I believe that the state is trying to be responsible. And this kind of responsibility happens when the rock-climbing community themselves become irresponsible. The rock-climbing community should be policing itself and dealing with people or groups who are unsafe. Am I my brothers keeper? Yes!

How unsafe? Foremost children have no business in a hardhat area. How can you put a helmet on a minor and put them in an area where there are potentially falling rocks, or above other people when they could dislodge loose rocks?

I would suggest at this point if clubs where formed in MOKULEIA, Hawaii that carried insurance and were responsible that should solve the problem. But not to bring minors up to the cliff to make a profit. The state should be focusing on what it allows minors to do, not on rock-climbing. I am sure at one time when autos where first invented minors used to drive cars here and there. And when there is the inevitable accident the fault should lie with the person that put them behind the wheel and the fact that people allowed children to drive. Banning rock-climbing is the same as banning driving an automobile or banning surfing or banning the use of firearms or banning sex. To climb means there are grave responsibilities and grave decisions that can effect people permanently, decisions that only adults should be allowed to make.

There may be some things children can do, but it should be limited. Take them to Great Adventure.

Edited by donald perry (06/18/12 01:49 PM)
The Mohonk Mountain House and the Mohonk Preserve have done a great job protecting the environment thus far, but ... it's all down hill from here http://youtu.be/9AU8fMo8v4k.