|
norskagent
Aug 29, 2003, 12:26 PM
Post #1 of 27
(4600 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 9, 2003
Posts: 409
|
around here the nature conservancy (conspiracy) has a track record of acquiring natural areas to "protect" them, then shutting off all recreational use or allowing limited use under their restrictive guidelines...several climbing and mountain bike areas have been affected. they are unwilling to compromise and think they best know how to "manage" these areas. I agree that some areas need prtection / conservation, but take exception where it involves historical recreational use that could continue under certain guidelines without adversely affecting the land...any suggestions for re-opening or negotiating?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Aug 29, 2003, 1:28 PM
Post #3 of 27
(4600 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
Could you give some examples. I know they were involved with Panthertown Valley, where climbing and biking is still allowed.
Not a troll. Just curious.
|
|
|
|
|
norskagent
Aug 29, 2003, 1:43 PM
Post #4 of 27
(4600 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 9, 2003
Posts: 409
|
pilot knob near grandmother...no access now. They also bought up some land adjacent to the asheboro boulders, now you can't use an existing old trail to cross that land to get to the boulders. they are trying to buy the plot that contains the boulders to add to the other plots, guess what will happen then? one time I saw a photo of some boulders near here at one of their fundraiser tables, I asked where they were, they wouldn't tell me, I could only be "guided" there by them...A mountain biker told me similar stories but I know firsthand the climbing problems.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 29, 2003, 3:03 PM
Post #5 of 27
(4600 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
The Nature Conservacy is an enemy of climbers and US Citizens in general who wish to exercise their priviliges as such, to visit the commonwealth of public lands WE PAID FOR. Wild Wilderness and the Sierra Club are in the same league in my opinion. I won't send any of them one thin dime.
Cheers,
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
norskagent
Aug 29, 2003, 3:05 PM
Post #6 of 27
(4600 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 9, 2003
Posts: 409
|
thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
wpy71
Aug 29, 2003, 3:20 PM
Post #7 of 27
(4600 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 195
|
In reply to: The Nature Conservacy is an enemy of climbers and US Citizens in general who wish to exercise their priviliges as such, to visit the commonwealth of public lands WE PAID FOR. Wild Wilderness and the Sierra Club are in the same league in my opinion. I won't send any of them one thin dime. Cheers, DMT
The Nature Conservancy is a private group that purchases private land. So unless you donated to them, you didn't pay for it.
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Aug 29, 2003, 3:42 PM
Post #8 of 27
(4600 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
In reply to: The Nature Conservancy is a private group that purchases private land. So unless you donated to them, you didn't pay for it.
The Nature Conservancy, in turn, sells the land to the government.
|
|
|
|
|
wpy71
Aug 29, 2003, 3:57 PM
Post #9 of 27
(4600 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 195
|
In reply to: The Nature Conservancy, in turn, sells the land to the government
Some land they do sell for nominal fees to various governmental agencies, some they do not. If it's becomes public land, by all means you have the right to lobby your case for access. They are hardly an "enemy" of US citizens and the climbing community. If you don't agree with their land managment policies, start a "Climbing Conservancy" , attract donations from wealthy individuals and corporations, and purchase your own tracts of land to manage as you see fit.
|
|
|
|
|
norskagent
Aug 29, 2003, 4:40 PM
Post #10 of 27
(4600 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 9, 2003
Posts: 409
|
they are in fact the enemy to the climbing community, I'm sure there are other examples of their restrictive policies besides my own. There already is a "climbing conservancy", the Access Fund, and they are doing a good job but once the NC gets a hold of land at bargain prices we are s.o.l... somehow we need to get them to revise / adjust their current management practises at specific areas for the good of everyone involved, including the NC.
|
|
|
|
|
dr_evil
Aug 29, 2003, 5:05 PM
Post #11 of 27
(4600 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2003
Posts: 4
|
Wake up! Here's the deal and I know this to be true, at least in NC. I will not mention any names and I use "Nature Conservancy" as an example (depending on where you live they can go by many names, but their main goal is all the same) Certain state facilities DO have what is called immenant (sp?) domain which gives them the power to litterally comdemn someones land and pay what they, the state, say is a fair price. It does not matter who owns it, so if we (climbers) were to buy land (as wpy71 suggest) where there was located a climbing area and the state (or state run facility) decides it needs to be protected they can take it. Of course they have to pay you for it, but who wants money over a really nice climbing area?
Now with that said, you mentioned above that unless you give money to things like the "Nature Conservancy" you haven't donated to their cause?? Maybe not directly no, BUT you need to do some more research. If you dig a little deeper as I have you find out that donations to certain state ran facilities will help the state purchase land which in return is strictly ran and managed by local "Nature Conservency" programs. So you see, you don't have to donate to the ones who kick us out, just to certain state ran facilities.
MD :idea:
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 29, 2003, 5:38 PM
Post #12 of 27
(4600 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: In reply to: The Nature Conservacy is an enemy of climbers and US Citizens in general who wish to exercise their priviliges as such, to visit the commonwealth of public lands WE PAID FOR. Wild Wilderness and the Sierra Club are in the same league in my opinion. I won't send any of them one thin dime. Cheers, DMT The Nature Conservancy is a private group that purchases private land. So unless you donated to them, you didn't pay for it.
You couldn't be more wrong.
Cheers,
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
kyhangdog
Aug 29, 2003, 5:48 PM
Post #13 of 27
(4600 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2001
Posts: 480
|
In reply to: The Nature Conservacy is an enemy of climbers and US Citizens in general who wish to exercise their priviliges as such, to visit the commonwealth of public lands WE PAID FOR. Wild Wilderness and the Sierra Club are in the same league in my opinion. I won't send any of them one thin dime. Cheers, DMT
Yep. I went to a friend's house for a dinner party the other night. A lot of this guy's friends are in the Sierra Club and they don't like climbers. My friend mentioned I climb and they jumped my case. They asked me about damage to the rock, trail erosion, etc. and how I felt about that. I asked them how they got to the guy's house and they jumped on me about common sense and air pollution. So, climbers are nature conscience, but don't be fooled by every environmental club. They are NAZIs.
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Aug 29, 2003, 6:00 PM
Post #14 of 27
(4600 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
Here's a relevant thread from a few months back. In the case in question, it appears they "made a deal with the devil" to get what they wanted. Not exactly what I'd call conservators. Read the link in the first post.
http://www.rockclimbing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=31499&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=nature+conservancy
|
|
|
|
|
wpy71
Aug 29, 2003, 7:02 PM
Post #15 of 27
(4600 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 195
|
In reply to: You couldn't be more wrong.
Then please tell me how I am wrong. Give me an example.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 29, 2003, 8:15 PM
Post #16 of 27
(4600 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: In reply to: You couldn't be more wrong. Then please tell me how I am wrong. Give me an example.
Sure. A direct cut and paste from the California chapter:
Here are just a few of the ways by which we achieve our mission:
Conservation Methods
Private Lands Conservation
Land Acquisition
Conservation Easements
Conservation Buyer Projects
Conservation-Friendly Public Policies
Public Land Management
Parks in Peril Program
Funding for Conservation
Debt for Nature Swaps
Conservation Trust Funds
Ecosystem Services Payments
Resource Extraction Fees
Public Finance Campaigns Our Partners
Governmental
Non-Profit
Local Stakeholders
International
Multilateral-Bilateral
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You'll notice some key words my man, like "governmental", "Public finance," and "Public Land Management" and other catch phrases like that. There is just such a project in my town, where public land is permanently off limits to the people who own it.
That my friend is bull crapolla
Cheers,
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
wpy71
Aug 29, 2003, 8:42 PM
Post #17 of 27
(4600 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 195
|
Dingus,
What happened in the case in your town. I would be curious to know. If they are indeed restricting access to public land, that's wrong. But how would a private group like the nature conservancy gain control over public land?
Let me know if you have time.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 29, 2003, 9:56 PM
Post #18 of 27
(4600 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Dingus, What happened in the case in your town. I would be curious to know. If they are indeed restricting access to public land, that's wrong. But how would a private group like the nature conservancy gain control over public land? Let me know if you have time. Thanks
They bought ranchland that was former wetlands using a combo of public and private funds, created a preserve and turned it over to the G (Fish and Game? I can't remember who administers it now). So we have land funded by the public, administered through public funds and yet the public is prohibited from entering the vast majority of this Sherwood Forest. If this isn't the King's Land (private game preserves) I don't know what is.
I all for conservation. But I am not all for such "holier than thou' shenigans. If the public pays for it I strongly believe the public has a right to access as long as its in keeping with the purpose of the preserve (water fowl, great western flyway).
Developers are required to kick into a fund that is used to buy more land or they aren't granted building permits. Since the public pays for those houses, all such levies are paid for the public as well. Yet another shell game tor elieve of us of both our money and our rights.
Then they label climbers parasites and destroyers. They in fact are the enemy of free people.
Live FREE or DIE!
Cheers,
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
veep23
Aug 29, 2003, 9:58 PM
Post #19 of 27
(4600 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 15, 2002
Posts: 125
|
The Sierra Club hates climbers? Yeh, John Muir couldn't stand them and neither could David Brower (if you know who they are*). And even though I am a member, I like myself just fine!
*not being a smart ass
|
|
|
|
|
kyhangdog
Aug 30, 2003, 12:11 AM
Post #20 of 27
(4600 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2001
Posts: 480
|
I don't remember John Muir being a climber, maybe he was. However, John Muir has about as much to do with the Sierra Club as George Bush.
|
|
|
|
|
dr_evil
Aug 30, 2003, 1:48 AM
Post #21 of 27
(4600 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2003
Posts: 4
|
It's not that you can't always access the land, I'm not sure in your case, but the original post using examples in NC it's 100% true. You can access the land, after you apply for a permit and it's approved. Then you have to have someone that represents that certain organization "guide" you across the land. That's directly from the "horses" mouth. We litterly was not able to walk on an established trail on said land!
|
|
|
|
|
mesomorf
Aug 30, 2003, 1:58 AM
Post #22 of 27
(4600 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2002
Posts: 397
|
Dingus, I'm not on your side on this one.
Sometimes extreme measures are called for in defense of the land (and the creatures and the plants). Lord know that the real bad guys - Bush and his ilk - use their own extreme measures.
Just because it's public land does not give every member of the public the right to do what they will with the land.
In fact, I've often wondered how it can be that climbers feel like they own the cliffs, they can bolt them all to hell and smear chalk all over them like so much graffiti. Just because they're CLIMBERS, man, they're cool.
Anyway, in preserving the whole of the heritage of the Earth for future generations, sometimes people have to be shut out. Because if they're not, parts of the heritage will be lost forever.
|
|
|
|
|
dr_evil
Aug 30, 2003, 2:55 PM
Post #23 of 27
(4600 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2003
Posts: 4
|
I totally agree that yes, some land does need to be preserved but to say climbers think they own the cliffs is a bit much. We ARE cool, that's a given and I can't argue with that. Going back to the og post, it's a well established boulderfield that has seen climbers for well over 20 years and is privately owned. The state owns several tracts around this field where there are precious areas that do need to be protected, and these areas are protected. Climbers have NEVER had any reason to trespass on these tracts and as far as I know there has never been any trouble with climbers trespassing as there is no rock of any size there. All the rocks are located on private land so there is no reason to even step foot on the state land. I guess since the area is so unique, with all the weird rock formations, the state has now decided they want ALL the land out there. Once they own it and a management plan is applied, climbing will be a thing of the past there. Now how can this be justified? The state has all the land that needs to be "preserved" but it seems they won't be happy until they own it all, and control it. Isn't gluttony a sin?
|
|
|
|
|
norskagent
Aug 30, 2003, 3:26 PM
Post #24 of 27
(4600 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 9, 2003
Posts: 409
|
sometimes people need to be shut out, yes, but more often than not, regarding bolders and cliffs, some kind of managed recreational access should be implemented - not wholesale restriction of access to ward off what "might" happen...
|
|
|
|
|
rangertau
Aug 30, 2003, 4:00 PM
Post #25 of 27
(4600 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2003
Posts: 50
|
Here's an excerpt from the NC's secret charter...
"...to eventually remove all human presence from the face of the Earth. Nuclear war is not permitted as a method, though, since it would result in collateral damage to the planet. Therefore plan P.C. 1977 will be implemented..."
and an excerpt from plan P.C. 1977...
"...to, after fully acquiring rights to all planetary surface rights (through the use of lawyers, beauracrats, deception, and manipulation of the media and public attitudes), enforce the forcible expulsion of mankind from the surface of the Earth to colonies on the moon. Whereby the human race, now removed from Earth and unable to cause further harm, can be re-educated in galactic ecology and environmentalism..."
So there you have it. The NC is totally against climbers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
