|
|
|
|
nivlac
Nov 29, 2006, 9:11 PM
Post #26 of 44
(2953 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2003
Posts: 141
|
I agree with cmajercz . No-one disputes that it's his property, but I get the impression that it's less about the behavior itself, as opposed to behavior in proportion to money made. We're simply not worth the money or the money in return for the hassle.
My guess is if he had to rely on climbers for income more than he currently does, then Torrent would stay open. On one level, it's a cool calculus: a business owner crunching the numbers. On the other, it's a non-friendly climbing crag. We really may not be that bad - but unfortunately, he doesn't care that much about access for climbers. It's a tough reality.
Here's something from the owner (quoted-in-part from an open post on redriverclimbing.com):
. . . . Note: None of this would have happened if people were respectful.
As far as this having an economic impact, well, we will see. I don't think so. My "net profit" on one boyscout is about 25 times more than one climber eating at my BBQ. Don't get me wrong. I thank you for eating there, but that is not where my money is. The via ferrata is paid for. I spend about $2500 per year in climbing gear. For all those doing math on my business, I have maintained over 5,000 via ferrata climber's per year and it is still increasing. The amount of climbers eating at the BBQ is greatly appreciated, but the climbing market segment is insignificant. What hurt me in the BBQ was Jeepers, locals, and Four Wheelers that used to come. I used to make a great deal of money on catering and weddings. I used to have sales from $6,000 to $20,000 per week in catering to corporations that used to come to Cliffview. Unfornately, that business has scaled back. There some numbers for you want to be analyst of Mark's Business.
(This post was edited by nivlac on Nov 29, 2006, 9:13 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
unkemptbeard
Nov 29, 2006, 9:12 PM
Post #27 of 44
(2953 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 1, 2006
Posts: 19
|
Cmajercz, you do make some valid points. Climbers policing themselves is a good policy and I don't think it would be terribly hard for us as a community to keep a few folks in check at the crag.
And in the long run, you are right about climbers. We ain't that bad of a lot. I have never found a community that I liked so well as that I did when I started rock climbing.
We're all sorry to see access closed at Torrent. Who knows? Maybe if climbers continue to focus on developing the positive side of our relationship with Mark we can see things change in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
nivlac
Nov 29, 2006, 9:17 PM
Post #28 of 44
(2943 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2003
Posts: 141
|
In reply to: Cmajercz, you do make some valid points. Climbers policing themselves is a good policy and I don't think it would be terribly hard for us as a community to keep a few folks in check at the crag.
This part I don't agree with. We're a loosely organized community. We can't really police ourselves, beyond general organization and information dissemination. Policing implies power of some sort, and we just can't realistically stop the bad 1%.
I'm sympathetic to Torrent's owner, but I also feel like a bit more could have been done on his end (working with the local climbing coalition, making it a pay-based-model, with goal of paying for some minimal services, not true, "rake-it-in" profit) if he were truly sympathetic to the 99% of us who aren't so bad. Then again, maybe he feels that we're 25% bad apples now. Who knows.
|
|
|
|
|
cmajercz
Nov 29, 2006, 9:29 PM
Post #29 of 44
(2930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 4, 2005
Posts: 55
|
nivlac wrote: I agree with cmajercz . No-one disputes that it's his property, but I get the impression that it's less about the behavior itself, as opposed to behavior in proportion to money made. We're simply not worth the money or the money in return for the hassle. My guess is if he had to rely on climbers for income more than he currently does, then Torrent would stay open. On one level, it's a cool calculus: a business owner crunching the numbers. On the other, it's a non-friendly climbing crag. We really may not be that bad - but unfortunately, he doesn't care that much about access for climbers. It's a tough reality. Here's something from the owner (quoted-in-part from an open post on redriverclimbing.com): . . . . Note: None of this would have happened if people were respectful. As far as this having an economic impact, well, we will see. I don't think so. My "net profit" on one boyscout is about 25 times more than one climber eating at my BBQ. Don't get me wrong. I thank you for eating there, but that is not where my money is. The via ferrata is paid for. I spend about $2500 per year in climbing gear. For all those doing math on my business, I have maintained over 5,000 via ferrata climber's per year and it is still increasing. The amount of climbers eating at the BBQ is greatly appreciated, but the climbing market segment is insignificant. What hurt me in the BBQ was Jeepers, locals, and Four Wheelers that used to come. I used to make a great deal of money on catering and weddings. I used to have sales from $6,000 to $20,000 per week in catering to corporations that used to come to Cliffview. Unfornately, that business has scaled back. There some numbers for you want to be analyst of Mark's Business.
The part where he says he appreciates the business climbers give him but that its insignificant really bothers me. Again, I encourage climbers to climb, stay and eat elsewhere. Don't give the business anymore money that's "insignificant".
|
|
|
|
|
neuroshock
Nov 29, 2006, 11:38 PM
Post #30 of 44
(2897 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 5, 2003
Posts: 680
|
i'm guessing that you're calvinivlac on the rrc forums? if you've kept up with the other related threads earlier in the year, you know that he has had these issues with the climbing community for quite some time. we were put on notice and given opportunity to shape up. we didn't, so he went through with his threat.
i see what you're saying, but that excerpt from a post is misleading. mark (the landowner) didn't bring up the financials; others, including yourself, did and he was responding.
i think that even if climbers did make up a higher percentage of his revenue stream, he would still have closed it. we, the visiting climbing community in general, are too cheap and dirtbag to make up a substantial portion nor majority of his revenue.
besides the cabins he rents out to paying customers, who aren't necessarily climbers, being located right near the cliffline and besides climbers taking up parking meant for his guests and besides issues with profanity, dogs, and urination/defecation, the main building is less than 50 yards from the base of the popular section of cliffline. in a past post he's informed us that his children are home schooled in there during the day. how considerate were we to be guests of his (not paying, but on his land nevertheless) being loud, obnoxious, and distracting?
i will miss Torrent Falls. i had yet to get on the 5.12s there, hoping to have time to build up more endurance, first. my first outdoor lead was on a route there. having witnessed the "problematic" behavior firsthand and read and heard the issues first- and secondhand, i have to respect mark's decision (not just the effect of his decision, but his decision itself). i'll just have to be a paying guest in the future.
i just hope the climbing community as a whole shapes up before cliffs that don't have the B&B option get closed.
-mike
|
|
|
|
|
nivlac
Nov 30, 2006, 4:41 AM
Post #31 of 44
(2880 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2003
Posts: 141
|
Yeah, that's me. I don't think the quote is misleading, I haven't edited it except to exclude a redundant portion. I also haven't brought up any financials or requested them; Mark volunteered those. I've simply noted the harsh reality that the climbing community isn't a big revenue stream for him and that's one of the reasons why it's easier for him to simply close his crag than search for another solution.
We're basically agreeing - while I haven't kept up with everything from the get-go, I know Mark's been doing what he can and it sounds like he's tried.
It's just unfortunate and in this case we've got a landowner who, while being a nice guy, doesn't seem to want to work on alternatives that might help the climbing community keep access. Those alternatives might not be money makers, but I was hoping for something that at the very least wouldn't be a net money or time loser for him. The easy retort is that he can do what he wants or that he's tried and we're getting what we deserve. Maybe so. But I also think a more climber-oriented or friendly owner would seek a more creative alternative.
So far, this has been: ok, badly behaving climbers are pissing me off. Here are "The Rules." If you don't follow them, you're all out. We, the climbing community, don't have the ability to police the bad 1%. So now everyone is banned.
I don't think there's an easy answer, and I certainly respect his efforts to date. I just can't help feeling frustrated for not being able to do much besides educate my fellow climbers - and I certainly don't usually see "terrible" behavior that's been described. I'm sure it's there, but I generally haven't seen it and I haven't been able to do anything, except be excluded.
|
|
|
|
|
jds100
Dec 1, 2006, 5:54 AM
Post #32 of 44
(2836 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2001
Posts: 1008
|
"cmajercz", your perspective is both childish and unrealistic. You suggest being reactive to the land owner's decision by encouraging other climbers to essentially boycott his business. "Whaa, whaa, whaa! He insulted climbers! He said climber business is 'insignificant' to him! He disrespects climbers! Whaa, whaa, whaa!" Your little panties are all in a bunch 'cuz you feel slighted by a guy who happens to OWN the land, who happens to OWN a business that is NOT dependent on climbers, who did, in fact, try for years to work with the local climber advocacy group and local climbers to keep access open, who, in fact, RE-opened access after years of the area being closed.
Yeah, right, prick; he's being too picky about climber behavior on his land.
When you get a real job, when you get real responsibility, when you get real property, maybe you'll also acquire a perspective that is more aligned with adult reality.
No, climbers can never completely police themselves, especially at a destination which attracts people from all over the country and other countries. It seems to me that the local group, the local climbers, DID have, in general, a good relationship with this land owner, but it could well have been a problem of the arrogant climbing bum, or the well-heeled (relatively) and equally arrogant traveling climber. And, still, it could have been an ongoing problem with locals. Who knows?... But, as has been made clear over time, this decision was not based on one or two or three or a few recent incidents. It was cumulative, and a pattern that was getting worse.
So, cmajercz, when you grow up, and when you buy a great climbing crag, you make sure to let everyone know that they can come climb there and do whatever they want, whenever they want, wherever they want. Cuz, hey, climbers are just such special people.
And, yeah, I know that it only takes a few to screw it up for everyone, but unfortunately you sound like you're siding more with the few. Get your priorities straight, think about what actually works in everyone's best interests, and reconsider your childish call for climbers to treat this particular land owner with even less respect by boycotting his business. Or, you can be like the other arrogant know-it-alls, the other 'me-first-and-only' assholes, and keep whining about more and more closures with your ever-shrinking circle-jerk of like-minded friends.
And, 'nivlac', if you're so sad and worked up now, after the fact, where were you when you could have been working with the guy? when you could have helped work out policies and procedures for policing climber behavior? Now, you just want to throw out these veiled insults and criticisms of the land owner, when, once again, you don't have a clue as to what it has been like for this guy to make his property -HIS PROPERTY- open and available to other people -people he does not know, people he will never see, people who obviously don't care to thank him, don't take the time to meet him, don't take the time to talk to him about his concerns, (but you sure can come to an anonymous forum and bitch and complain and criticize, can't you...)
People like you -whatever age you are- are just brats. You seem to think someone 'owes' you something, that land owners owe you access. You people have the audacity to parse someone's comments about a donation box, trying to emphasize that people shouldn't feel obligated to pay an "optional" donation. Incredible! Have you ever thought about the expense of all the nice bolts that sprout from the rock that you feel you have the "right" to use? Have you ever thought about paying the guys who put those routes up? No, I didn't think so.
Hey, you deserve it. You're special, little Britney, Amanda, Cody, Carson, or whatever cool in-vogue name yer mommy and daddy gave you. Yer farts don't stink, yer car doesn't pollute, you shouldn't have to pay for your own education, you shouldn't have to work for a living, and you sure as hell shouldn't have to respect a land owner just for climbing on his property. Jeeez! How could somebody think of asking you to do that?!!? Of all the nerve!!
When you people, all of you, individually, have stepped up and taken the initiative to get something done, to act PROACTIVELY instead of reactively, to buy property and open to climbers, to pay for port-a-pottys out of your own pocket, when you've taken care of trails and trees and poison ivy and loose rock, and cleaned up dog shit and human shit and toilet paper and trash left behind by people like you, when you've worn the target of a leader on your back, when you've actually DONE something more than whine and complain and get indignent, THEN you can come back here and criticize someone else who's fed up with people just like you.
(This post was edited by jds100 on Dec 1, 2006, 6:18 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Dec 1, 2006, 8:39 AM
Post #33 of 44
(2820 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
lets face it, some climbers can be idiots and think that the rules dont apply to them. i know a few such cases. but the sad thing is when those few idiots make the whole community loose something.
on a similar case here in slovenia, we had to basicly change the access path to a really popular crag because the landowner didnt want us on hes land anymore. all it too was a smart@ss who in 5 minutes destroyed the good relations we (mainly the locals and some smarter climbers who know what a pissed landowner can do) were building for some years. well, the access is now about twice as long as it was and 3 times as inconvenient.
|
|
|
|
|
captainstatic
Dec 1, 2006, 5:16 PM
Post #34 of 44
(2781 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2003
Posts: 203
|
feanor007 wrote: A wise person would see this as a harbinger of things to come if we don't shape up fast. The evidence shows we aren't (or weren't) an easy group of people to be around. What we don't deserve is to climb at Torrent, it was a privilege, as is all climbing. Blowing off failure doesn't improve anything, we must learn from it.
For non-locals or those not able to attend please feel free to post your input as to how you think the RRGCC can be more effective in carrying out its' mission.
|
|
|
|
|
nivlac
Dec 1, 2006, 6:06 PM
Post #35 of 44
(2763 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2003
Posts: 141
|
jds100, thanks for your post. If that's how you feel about it, no worries.
Your reply was a little weak though; if you're going to come here and light your little flame-thrower, at least do a decent job and try to make me feel bad for something I've said or done.
Mark and I have had a dialogue through the redriverclimbing.com forum, and I appreciate his explanations to me. I've also been open about how I feel, and I've not sugar-coated anything. Is that what's upsetting you? I'm not anonymous to Mark, any more than he is to me. He posts openly to explain his positions, many reply, and he replies. I've also openly stated that I respect his decision.
Oh, and if you didn't get it, I'm calling you pathetic for not understanding the nature of these forums. But go ahead, by all means, keep it up.
Captainstatic, I respect the mission of the RRGCC and I'll do what I can from afar. If I can think of constructive ways for the RRGCC to work with landowners, I'll be sure to PM you. I love the Red and I hate to see crag closures of this kind.
|
|
|
|
|
krusher4
Dec 1, 2006, 6:13 PM
Post #36 of 44
(2760 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 17, 2005
Posts: 997
|
The owner had every right to never let climber on his land but since he's such a great guy he did. I enjoyed his climbing (on his terms might I add) and BBQ (some of the best I've ever had) he let many things slide for a long time with warning an folks out there kept pushing it. Next time I make it to the Red I'll stop by your place for some great food, thank you for being so generous it's a shame you were not treated right.
|
|
|
|
|
jds100
Dec 2, 2006, 3:05 AM
Post #37 of 44
(2720 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 5, 2001
Posts: 1008
|
Hey, thanks for the education about how forums work around here. Gosh, if I'd only known years ago when I first started posting and working on RC.com...
If I can help other people see the pettiness contained in your posts and other similar posts that criticize a private land owner, that would be a good result. An objective for me would be to get people to THINK, rather than 'feel'; to use a intellect, instead of 'feelings' of self-righteousness and entitlement. If I can illustrate how ridiculous and solipsistic it is for you and your ilk to criticize someone who has been as generous and open with his property and his thought-process toward making his decision, then that's a good thing. If I can help expose stupid thinking, or the absence of thinking, then so much the better. I couldn't care less about your feelings, one way or the other.
If your feelings got hurt, well, that would just be a cherry on top of the sundae.
I replied to the posts here on this forum. If you want to claim what a cool sweet guy you are on the other site, fine, but you can't reasonably bitch when I address what you wrote here.
|
|
|
|
|
nivlac
Dec 2, 2006, 5:05 AM
Post #38 of 44
(2704 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2003
Posts: 141
|
jds100, I think you missed something; my feelings weren't hurt by anything you said, or anything anyone else has said. I think vigorous discussion and debate are good things. If that's not part of why these forums exist, then please let me know.
Your posts are bewildering to me, but I'm not surprised that you're stooping to personal attack. Solipsistic? I chuckle at your hypocrisy. Go ahead and show the masses how to 'use a intellect' instead of having 'feelings' or whatever it is you mean. I'm sure they can't judge for themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
drfelatio
Dec 2, 2006, 6:45 AM
Post #39 of 44
(2687 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 16, 2004
Posts: 475
|
@jds100:
Geez, man. Fly off the handle much? Talk about an overreaction! And I think you completely missed nivlac's point anyway. I don't think he was whining about not being able to climb there. Disappointed, sure. I think he was pointing out the fact that the owner's approach to the problem didn't really afford us much opportunity to help keep the place open. When it's impossible to police the entire climbing community, how can anyone expect a "my way or the highway" approach to work? It can't and now Torrent is closed just as we all knew it eventually would.
In reply to: The easy retort is that he can do what he wants or that he's tried and we're getting what we deserve. Maybe so. But I also think a more climber-oriented or friendly owner would seek a more creative alternative.
I tend to agree. While the owners were incredibly gracious in allowing us to use their land, their expectations were simply unrealistic. Someone, at some time, was going to break those rules. It was inevitable and unavoidable. So the owner closes down access. Now I know I'm gonna get flamed for this at some point, but their actions remind me so much of the "Soup Nazi". Sure they're well within their rights to close the place down. I respect that decision, but I don't have to like it. And who's to say that even if they did come up with alternative approaches the area wouldn't eventually get closed anyway? But they could have at least tried, and I think that is what upsets nivlac the most about what they did.
|
|
|
|
|
rickk
Dec 2, 2006, 8:16 AM
Post #40 of 44
(2677 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2006
Posts: 3
|
Wow, you guys are outrageous. Why is it the land owners responsibility to come up with this creative alternative? He laid out his rules, he never changed them or cheated, climbers f'd it all up. We can't police ourselves? i beg to differ, you just need to grow a pair and tell the retard breaking the rules to act right or get the fu*k out. Or are you worried all your little friends won't think your cool then?
|
|
|
|
|
rock_junkie
Dec 2, 2006, 10:55 AM
Post #41 of 44
(2675 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2004
Posts: 172
|
That really suck for you all who climb there. I truly wish things had not ended up this way.
....Dogs at the crag issue....
|
|
|
|
|
drfelatio
Dec 2, 2006, 4:54 PM
Post #42 of 44
(2638 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 16, 2004
Posts: 475
|
rickk wrote: Wow, you guys are outrageous. Why is it the land owners responsibility to come up with this creative alternative? He laid out his rules, he never changed them or cheated, climbers f'd it all up. We can't police ourselves? i beg to differ, you just need to grow a pair and tell the retard breaking the rules to act right or get the fu*k out. Or are you worried all your little friends won't think your cool then?
Sorry. I wasn't trying to imply that the owners had some sort of obligation to come up with alternative solutions. It's his land, he can do whatever he wants to do with it, but they could have at least tried to find an alternate approach. They did not and the result was the closure of Torrent. Again, that's their prerogative, but I wouldn't call that action very "climber friendly."
As for policing the community, I have to disagree with you. Sure you can stop those you see, but are you going to be there 24/7? It isn't possible to constantly police the people that visit Torrent. To believe that it is is unrealistic and is the same belief that resulted in the closure of the area.
|
|
|
|
|
wish_i_was_climbing
Dec 12, 2006, 2:27 AM
Post #43 of 44
(2562 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 18, 2005
Posts: 19
|
The guy kept Torrent open for 6 or 8 years and has had problems for half that. I'm suprised he didnt close sooner. I was there on one of the days when, pardon the pun, some one let the dogs out. The climbers werent appologetic or even nice, they acted like they were pissed that someone was telling them what to do with their dog. It's a tragedy, there were a lot of awesome climbs at Torrent but some have gone and ruined it for all. Maybe in a few years the owners will be willing to try again.
|
|
|
|
|
alexmac
Dec 13, 2006, 7:47 PM
Post #44 of 44
(2541 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 23, 2005
Posts: 550
|
wish_i_was_climbing wrote: The guy kept Torrent open for 6 or 8 years and has had problems for half that. I'm suprised he didnt close sooner. I was there on one of the days when, pardon the pun, some one let the dogs out. The climbers werent appologetic or even nice, they acted like they were pissed that someone was telling them what to do with their dog. It's a tragedy, there were a lot of awesome climbs at Torrent but some have gone and ruined it for all. Maybe in a few years the owners will be willing to try again.
Its not like it is gone, its merely that the land is closed to those who don't stay at the land owners place and obey the rules while their.
I agree its sad when people can not respect the land, the people or the community at large.
Myself, I plan paying the freight and staying at the lodge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
