like that are well-known to generate rants like this.

Bruce Morris

Social climber

Belmont, California

Jul 17, 2011 - 02:36pm PT

I know that Goat Rock is super convenient for guiding and teaching beginners. But I never understand why guide services operating at Castle don't set up TR on Underworld Rock, the Waterfall Cliff, Shady Rock or Last Temptation Cliff? This would spread out the crowds and stake out other areas for guiding and teaching. True, Goat Rock does have a bunch of easy routes that beginners are sure to get up and enjoy, but that doesn't mean there aren't scads of easy routes in other areas too. Too bad, Summit Rock is closed down all year for raptor nesting or that area would take some of the pressure off of Goat. But that's my current obsession!

zeker

Trad climber

bishop

Jul 17, 2011 - 02:51pm PT

Coz and John,
I'm certainly not on supertopo playing the game of trying to win any friends.I do consider Coz a friend and consider John to be a business associate that I have always been on good terms with.

apogee

climber

Jul 17, 2011 - 03:20pm PT

"How would you feel if a group of unguided beginners got to Goat Rock and "staked out" turf before you arrived??????"

I don't really see a difference, fattrad. Doesn't matter if it's a guided group or a 'unguided' group of friends/family/etc. The same tactic of respect for others and efforts to share the site are appropriate.

That said, I personally try to avoid popular areas with medium-large size groups altogether, and have several backup plans in mind if Plan A just isn't feasible.

GDavis

Social climber

SOL CAL

Jul 17, 2011 - 03:24pm PT

I'm certainly not on supertopo playing the game of trying to win any friends

(just kiddin' - love ya babes!)

jstan

climber

Jul 17, 2011 - 04:36pm PT

From the above it seems we now have commercial groups vying with each other to stake out desirable public resources entirely ignoring members of the general public.

Apparently we are already on a path leading to parties feeling they are being injured. It is the job of area managers to deal with this.

Let them do their job.

chill

climber

between the flat part and the blue wobbly thing

Jul 17, 2011 - 05:51pm PT

Zeker - Sorry I called you weak. Since I've never met you, obviously that opinion carries no weight. However, you seemed to be taking refuge in what is legal when the issue is what is ethical. The idea that government has any say in this, a question of consideration and respect between climbers, is repugnant to me.
Chris Hill

zeker

Trad climber

bishop

Jul 17, 2011 - 06:11pm PT

Chris,
I was not taking a side on the ethics. I was just stating the fact that leaving a rope up there is not illegal but damaging someone's gear is illegal you are of course free to find my writing offensive. I am not here on super topo to please you I'm just exercising my freedom of speech on a topic of some interest to me.

Mighty Hiker

climber

Vancouver, B.C.

Jul 17, 2011 - 06:16pm PT

The ones about playing nice, and sharing - you know, the things we were all supposed to have learnt in kinder/klettergarten - seem to apply.

For any of us to behave as though we own the places where we climb, and can do as we please, is short sighted at best, foolish and a source of conflict and regulation at worst. Regardless of what the letter of the law or permits may say. Commercial climbers seem proner to this folly than others, given that their motives are as much economic as recreational.

Mighty Hiker

climber

Vancouver, B.C.

Jul 17, 2011 - 06:53pm PT

Well, then we soon get into economics, the tragedy of the commons, and all that. And then FatTrad will tell us that greed is good, and John E will remind us that money may not be the ideal rationing mechanism, but it's better than many known alternatives.

Assuming that there aren't enough public 'goods' - that is climbs of the desired quality, grade, accessibility, whatever - then it is necessary either to create more of what is needed, or somehow ration usage. The known rationing mechanisms - use fees, permits, commercial licences, voluntary, toprope showdowns at dawn, monopolies - all have their flaws, although usually it works out. (Not necessarily in some places in Europe, with far higher population density, better access, and more usage.) Creating more sometimes works, although it sometimes also leads to climbs and areas being dumbed down so that they're (supposedly) more accessible and can accommodate greater volume - almost always through addition of bolts. As DR and others have mentioned, it's sometimes possible for commercial users to find and create suitable alternatives.

Of course, the interests of commercial climbers (the spectrum goes from friends helping friends to volunteer youth group instructors through semi-professionals to professionals to riggers, the movie crowd, and so on - IIRC climbing guides aren't a legally recognized self-governing profession in Canada or the US, although they have a monopoly in some parks) sometimes are not the same as those of the climbing public. Nor are climbers always wise in their use of of the places that we're so lucky (and wealthy) to play in. The days of unrestricted freedom are mostly over, and often that seems desirable - imagine Yosemite if it was a free for all, without NPS guardianship, however imperfect it may sometimes be. There are places we can go and have more freedom, if we want.

(Disclosure: I am, or was, a certified climbing instructor in Norway, and worked several summers there for pay, teaching climbing. But I mostly do so now in BC on a volunteer basis - other experienced and skilled climbers helped me get started, for no compensation, and I feel that's what we should all do for others.)

apogee

climber

Jul 17, 2011 - 07:24pm PT

"Commercial climbers seem proner to this folly than others, given that their motives are as much economic as recreational."

I suppose that would largely depend on how one defines 'commercial' climber. Well-respected, professional guiding programs tend to have far fewer run-ins like the OP's- it's the more amateur-led groups (church/school/climbing clubs/REI/scouts/etc) that tend to have more of these issues.

These run-ins happen from time to time- when they happen, it would interesting to hear exactly who the group was (except for fact it would be followed by endless irrational flaming).