if I see one fixed on any wall, I will take it and there is not a dam thing you can do about it.

I wouldn't have been as nice as those guys

at the thief's unconcern about theft

I was amazed at how civil they were to him. And, at the thief's unconcern about theft.

taking a draw is not against law. in fact it is against the law to leave pieces on the wall and I do not understand why lazy sport climbers have to leave their unsafe draws on every wall.loose some of those fat pounds out of your love handles and carry six freaking draws on your harness and clip and clean it after you are done.And those draws are unsafe cause you do not know how many people have taken a fall on them and one of these days, one will break and kills a climber.

taking a draw is not against law. in fact it is against the law to leave pieces on the wall and I do not understand why lazy sport climbers have to leave their unsafe draws on every wall.loose some of those fat pounds out of your love handles and carry six freaking draws on your harness and clip and clean it after you are done.And those draws are unsafe cause you do not know how many people have taken a fall on them and one of these days, one will break and kills a climber.

Your just saying the same shit you did on supertopo

So by that logic if you park your car (or yak, in your case), illegally, I can take it?

So by that logic if you park your car (or yak, in your case), illegally, I can take it?

Your just saying the same shit you did on supertopo

read the congress wilderness act (1960s) .

If it sits there long enough you can. Salvage Title. Got a nice little 40mpg car that way once.

taking a draw is not against law. in fact it is against the law to leave pieces on the wall and I do not understand why lazy sport climbers have to leave their unsafe draws on every wall.loose some of those fat pounds out of your love handles and carry six freaking draws on your harness and clip and clean it after you are done.And those draws are unsafe cause you do not know how many people have taken a fall on them and one of these days, one will break and kills a climber.

And those draws are unsafe cause you do not know how many people have taken a fall on them and one of these days, one will break and kills a climber.

taking a draw is not against law. in fact it is against the law to leave pieces on the wall and I do not understand why lazy sport climbers have to leave their unsafe draws on every wall.loose some of those fat pounds out of your love handles and carry six freaking draws on your harness and clip and clean it after you are done.And those draws are unsafe cause you do not know how many people have taken a fall on them and one of these days, one will break and kills a climber.

Maybe he mistook bent gates for damage?

While the thief claimed they were "unsafe" and "badly worn" - they were not. The people who were working that route knew the draws and their history. The thief claimed that (apparently) all the draws on the route were unsafe, but the anchor biners were fine. There was a little discussion there where the owners pointed out that carabiners were normally shaped like the ones that were being stolen. Maybe he mistook bent gates for damage?

ok, well let's say I ended up in the area and somehow I climbed and took a fall where I broke one of those biners.Do local climbers who know the history will take the responsibility if got hurt ?

ok, well let's say I ended up in the area and somehow I climbed and took a fall where I broke one of those biners.Do local climbers who know the history will take the responsibility if got hurt ?

ok, well let's say I ended up in the area and somehow I climbed and took a fall where I broke one of those biners.Do local climbers who know the history will take the responsibility if got hurt ?

ok, well let's say I ended up in the area and somehow I climbed and took a fall where I broke one of those biners.Do local climbers who know the history will take the responsibility if got hurt ?

There is already a precedence for gear on anchors, no one blames the bolter if an anchor chain or bolt fails, so why would a QD breaking be any different. Majid your logic is flawed on this in so many ways.

Legal reference please.

There is already a precedence for gear on anchors, no one blames the bolter if an anchor chain or bolt fails, so why would a QD breaking be any different. Majid your logic is flawed on this in so many ways.

if I see one fixed on any wall, I will take it and there is not a dam thing you can do about it.

It's your responsibility to know what you're clipping. If a biner is so worn that it breaks under a fall, you should have seen that when clipping. (Of course, it could break if cross-loaded...).

read the congress wilderness act (1960s) .

[
QDs are rated to 15 KN with soft material hanging all day and all night exposed to cold and hot conditions with people taking falls on them on regular bases. bolt and hanger are rated to 25+ KN in one set condition and last five time longer than any QDs.

Does 2+2 adds up 4.5 ?


Why can't sport climber clean up after their climb ?


tell me, what is the logic behind leaving your sh*t hanging on the wall when you could easily clip and move on ?

Does two second time to clip in slows them down or uses a lot of their energy ?

bunch of pus*ies with skinny harness and skinny 6.9mm rope who can't even carry six QDs on their harnesses.

ok, well let's say I ended up in the area and somehow I climbed and took a fall where I broke one of those biners.Do local climbers who know the history will take the responsibility if got hurt ?

christ, you guys are all arguing about whether it is OK to leave draws and I've got a serious problem here: do I pop the second 40 or leave it for the roommates? If I pop the 40 and don't leave it for them they may steal my amaretto and that shit's expensive down here, but they may also not care, and this here, my friends, is the real crux.

What? Drink the 40 and deal with it later.

hmmm...well played...

Bill

How many climbers examine every QDs while they are climbing ?

it's pretty obvious you are trying to dig yourself out with ridiculous hypotheticals, if someone has the skill enough to climb a route with permanent quick draws on it they would sure as hell have the experience to know to check the QDs

You'd have to prove negligence in the first place. I don't think this has ever been brought up in court. Here is one such discussion about the legal ramifications http://www.rockclimbing.com/..._reply;so=ASC;mh=25; which you posted in. I dont think the concerns have changed but I don't think there have been any successfull lawsuits either

Oh Jesus fucking Christ, I'm sure someone has replied to this, but the Wilderness Act (1964, to be exact), only applies to.... (wait for it)....


WILDERNESS AREAS!


Please tell me which major sport climbing destination in the US lies within a wilderness area.

says the flamer who can't lead 5.8 yet

im sure youve got no problems clipping al yr draws on-sighting 5.4s mista majid ... unfortunately its not that easy on climbs that are a tad harder ...

There is plenty of opinions and concerns in that other thread, but no precedence set as to where the liability will fall.

To my knowledge, there is no precedence on this matter. I would like to read of any if there is though.

I also believe it's not as simple as an anchor or a quickdraw failure, I'm sure there would many other factors and circumstances to consider that would have to be taken into account and each incident would have it's own threshold to either side of the argument.

Don't be lazy people. A wall superfluously littered with draws just looks trashy.

While that guy is an ass and clearly in the wrong, it would be nice if the locals policed themselves. That route is not steep enough to make cleaning the draws at the end of the day a difficult task, so the only really viable reason for leaving them is out the window.

Don't be lazy people. A wall superfluously littered with draws just looks trashy.

you been going after me for some times now and I am not sure if you what happens to those who point their keyboard on me.

Have you seen Angry lately ?

You guys have no idea what you are talking about. Look up "assumption of risk." Negligence is not a cause of action when the plaintiff has knowingly participated in a dangerous sport. Therefore, if the person who hung the draws was "negligent" with respect to their condition, he would not be legally responsible for injuries resulting from someone who relied on them.

Jay

P.S., Do I have to do all the work around here? I'm not even a lawyer.

I'm not even a lawyer.

Therefore, if the person who hung the draws was "negligent" with respect to their condition, he would not be legally responsible for injuries resulting from someone who relied on them.

Jay, look up circumstances and take that in context with what i bolded in my statement above.


That's obvious.
Many variables in assumption of risk too, it's not an all encompassing exemption.


So........If a guide took out a new client and hung some draws that were wore part way through up a route, then said they're fine go for it. Then the third one up breaks and the clients sustains injuries, the guide cannot be found liable because of assumption of risk.

Things need to be taken in context with all the circumstances.

it's not as simple as an anchor or a quickdraw failure, I'm sure there would many other factors and circumstances to consider that would have to be taken into account

This is what changes things, something I said prior to your first post in this.


We were talking about other cases that may be out there and I pointed out that many other circumstances have to be weighed with each individual case, and taken in context with those circumstances.

Then you graced us with your high and mighty shortsightedness.

I have no idea what the above babble is supposed to mean. U.S. law is clear: if you participate in a risky sport, negligence is not a cause of action. Therefore, if you climb a route with fixed draws that were put up by another climber, and the draw fails, you have no cause of action for negligence against the climber who put the draw up.

This is why, in the US, you can't, for instance, successfully sue your belayer–partner for negligently dropping you; why you can't successfully sue the equipper of a route for injuries due to a badly placed bolt; etc.

Jay

You guys have no idea what you are talking about. Look up "assumption of risk." Negligence is not a cause of action when the plaintiff has knowingly participated in a dangerous sport. Therefore, if the person who hung the draws was "negligent" with respect to their condition, he would not be legally responsible for injuries resulting from someone who relied on them.

Context and circumstances Jay. There is no magic exemptions as you are implying.



I showed you a situation that falls within the parameters you describe above and it was obvious to you that there are exceptions. Your statement of an all encompassing assumption of risk is wrong.

I'd think with your years on this site that you would stray clear of blanket statements.

There is already a precedence for gear on anchors, no one blames the bolter if an anchor chain or bolt fails,

Its similar to landowners not being liable for climbers on their land as long as they don't charge a fee to use it. Once a fee is assessed liability is on the landowner

Another blanket statement.


Maybe, maybe not.

Recreational Use statutes in all 50 states are pretty clear in limiting liability

Its similar to landowners not being liable for climbers on their land as long as they don't charge a fee to use it. Once a fee is assessed liability is on the landowner

As far as the liability is concerned, it's an assumed risk. Good god, by some of the logic I see here (or lack of it), if I climb a wall with a pitch that has fixed heads on it, one blows, and I ledge, I get to sue the guy who placed it.

......
The law is far from "clear" in all cases. It depends.

oooo mista majid ... are ya threatening little ole me?

going after you? .... im simply pointing out that you stated

"Does two second time to clip in slows them down or uses a lot of their energy ?

bunch of pus*ies with skinny harness and skinny 6.9mm rope who can't even carry six QDs on their harnesses."

when you admit that you havent even led 5.8 ... who are you to call people pussies .... if you cant sport climb that ... lol


perhaps you have a special deal with the rockclimbing.com gods where ya can just insult everyone freely and get people banned ... wake me up when i get angry

I am the black sheep in RC and there is team of wabbit haters who are looking forward to kick my as* so I am not a VIP round here but I am known to talk when I see a problem. You may call this an insult or disrespect or whatever but I am not shy to stand for what I think is right.

I am not always right

I don't know of anyone who wants to kick your ass midget. You're like a socially inept first grader, annoying but harmless.

Please don't play Jay on me.

Jay quoted me and said I was wrong about different circumstances in each case because his assumption of risk law supersedes all that. Then I give him an example of different circumstances and he said, well yeah, that's different circumstances. I swear it's like arguing with a child.


Now this.
You said prior to this that "Once a fee is assessed liability is on the landowner".
I say "maybe, maybe not"..
Now you say it's, "clear in limiting liability". These two things are different. I'll just repeat, "It depends".

Your making an assumption much like Jay did in that the law is clear. Lawyers and judges construe the law to fit their interpretations depending on the circumstances, then jurors make their own decision based on what is sometimes nothing more than their gut feelings.

The law is far from "clear" in all cases. It depends.

I am the black sheep in RC and there is team of wabbit haters who are looking forward to kick my as* so I am not a VIP round here but I am known to talk when I see a problem. You may call this an insult or disrespect or whatever but I am not shy to stand for what I think is right.

I am not always right

Please show me a legal case where "it depends" applies. Show me where a landowner who charges a fee for use of their land was sued after an accident and was sued.

I'm not following you here, Maybe your trying to say, show me a landlord that doesn't charge for using their land that has been sued.

If your trying to say that a straight forward case of someone of legal age acknowledges he will waive any liability to said landowner, you might have a pretty good case, in that set of circumstances. I said might because it depends on what actually happened. What if the landowner came out and cut your rope while you were jugging it. Who's liable then? Far fetched, yep, within the realm of possibilities for something like this to show up in court? People have done crazier things. That's just one of a thousands of different possibilities that make up different circumstances. Not everything in law is cut and dried, for the most part, they're not.

You brought up negligence and I responded with this:

"I also believe it's not as simple as an anchor or a quickdraw failure, I'm sure there would many other factors and circumstances to consider that would have to be taken into account and each incident would have it's own threshold to either side of the argument."

Now when I give an incident with a different set of circumstances, you and Jay cry foul.

I'm not following you here, Maybe your trying to say, show me a landlord that doesn't charge for using their land that has been sued.

If your trying to say that a straight forward case of someone of legal age acknowledges he will waive any liability to said landowner, you might have a pretty good case, in that set of circumstances. I said might because it depends on what actually happened. What if the landowner came out and cut your rope while you were jugging it. Who's liable then? Far fetched, yep, within the realm of possibilities for something like this to show up in court? People have done crazier things. That's just one of a thousands of different possibilities that make up different circumstances. Not everything in law is cut and dried, for the most part, they're not.

You brought up negligence and I responded with this:

"I also believe it's not as simple as an anchor or a quickdraw failure, I'm sure there would many other factors and circumstances to consider that would have to be taken into account and each incident would have it's own threshold to either side of the argument."

Now when I give an incident with a different set of circumstances, you and Jay cry foul.

I didn't misrepresent your position that assumption of risk trumps all.

I didn't misrepresent your position that assumption of risk trumps all. I gave you an example that clearly fell within your parameters and is exempt from your position. You on the other hand have missed my position that other circumstances have other outcomes in law.

*plonk*

So what you think Jay's position implies is that if someone is climbing you have a right to shoot them without any liability because of the inherent risk? You don't think that is stretching his position at all?

Oh, for heaven's sakes, it's 5.14. You're not even remotely qualified to have an opinion, much less express one. Let's see if you can even put the draws up, and even if you can, how much energy you have left to then productively work the route on the same day.

Jay

You don't have to climb .14 to look up at a wall covered in draws chalk and see how tacky it looks.

You don't even have to be a climber, for that matter.

Have you climbed at smith?

Heh

And then there's that...

I think in general that the issue of aesthetics in well developed crags(not alpine/wilderness) is more of an issue with climbers than nonclimbers. In general most hikers etc i've come across at various crags in the northwest are more excited to see climbers in action and have never made negative comments about bolts, anchors, chalk, or draws on the walls.

You don't have to climb .14 to look up at a wall covered in draws and see how tacky it looks.

You don't even have to be a climber, for that matter.

I think in general that the issue of aesthetics in well developed crags(not alpine/wilderness) is more of an issue with climbers than nonclimbers. In general most hikers etc i've come across at various crags in the northwest are more excited to see climbers in action and have never made negative comments about bolts, anchors, chalk, or draws on the walls. The main areas around smith are hardly a wilderness environment, and cater almost exclusively to climbers. its funny where people draw the line for tackyness in climbing.

And it should be an issues with the climbers. I personally think all the chalked up holds look like shit too but I do use chalk. And so does everyone else, which is what makes it a problem and everyone would have to stop using it to solve that problem. Which would be great but is not realistic.

The draws are an area where a single climber can make a huge difference though and is a much more realistic goal.

But yes, I am a hypocrite and not proud of it.

I wasn't criticizing the "trashy" comment. I was criticizing your ability to judge how difficult it is to hang draws on a 5.14. Although after reading your post, you didn't comment on the difficulty of hanging the draws, but on cleaning them. But then you missed the point of leaving of the draws up, which is the difficulty of hanging them again, given that by definition of "project," climbing the route is currently too hard for you.

Jay

I think walls look better with chalk and draws on them, so I'm not a hypocrite.

Jay

So what you think Jay's position implies is that if someone is climbing you have a right to shoot them without any liability because of the inherent risk? You don't think that is stretching his position at all?

Jay, I thought you had already sheltered yourself from my post. Please continue with that since I won't be responding to your belittling ad hominem attacks which are an ever increasingly hallmark to your debates. Your personal attacks don't warrant a response.

How could you possible stretch something that far out of context? Your original position was that the landowner is not responsible if he is not paid, and I gave a counter scenario that opposes your original assertion. Now your interpreting that I said the landowner can shoot without liability because of inherent risk. I mean really, WTF. You need to go back and reread.

Cutting a persons ropes to far out for you, fine , there are 1000's of different scenarios. If his tractor got away from him and it went over the cliff and crushed you, this would be a circumstance that could make him liable even if he didn't charge you for using his land.

Similarly if a United Airlines 747 dropped an engine onto him he could sue United Airlines, yet neither scenario has anything to do with the subject.

Jay

Before you and Jay go off and say this has nothing to do with inherent risk of climbing and such, remember, it was your assertion that a landowner can't be held liable since he didn't charge the person for use of his land. I merely presented you a situation which contradicts your assertion without changing your statement. Many people, especially lawyers, wouldn't consider that an inherent risk of using his property and that it should of been anticipated and accepted as a reason for the landowner not be held liable. Inherent risks and assumption of risk have limitations.

I've never climbed at Smith but the pictures make it look like the cliff top access is not ideal so maybe reaching the anchors via other means is not really an option. If it is though, someone is just being lazy...