Login with Facebook
 ADVANCED
LRC and Leda fees
View Latest Posts in This Forum or All Forums
   Page 2 of 2.  <<First   <Prev   1  2
Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
 
 
By Will Eccleston
Jul 25, 2014
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.

And not that it really needs another response, but:

"Paying to recreate seems like a regressive tax system."

Again, you are free to recreate at home at no cost to you. Hang up a nice hangboard and get to it. Oh wait, except for the cost of the house. And the electricity. And the property tax. And the plumbing. And oh yeah, the hangboard.

FLAG
By Brian Payst
Jul 25, 2014
grayson highlands
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/%7B1F572... (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.

FLAG
By the schmuck
From Albuquerque, NM
Jul 25, 2014
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.

FLAG
By Matt Roberts
From Columbus, OH
Jul 25, 2014
Hittin' Miguel's with the new Chimps in tow
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?

FLAG
By Will Eccleston
Jul 25, 2014
@ the schmuck

WORD! It is a modern miracle that climbing is allowed at either place (but especially Stone Fort, of course).

FLAG
By eli poss
From Chattanooga
Jul 25, 2014
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.

FLAG
By TomCaldwell
From Clemson, S.C.
Jul 26, 2014
Me on One Pitch Wonder at Whitesides.  Photo credi...
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!

I would like to see the attendance numbers after this implementation. It might as well be closed, because I don't know anyone crazy enough to pay that fee for Leda. Maybe a day at both places, if combinable would be worth it, but is still only because of LRC.

FLAG
By sharyl
From Chattanooga, TN
Jul 26, 2014
There is a membership available that covers both areas for $200 + tax. Just in case anyone is interested.

FLAG
 
By Reggio Delacroix
Jul 27, 2014
The Man.
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.

FLAG
By eli poss
From Chattanooga
Aug 6, 2014
Does anyone know if this includes Leda shade wall?

FLAG
By Bobby Hutton
From Tanzania
Aug 6, 2014
Fisheyed fool 10b foster falls
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.

FLAG
By Andy Million
From Murfreesboro TN
Aug 6, 2014
RRG, Send me on my way 5.9-
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:

  • Beginning August 1, 2014, the fee to climb at Leda and Lower Leda is $6.

SCC

FLAG
By sharyl
From Chattanooga, TN
Aug 6, 2014
Yup - lower, upper, shade and far left are all owned by Mr. Luken

FLAG
By Nathan Steele
From Duluth, Georgia
Aug 7, 2014
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.

When LRC was opened to the public it was free with a pass through the SCC website, then the pay system at the clubhouse started. Prices have changed over time, but so has the access. This is just another progression in that history, one that will continue to further legitimize our user group in the eyes of other landowners, and in the eyes of Mr. Luken.

If you do not like it, lets see, Chattanooga area only has 100's of other spots to choose from. Go to Laurel, Buzzard, Fosters, T-Wall, Suck Creek, Sunset, Deep Creek, Crystal Buttress; this list could go on and on. As many others have stated, be glad that this is what Mr. Luken has decided to do. Go talk to landowners and try and get them to grant you access, you will find this is not such an easy task. Sure it's $6, but it beats the alternative.

Please be respectful to these people as they have done nothing but offer up their land to a user group. In my opinion that's an awesome deal.

FLAG


Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
Page 2 of 2.  <<First   <Prev   1  2