|
mungeclimber
Sep 16, 2003, 8:52 PM
Post #26 of 76
(14805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 2, 2002
Posts: 648
|
In reply to: In reply to: I and others will continue to climb there for the time being, and will continue to keep a low profile. Now that is a sure way to build a good rapport with Ms. Ball..... Give the uninformed land management people ammunition to show that you are part of the problem and not part of the solution.
Yeah, i would stay out, but be absolutely on their ass about access and be pro-active in moving through the gub paperwork.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Sep 16, 2003, 9:18 PM
Post #27 of 76
(14805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
In reply to: In reply to: I and others will continue to climb there for the time being, and will continue to keep a low profile. Now that is a sure way to build a good rapport with Ms. Ball..... Give the uninformed land management people ammunition to show that you are part of the problem and not part of the solution.
Well mr. mtnrsq, you don't really know that much about the situation or my rapport with Ms. Ball, do you? By 'keep a low profile' I mean not getting spotted by rangers, which if you know the area, is easy to do.
I would not climb there if I believed it would have an impact on access. People have been climbing in the SRA since at least the late 80s.
|
|
|
|
|
osho
Sep 16, 2003, 9:55 PM
Post #28 of 76
(14805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 16, 2002
Posts: 69
|
In reply to: By 'keep a low profile' I mean not getting spotted by rangers, which if you know the area, is easy to do. I would not climb there if I believed it would have an impact on access. People have been climbing in the SRA since at least the late 80s.
While it is pretty unlikely you'll be spotted by any of the rangers... there is nothing beyond laziness that keeps them from actually walking all the way up to the walls. And while I agree its a very improbable event... its far from impossible.
You seem overly defensive... I know you have the best intentions for Auburn... and I agree its highly doubtful that your actions will be creating any real problems. But no reason to be so flamy at people for stating the obvious... it's a negative thing if you're spotted climbing there... and if you're not climbing there, its a 100% guarantee of you not getting "caughtinside."
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Sep 16, 2003, 10:23 PM
Post #29 of 76
(14805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
Weren't you there last weekend?
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Sep 16, 2003, 10:30 PM
Post #30 of 76
(14805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: Weren't you there last weekend?
Easy guys. I know for a fact that we are all on the same team as it is related to getting access secured.
I can see Jevans and Daves points both, and I would say that each has a legitimate angle. In the end, awareness of the process, current situation, and concerns is a good thing.
The AF has had the order for a whole 2 days now, lets give them a chance to respond and get their take on it before we all get too riled up :)
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Sep 16, 2003, 10:32 PM
Post #31 of 76
(14805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
I enjoy getting riled up. 8)
At least I can get wireless internet in class. Cy pres and variance doctrines really aren't that interesting...
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Sep 16, 2003, 10:45 PM
Post #32 of 76
(14805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: I enjoy getting riled up. 8) At least I can get wireless internet in class. Cy pres and variance doctrines really aren't that interesting...
*shakes fist* Back when I was youngster and went to school we had to use Wireless Abacasus!
:lol:
|
|
|
|
|
drkayak
Sep 16, 2003, 11:09 PM
Post #33 of 76
(14805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 22, 2002
Posts: 136
|
In reply to: ... there is nothing beyond laziness that keeps them from actually walking all the way up to the walls. .
Last time I got busted for climbing at Auburn the Rangers 4x4 up to the walls.
Possibly some road dis-improvement is in order. :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Sep 17, 2003, 12:58 AM
Post #34 of 76
(14805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
I saw tire tracks up there. Which area were you climbing when they drove up?
|
|
|
|
|
gawd
Sep 17, 2003, 2:04 AM
Post #35 of 76
(14805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 193
|
i guess chipping and being a grod bolter does have it's drawbacks eh? maybe you and your tough guy posse of grid bolters will think tiwce before going ahead with the destruction of public propperty. maybe if we are lucky, theu can get repartitions from the people whom ruined the walls with bolts and chipping.
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Sep 17, 2003, 10:12 AM
Post #36 of 76
(14805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: i guess chipping and being a grod bolter does have it's drawbacks eh? maybe you and your tough guy posse of grid bolters will think tiwce before going ahead with the destruction of public propperty. maybe if we are lucky, theu can get repartitions from the people whom ruined the walls with bolts and chipping.
Interesting perspective gawd (especially since it is so far out in left field and well beyond reality). Please inform us on how you came to the grid bolting and chipping conclusion? Suerly you have climbed extensively here and know the routes and walls then right?
Because if you don't and are just spewing, well then, we done have ourselves a personal attack/troll/flame now don't we?
|
|
|
|
|
osho
Sep 17, 2003, 10:30 AM
Post #37 of 76
(14805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 16, 2002
Posts: 69
|
In reply to: Weren't you there last weekend?
First time I'd been there in months and months... real nice weather that day.
Personally I've yet to ever see a ranger at auburn other than in the entry parking lot. And I agree, if you know your way around there, its pretty easy for the most part to stay well hidden and out of sight.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Sep 17, 2003, 4:44 PM
Post #38 of 76
(14805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
In reply to: In reply to: Weren't you there last weekend? Actually it was the weekend before last :P First time I'd been there in months and months... real nice weather that day. Personally I've yet to ever see a ranger at auburn other than in the entry parking lot. And I agree, if you know your way around there, its pretty easy for the most part to stay well hidden and out of sight.
I agree. That's the thing about Auburn, the weather is always nice! Unless of course there is a giant thunderstorm over Woodland/Davis but not Vacaville.
There was some chalk on Howler Monkey. Was that you guys?
|
|
|
|
|
drkayak
Sep 17, 2003, 5:33 PM
Post #39 of 76
(14805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 22, 2002
Posts: 136
|
In reply to: I saw tire tracks up there. Which area were you climbing when they drove up?
The last time I was ran out was about 2 years ago. We were just standing around talking to some kids from Auburn who claimed to be doing aid climbing higher up in the quarry. The ranger was very harsh, told us to collect our gear and leave, now!
|
|
|
|
|
hallm
Sep 17, 2003, 5:48 PM
Post #40 of 76
(14805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2002
Posts: 170
|
Quote from Cal. Dept. of Parks and Recreation: "Auburn SRA is made up of the lands set aside for the Auburn Dam. California State Parks administers the area under a contract with the US Bureau of Reclamation."
Sounds to me like the land is owned by the federal government, not the state. If that is the case, I am not sure California state statutes can support any land use rules for the park, and that any authority to control use of the land must be grounded in federal law.
If that is the case, the order would be of no effect.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Sep 17, 2003, 6:01 PM
Post #41 of 76
(14805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
That's correct. It is federal land, but there is a management grant to the state somewhere.
Senator Doolittle has been wanting to put in a dam for 20 years, which would put the area under water, including the quarry. However, earlier this summer, a compromise was made, and it was decided that the Folsom dam would be expanded, and raised 10 feet.
From what I've read in the paper, at this point an Auburn dam is politically impossible. But it has left a jurisdictional mess. This is one of the reasons the people I've talked to cite for all the slow going.
They have to get their general use plan approved by the feds as well, just another thick layer of bureaucracy to wade through.
Perhaps the dam compromise will change things, but I was left with the impression that the BLM was previously resistant to changes in usage because the whole area could be flooded.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Sep 17, 2003, 6:01 PM
Post #42 of 76
(14805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: maybe if we are lucky, theu can get repartitions from the people whom ruined the walls with bolts and chipping.
It's a freaking quarry. There is mining junk laying all around. Every cliff there was blasted from the deep cool earth. Every single stone exposed was done so with hammer, chisel, drills and dynamite.
Not only that, not only that my ignorant friend, but the cliffs are upstream of the site of the proposed Auburn Dam. Of course you know nothing about that either I guess.
That dam was supposedly buried by Congress two years ago. Recent events suggest that dam is not as dead as we'd hoped. It is a very strong possibility now, that work will begin anew on the dam in the next 10 years. We only need another extended drought followed by catastrophic floods, as in 96, to force the issue. Sacramento is the largest urban area in the US to suffer such extreme flood risk. And it is an extreme.
There is nothing to reimburse. The John Q Public doesn't give a tinkers damn about those quarries. Only one misguided employee of the public who acts as if she owns the area.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Sep 17, 2003, 6:07 PM
Post #43 of 76
(14805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: From what I've read in the paper, at this point an Auburn dam is politically impossible.
Nope. Things have changed. With Doolittle now permitting the work on the Folsom dam, he can expect (and will demand) quid pro quo for his little project at Auburn. The back room handshake has already been done. Now its just a matter of waiting for the right moment.
We only need one more drought and a flood to cement the deal.
And if California keeps expanding it's population and the 10% growth rate around Sacramento sustains, there WILL BE NO CHOICE but to build that dam anyway.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
drkayak
Sep 17, 2003, 7:29 PM
Post #44 of 76
(14805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 22, 2002
Posts: 136
|
I used to be active in the Friends of the River organization and from what I have read the Auburn Dam is a financial impossibility. It was conceived of in the days when the Corps of Engineers had huge budgets. In today's dollars it would be the most expensive dam ever built in America.
As far as water storage, during the drought years there was not enough water coming down the American drainage to even fill Folsom Lake. Much less another huge lake up stream. Of coarse, they could fill Auburn Dam during a flood year. It would stay full just long enough to kill all the vegetation in the canyon. Then it would sit mostly empty till the next flood.
I recently read they have approved closing the diversion tunnel at the dam site and allowing people to float the river down to Folsom lake.
|
|
|
|
|
gawd
Sep 17, 2003, 7:45 PM
Post #45 of 76
(14805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 193
|
you justify bolting/chipping over devloping an area because it is a quarry? that is not sound logic. just because someone else did it, i can too? do you people teach your children these virtues as well? pfft, pathetic really.
also i see the damn stands for the greater good of all the people of the sacramento area, whereas climbing serves a few people. and it seems that they are ego driven as well.
also on a side note. roughtster has threatend to ban me because i do not agree with his ethics in developing an area. he states that since i disagree with grid bolting, chipping or other dubious ethics that i am trolling him. i would say remove your personal bias from moderation.
and secondly if this is so, why were the people whom threatend me and my family viz this website never banned or tarpitted? seems ludicris really. you have uphold a standard and again this website falls short.
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Sep 17, 2003, 7:54 PM
Post #46 of 76
(14805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
In reply to: you justify bolting/chipping over devloping an area because it is a quarry? that is not sound logic. just because someone else did it, i can too? do you people teach your children these virtues as well? pfft, pathetic really.
I don't justify the over developing or chipping in any way since that isn't happening. The only thing not logical here is the fact that you are making stuff up about a place you have no clue about.
In reply to: also i see the damn stands for the greater good of all the people of the sacramento area, whereas climbing serves a few people. and it seems that they are ego driven as well.
As if any of us have any real expectation that we could stop thye dam being built so they will allow us access to a quarry? Man, seek help.
In reply to: also on a side note. roughtster has threatend to ban me because i do not agree with his ethics in developing an area. he states that since i disagree with grid bolting, chipping or other dubious ethics that i am trolling him. i would say remove your personal bias from moderation.
I didn't threaten to ban you. I warned that your above was a personal attack which is against TOS and further attacks woudl result in being yellow tarpitted. This is per the TOS.
In reply to: and secondly if this is so, why were the people whom threatend me and my family viz this website never banned or tarpitted? seems ludicris really. you have uphold a standard and again this website falls short.
Are you sure the people who did weren't WARNED and refered to the TOS? That is all you have been here, WARNED and refered to the TOS. I see you like to over state your case don't you?
|
|
|
|
|
gawd
Sep 17, 2003, 8:05 PM
Post #47 of 76
(14805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 193
|
you threatend me with moderation for something that you are taking personal. did i list any names or routes? no! i listed what i have heard of the area. i do not know you, and really am glad for that fact. so i believe you are the one whom is attempting to take this personal. you are taking it personal and then attempting to use your powers to silence someone whom disagrees. i believe another poster who questioned your ethics was also threatend with moderation.
you read my words wrong as well. if they build the damn! great! if they do not great! but for the area, the more responsible use would for the damn, which benefits everyone of the sacramento area. where as the bolted routes only serve a small portion of the people for the area. the damn has greater good. never did i say it was the damn vs sport climbing in the decision to close the area. you are again attempting to build something that suits you from nothing.
i really think someone who is not able to seperate personal emotions from a job that requires an objective standpoint should not be in a mod or admin position.
you are a selfish person to think that only your wants and deisres for an area are the most import. and bolting after stated closures reinforces that.
|
|
|
|
|
killclimbz
Sep 17, 2003, 8:14 PM
Post #48 of 76
(14805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 6, 2000
Posts: 1964
|
Roughster,
Seems like everyone likes to jump to conclusions when gawd is around. He probably touches rock once or twice a year if at all. His opinions speak the language but are uninformed and he can hardly back them up. He's is more of an imp than anything. Some amusing posts. I doubt he even knows how to clip a draw correctly, much less place a cam or nut.
The situation at Auburn sucks, especially if it is a state recreation area. I think I read this is ran by the State Parks. They also run Castle Rock and other parks with climbing. Why is there no problem there? Seems like some uninformed management. Especially since you guys are bolting a freak'in quarry. I was kind of hoping to visit your area this winter or maybe early spring when I'm out in the Bay visiting the pods. Hopefully, you guys are able to solve this situation. Battles like this will happen, even if you try to contact a land manager before you bolt half the time you get no response because they have no idea what you mean. After a given period with no answer of course you go ahead and bolt it. I think I've stated before we have a couple of ticking bombs out here that are great climbing areas that could go sour in the next year or two. Keep us apprised.
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Sep 17, 2003, 8:17 PM
Post #49 of 76
(14805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
Trolls are fun, especially when they get riled up after getting called on trolling. You need to take a chill pile gawd. You have had a warning via PM to stay within TOS. It is not the end of the world.
If you follow the TOS from this point on, you have nothing to fear. I mean surely an upstanding citizen of RC.com such as yourself would have no problem following the guidelines set out in the TOS correct?
|
|
|
|
|
roughster
Sep 17, 2003, 8:23 PM
Post #50 of 76
(14805 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2002
Posts: 4003
|
killclimbz:
1st paragraph agreement :)
As for Auburn, I agree there is no logic. There are 14 other state park "units" or areas under state management that allow climbing. They all use the exact same set up codes of regulations and laws and have no problem with it.
I guess it is just going to take some time to bring them around to it. The AF has brought this up with them, I have brought it up with them, Dave has brought this up with them, etc... It is frustrating working at their pace though since it does involve both the BofRec and SRA as well as the CA budget, which is what they cite as being the #1 thing holding things up. No funds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
