Ltl wrote:




a bit of ground truthing....

Molly, I find it additionally ironic that when faced with the prospect, some years ago, of privately owned parts of The Near Trapps being closed you said something to the effect of "you're going to have to arrest me or assault me" to keep me off private land in The Nears.

I guess we all change and grow as time goes on....

hope you are well

Eddie this is going to be my last message in this argument. The whole thing is starting to become very immature and I willingly take partial responsibility for that. I should have never told you to "shut your fat blowhole". I guess I was just fired up, and it certainly helps to be a ghost writer sitting behind a screen, as we all know here. I want to make it clear that I don't know you and most certainly was not one of the climbers you busted at the cave. After reading your last borderline psychotic rant Ive become scared that you will accuse some unfortunate soul of being Rockhard off screen, and that doesn't settle well with me. With that said I must admit that based off of the current threads relating to property rights, I cant help but to notice that owning property corrupts the soul. I understand why you are so upset. If someone came into my back yard and bolted my property I would be plenty pissed off. What I would have done differently though was sat back for a couple days and really thought hard about how I was going to handle the situation. You failed to do this and because of your reactionary course of action have worsened the divide between climbers and private property owners in the area. Good luck.

Kent, since you continue to want to air out smelly laundry from 3-5 years ago, I'll ground truth your ground truthing. You opened the discussion that resulted in Molly's statement with threats. And I am referring to direct threats, not implied threats. That didn't sit will with a lot of us, it was certainly responsible for polarizing the entire discussion, and it may have temporarily if not permanently alienated people who may have otherwise been inclined to support you. Since you have been formally appointed as the representative for some landowner(s), it would behoove you to consider your negotiating tactics very carefully. Wish you all the best of luck.

Edited to add: if indeed any negotiations are even seriously being considered.

As I stated over and over back then my intent, however imperfectly communicated, was to make the community aware of possible cliff closures in response to the zoning law. If you'll recall, back then I made repeated efforts to meet with the GCC privately prior to my public entreaties here. My efforts to communicate with the GCC were unrequited.

Landowners don't need to negotiate the closure of private land Nate. That's part of the problem here. Saying landowners need to negotiate, in any way, with climbers about access is to imply that climbers have some kind of right to private property.

If someone, anyone, believes that climbers have a right to private property, please speak up.

That's just the point Kent, I think some of these climbers DO believe they have a right to climb where they choose. It is unfortunate that you and Eddie are being treated as the party that has erred here. Stick to your principles, the whining here is indicative of their inferior position in the argument; since they can't trump your claim of private property rights they are denegrating your delivery methods. A cheap shot at best, IMO.

Then why do you keep raising the possibility of having meetings? Just more disingenuous bs from you Kent. You are wasting everybody's time and bandwidth.

I am unclear on this as well: if climbing access is off the table, and the purpose of the meeting is to brow-beat Chris, why would anyone participate, and why would you then hold that against them?

I'd love to see a meeting, but it needs open minds on both sides of the table.

Hardly disengenous bs.

Climbers may or may not have access to private property. Regardless, how they conduct themselves will have a direct effect on whether or not they have access in the future.

These are not my ideas. They are from the Access Fund webiste and as a landowner they make a lot of sense to me.

The site does not say "if the landowner will not leave access on the table as an option, then there is no point in meeting with them", or anything to that effect.

Ok, what's the purpose of a meeting? I'm sure at this point the purpose of any meeting, from the landowner's perspective, is merely to raise awareness about the level of transgressions that are being committed by trespassers... you're doing a fine job of that on gunksdot so there's no need for a meeting.

Nate, did you go and read the Access Fund website? It will answer your questions better than I can.