Because I own the land. I'm all for protecting objects of natural beauty, but then if that's the case, make them a park. If it belongs to an individual, I don't want anyone, whether it's the gub'ment, or some smug asshole who thinks his ethics define those of the entire world, screwing with it.

This country was built upon land ownership. My great-grandaddy cut down trees, plowed fields, made a life for his family, and built the home I grew up in. He was able to do this because of land ownership. Take away the rights of a land owner and you take away one of the most cherished values of the American way of life.

If something should be protected, then it shouldn't be in the control of any one person - it should be a public resource. As long as it's not, it's a fundamental part of the way I was raised to respect the rights of property owners.

I can see it now... 'Scuse me, pardon me, comin' through,' for every Gunks classic it traversed through the middle of!

There is ALWAYS another Ken Nichols waiting in the weeds to chop poorly bolted routes or remove bolts that retro-foul previously ascended rock.

So yes, you should be concerned.

DMT

i did a bit of research and i dig what your saying.....just wanted to get an idea of what the deal is and i pretty much got it in spades.....i understand local ethics prevailing but in this case there is no local ethics ive lived in this little town for 25 years or so and have gone on many hikes/keggers/blunt rides in this area and have never ever seen a single climber, i grew up in this town.......so if me and couple of friends want to develop this spot wouldnt what we consider kosher go as the "local ethics"....i mean i could keep it a secret but thats not my style. i would want to post it on mountainproject and rc.com and spread the love for what its worth....i dont however want to expose somthing i worked hard on to some kook who has never been to beacon falls or even heard of naugatuck valley.....i have been eyeballing these cliffs since i was a kid and now that i have a hair on my ass to climb them(and potentially bolt them) i sure would like to without worry of pissing time and money away(again this is an idea for the future not next week or month)anyway i do appriciate the input........carry on

wonderwoman, youve got me all kinds of excited about bolting this thing! Let me schedule the time off and lets get started!

edit to add: maybe Markc wants in on the bolting action too!

Dingus, world of difference between the two. To me it's kind of sad that you would equate them.

they may even erect statues in our honor- or maybe carve out the cliff face in our likeness, and have parades and free beer! This just keeps getting better!

Noted.

The OP should nevertheless understand if he bolts poorly or indiscriminantly or without respect to local ethics his work could be summarily chopped by some lone righteous (or self-righeous) judge/jury/executioner.

Its just the way it is... all your sadness issues aside.

DMT

What a circular and incoherent rant!

That argument doesn't make any sense. You both want to protect areas by making them public yet the person that owns it gets to do whatever she wants. So who decides what is protected, the owner or the government? What happens when they take away ownership? But ownership is the most important thing? Only an evil gub'ment would take away ownership.

I think I'll try to convince the government that your house is a historical landmark and that it should be protected from you. You could form a support group with Ken.

The classic case of private ownership trumping public usage in my area is the Smoke Bluffs in Squamish. A subdivision overlooking the town has been built in the middle of the crags. One notable house has been built on top of and beside a couple of very nice climbs. The owners have put up a fence that encloses a nice crack that nobody is allowed to climb anymore and there is a quaint little crag below the house with warnings to be quiet and basically discourages climbing there.

I realize that there is a LOT of rock to climb around there but it is frustrating that someone who is against climbing on their property has bought the land. This flies in the face of the local community which is very climbing oriented but there is nothing that can be done about it until the person decides to sell. (Who moves to the "Outdoor Capital of Canada" to restrict the enjoyment of the outdoors anyway?)

This is the attitude I was getting from Valarc's post; that ownership comes first and society second.

top roping would be easy there as it would be at many sport crags but there is a value to climbing on lead where trad pro wouldn't do the trick.......and i totally appriciate that it very well may have been climbed in the past but i've searched for this spot on line and all i could find was an article about ice/mixed climbing in a near by valley....i wouldnt claim a FA(or place bolts for that matter) unless i was reasonably sure..there is mabey 3-10 climbable routes here mabey 3-4 worth protecting so im not talking about a nutty bolters heaven just a few moderate routes

Fact of the matter is, it doesn't entirely work that way. It is within the power of the government to regulate the land use to some extent, regardless of who owns the land, and this is as it should be.

I think even Valarc would pitch a bitch if his next-door neighbor decided he wanted to get into the "Sanitary Landfill" business, or perhaps decided that he wanted to build a privately-owned sewage treatment plant right up-wind or up-stream from his front door.

I grew up in the middle of one of the larger fruit-producing regions of the Pacific Northwest. Sure, the land owner was free to plant whatever crop they felt the market would support, but they were not allowed to apply whatever herbicide or insecticide they wanted to that crop. They had to operate within the bounds of regulation, and this is to protect the rights of those who might be periphially impacted without the benefit of a financial stake in the actions affecting them.

The rock is still left damaged.