Julie, access just isn't on the table at all right now.
In the future, access may be on the table again. With respect to recreationists, specifically climbers, access or the lack thereof will be a function of whether or not climbers demonstrate respect for property rights over time.
<What is your goal then?>
To protect, to the best of my ability, the property rights of ridge landowners who include retired, elderly, politically disenfranchised, long time Gardiner residents who have been thrown under the bus, so to speak, despite their long record of respectful land stewardship.
With 4 or 6 threads weaving around the same subject, it's hard to know where to put the reply!
Seems to me that when you strip away all the language about respect and landowner rights, we get this:
- Kent and other ridge landowners are pissed off at the Gardiner zoning changes.
- They are also pissed off at the involvement of the MP, FoS, StR, and GCC in the process.
- They want the zoning ordinance changed.
- They want climbers to help them by siding with them
- If climbers do this, then the landowners may have some degree of economic leverage against Gardiner and perhaps the MP, et al.
- The landowners are using access as a coercion tactic, with the "possibility" of access in the future as the carrot, providing climbers show the due deference and "respect".
So in essence, the climbing community is being used as a pawn. Is it really that surprising that there's push-back from climbers, or the afore-mentioned "We don't care" attitude? Kent, when it's this blatant, do you realistically expect a lot of help from the climbing community? (Even from those of us who actually agree with what the AF says about trespass and permission and landowner wishes?)
Negotiation doesn't appear to be the goal. Repeal of the zoning changes does. Punishing climbers for not siding with the landowners is just collateral damage.
Previous Topic
Index