LRC and Leda fees
|
TomCaldwell wrote: Are you comparing Leda to these places? Haha. No where close to quality or quantity. Could you imagine an amusement park where the paying customers maintain all the rides and walkways to the rides... This is an investors paradise. Climbers are being fleeced, plain and simple. While the $6 is worth the Stone Fort pass, it is not for Leda. I agree with the statement that there are better, free climbing locations around that area. If this money were being used to recoup the cost of paving the new parking area, that would be fine. Make it free after that. Paying to recreate seems like a regressive tax system.Not comparing Leda's quality to these places at all 10 Finger Tom. This is the current model of private property access, like it or not. Owners take a risk and are sued constantly because they allow climbers/outdoor recreation on their land. Some sort of compensation is due for using up/deteriorating an owners resources, that's just obvious to me. It would be awesome if the owner helped make the place better, I agree, but I'm sure this guys primary motive in life is not to get rich while running a climbing crag. Leda may not be worth paying for, in my opinion its not that quality of a place, its just super convenient with 45 second approaches, but its not on public property...so folks must be at the mercy of the owner if they want to climb there. No crag is free...we all pay taxes to foot the bill for the state parks and national forests. Still, $6 is cheaper than a day pass at any local gym. |
|
TomCaldwell wrote: . Make it free after that. Paying to recreate seems like a regressive tax system.That would be true if taxes were used to pay for upkeep on private land, which they are not. What this comes down to is a private land owner who has chosen to charge a fee to access his property. That's his right as a landowner. Given that the alternative is probably no access to the cliff at all, climbers can make a choice - either pay the fee or go somewhere else. There is no such thing as an inherent right to climbing on private property. I will add that in some states (NC for example), charging to access property can put the land owner in conflict with any recreational use statutes that might be in play and would protect him or her from liability. That's a fairly complicated legal question and varies by state, I don't know the law on it in TN and I am not a lawyer. |
|
Brian Payst wrote: I will add that in some states (NC for example), charging to access property can put the land owner in conflict with any recreational use statutes that might be in play and would protect him or her from liability. That's a fairly complicated legal question and varies by state, I don't know the law on it in TN and I am not a lawyer.I actually had a case of insominia last night and was reading about recreational statutes on the access fund website. pretty interesting stuff. The way I understand it (again i was reading this at 2am so please correct me if I'm wrong) by charging for access the land owner opens himself up to more potential legal issues accessfund.org/atf/cf/%7B1F… (around page 6ish) ...there are 3 types of "users" when it comes to recreational use of private land 1) trespassers - don't have permission to be there, therefore there is no legal expectation that the landowner would be held responsible for injury etc. 2) licensees - have permission to freely use the land by way of a verbal or written agreement. The legal duty generally owed to licensees consists primarily of warning them of any dangerous condition,unless exempt by state law (**more on this later). 3)invitees - a person coming onto the premises for a purpose related to the business of the owner such as fee recreation. "the legal duty to protect the invitee is actually higher than that owed a licensee." "Under recreational use statutes, recreational users, who under common law are licensees, are treated the same as tresspassers and thus are owed no duty of care by the land owner. The protection of the statute is lost however if the land owner charges for use of the land or is guilty of maliscious conduct." There is also the "assumption of risk doctrine"...someone engaged in an obviously risky activity like rock climbing assumes the risk of injury as a result. used frequently in liability cases to shift responsibility to the recreational user and not the land owner. going to get more coffee now... |
|
and what about the people who spent their hard earned money and time bolting climbs at Leda so that others could climb hassle free? this seems like a slap in the face for them. and my reasons for not thinking it is fair for him to charge us to climb is because i was raised with the philosophy that land and natural resources is to be shared within a community rather than kept to the "owner". plus i'm not made of money and cannot afford to pay $6 each time i go climb. and how much can one really "own" a cliff? He doesn't own the bolts, hangers, or anchors that are now a part of the rock. they were put the for climbers to use for convenience. what's next, are we going to have to pay for each route we do? or each hanger we clip? it would be very different if he maintained the area or put up the routes because we would be paying him for the work he put into it. but this isn't the case; he doesn't maintain the trails or the rock, nor did he pay to put up or maintain the fixed hardware on the rock. |
|
eli poss wrote:and my reasons for not thinking it is fair for him to charge us to climb is because i was raised with the philosophy that land and natural resources is to be shared within a community rather than kept to the "owner".Which is all well and good, but the property laws in the U.S. aren't in agreement with your personal philosophy. Private property is private property, there is no greater public good involved. Do I personally think that's the best way? No. Is it the same around the world? No (see Europe, where public access to cross private land is common). Does any of that matter? No. This is why organizations like the SCC and the CCC (my personal experience) buy land, so that we can open it up to everyone. However, until that happens, the land owner makes the rules. So, if you want to invest your few dollars to maximize your own best interests - donate them to the SCC and climb somewhere where there are no private land owner use charges. |
|
Well, for starters, the folks that spent their hard earned money and time bolting Leda were essentially vandalizing someone's property. Don't get me wrong, I have enjoyed Leda and I'm fine with the bolting there, but when they spend their money and time on someone else's property they are fully at risk of losing all of their effort and expenditure, and absolutely should be at that risk. |
|
sharyl wrote: I actually had a case of insominia last night and was reading about recreational statutes on the access fund website. pretty interesting stuff. The way I understand it (again i was reading this at 2am so please correct me if I'm wrong) by charging for access the land owner opens himself up to more potential legal issues accessfund.org/atf/cf/%7B1F… (around page 6ish) ...there are 3 types of "users" when it comes to recreational use of private land 1) trespassers - don't have permission to be there, therefore there is no legal expectation that the landowner would be held responsible for injury etc. 2) licensees - have permission to freely use the land by way of a verbal or written agreement. The legal duty generally owed to licensees consists primarily of warning them of any dangerous condition,unless exempt by state law (**more on this later). 3)invitees - a person coming onto the premises for a purpose related to the business of the owner such as fee recreation. "the legal duty to protect the invitee is actually higher than that owed a licensee." "Under recreational use statutes, recreational users, who under common law are licensees, are treated the same as tresspassers and thus are owed no duty of care by the land owner. The protection of the statute is lost however if the land owner charges for use of the land or is guilty of maliscious conduct." There is also the "assumption of risk doctrine"...someone engaged in an obviously risky activity like rock climbing assumes the risk of injury as a result. used frequently in liability cases to shift responsibility to the recreational user and not the land owner. going to get more coffee now...Yes, they are really interesting statutes, although they do vary a lot by state and unfortunately there is not a lot of precedent as they are rarely brought to trial to help create case law. That makes the land owners' attorney nervous and they often require the local climbing organization to add a land owner or land manager to an insurance policy (typically providing coverage up to $1 million per incident) in order to get access to a cliff. In the CCC (I'm the current president), we've had to do this on a couple of occasions and we amended our insurance policy a few years ago to provide coverage for a lease we hold on a bouldering area. Insurance is basically risk protection, so we can help a land owner with the perceived risk by providing them coverage through insurance. Nothing like land use and liability law to cure insomnia - keep reading and you'll be asleep before you know it. |
|
So here is another option. How about if the landowner chops all the bolts, and then prosecutes the developers for trespassing and vandalism? Personally, I think that the landowner has been pretty generous to just allow bolting and access in the first place. |
|
sharyl wrote: I actually had a case of insominia last night and was reading about recreational statutes on the access fund website. [edit for length] going to get more coffee now...I'm not a lawyer, but you can quote me on this legal opinion...recreational use statutes are state law, not federal, so a better use of your insomnia is to look up recreational use statutes in Tennessee. I'm sure that there are sites that not only list the statutes, but also explain them (though they tend to be pretty straightforward to read, actually.) However, in the two states that I've researched, such fees would exempt the owner from protection under rec use statutes. Note however, that rec use statutes do not prevent an owner from being sued. They simply provide an affirmative defense to the suit. And to eli poss wrote: because i was raised with the philosophy that land and natural resources is to be shared within a community rather than kept to the "owner".is this written by you? |
|
@ the schmuck |
|
Matt Roberts wrote: And to is this written by you?no and i don't leech off others. i have a minimum wage job and pay for my own shit thank you very much. |
|
I only made the comparison of paying to recreate as regressive tax system because Brad and Bryan both compared Leda to other climbing areas that are national and state parks, and they even threw in non-profit preserve. We already pay taxes to support those areas. So yes, to all the Capt. Obvious' out there, this is private as it has been stated in the thread before I made my post. Oh, and the landowner is not maintaining this land, we are! |
|
There is a membership available that covers both areas for $200 + tax. Just in case anyone is interested. |
|
Will Eccleston wrote:@ the schmuck WORD! It is a modern miracle that climbing is allowed at either place (but especially Stone Fort, of course).You obviously have no idea what a miracle is. The landowner has collected thousands and thousands of dollars from these trespassers and will continue to so so. |
|
Does anyone know if this includes Leda shade wall? |
|
eli poss wrote:Does anyone know if this includes Leda shade wall?I would assume so that land is owned by the same owner and would fall under the same restrictions. I have't heard that for sure but it is unlikely that small oddly shaped piece of otherwise useless land between two roads has a separate owner. I could easily be wrong. I am really interested to find out if lower Leda has the same owner, is otherwise privately held or is "public" land like the access to Soddy Creek across the road. Does anybody know? If Lower Leda is un affected by the fee I am sure that it will absorb much of the traffic lost by Leda. |
|
Bobby Hutton wrote:I am really interested to find out if lower Leda has the same owner, is otherwise privately held or is "public" land like the access to Soddy Creek across the road. Does anybody know? If Lower Leda is un affected by the fee I am sure that it will absorb much of the traffic lost by Leda.According to the SCC:
SCC |
|
Yup - lower, upper, shade and far left are all owned by Mr. Luken |
|
Ladies and gents I remember quite well the first time I had the pleasure of visiting LRC in September of 1997. We parked across the street at the water tower and came down the Tri-Star / Dragonlady corridor. Growing up in the Chattanooga area this place was the seldom mentioned gem of the area, everyone local knew but nobody went *wink wink. Flash forward to 2000 when the helipad was installed, by then cars had been towed and we were forced to park at the church and make the long trek in between houses to sneak in. |