Sport Routes chopped Frenchmans Coulee

[LUCKY]

Winter Walk Wall chopped at Frenchmans Coulee. Bill !!!!!, without going through The Frenchmans Coulee Climbers Coalition, or the Access Fund has contacted the landowner of Winter Walk Wall and expressed his concern over the landowner being sued over an accident, (has anyone ever heard of this happening?)He has gotten permission and volunteered his services to chop 7 Routes, all sport. Not a crack in sight. His goal it seems is to eradicate sport climbing at Frenchmans Coulee,

[ 10-30-2001: Message edited by: LUCKY ]

[Charlie]

are you talking about the new routes across the valley- on and around the cube?

[Lambone]

You could chop about half of the bolts at Vantage and there would still be just as many safe sport routes.

[B.S.'er]

If you are reading this and like to spend your time climbing at Vantage, please keep going to the place-- GO A LOT.

thanx

[jon]

Charlie- That's the area.

I've heard a little about it being privately owned land from a friend. Though I don't agree with this guys course of action I think the liability of this area needs to be addressed if it hasn't. From what I heard about that area the people who set the routes spent a considerable amount of time cleaning launching refridgerator sized blocks off by crowbar. My impression of my one visit there was WEAR A FREAKING HELMET. I'm not sure if I will visit it again because of the potential rockfall hazard. Anyways, whatever this guys intention is he's not representing the climbing community, he's just leaving the repercussions for us to deal with.

[Rodchester]

Law suits are rare to non-existent. Saying the owner fears a suit is just bullshit. There has NEVER been a climbing suit go to jury in this state and I don't believe any other state.

Climbing is considered and inherently dangerous activity and any participation by anyone is considered an acceptance of risk. This means you are on your own.

Bill robins is a bit of an odd duck but I have found him to be a nice guy in person. Can't speak to his actions on this. Sounds like bull shit to me...but I would like to hear his opinion.

Maybe he will post?

[Wopper]

Rodchester -

No suit of this type has been brought before a jury. Out of curiosity, do you have any idea how many have settled out of court? Understanding that climbing in itself is inherently risky, what about the lawyer that finds bolts to be an attractive nuisance? Not arguing, just asking. If there is no true lawsuit risk and those stories are old wives tales, someone should educate the property owner.

[Beck]

ANDY FISK WHERE ARE YOU???

[B.S.'er]

Do you mean Andy Fitz?

[Rodchester]

Whopper,

The simple fact of the matter is that most people just do not understand the law and assume that there will be a law suit anytime someone is hurt. This is just not the case.

Regarding suits that settle I know of one...that's right only one. Are there more...maybe. These settlements are driven by cosst of litigation analysis done by actauries at insurance companies and never reflect the actual merits of a case.

Bill Robbins has taken steps that he feels protects this woman and her property rights. Ok, but fear a suit is unfounded on many levels. Acceptance of risk alone would control...but also the duty owed to a tresspasser is minimal to none. So in this case she bears no liability what so ever.

Bill seems to imply that modifying the property with bolts creates a liability. The question to ask: Are bolts an attractive nuisances?

Well that issue is untested before a court and I think it will not succeed. An attractive nuisance calls out to people. (Swimming pool is an example of an attractive nuisance). Does a bolt call out to someone? Well maybe a climber...but remember climbers accept the risk.

Regarding Bill's question of whether or not anyone would help her with an attorney...the answer is yes. First off I would, as would a handfull of other attorneys around.

Additionally, the Access Fund, AAC, and other groups often provide funding to educate landowners and help out in the few lawsuits that do arise.

AAC and the Access Fund are GREAT groups to give to.

Paranoia and simple-Simon assumptions often lead to knee jerk reactions as in this case. But at least Bill meant well and was actually looking out for others. he is however incorrect.

If Bill would provide me with the woman's address and telephone number I would be happy to discuss any concerns based on the law and actual liability.

Maybe we could take this as an opportunity to open the area to new climbs and make sure the home owner's concerns are addressed.

Anybody agree?

[LUCKY]

Anyone who knows Bill knows what he's about the first time I meet him at sunshine wall he was going off about everyone climbing the F$%#en piece of shit sport climbs This isn't the first time bill has went to a Land owner to eradicate sport climbing this is an ongoing problem and he is going to blow it for all of us Yes crack climbing too.I deleated myself from the Coulee egroup last year because of his BS .Check out his web page of cracks only and don't miss the the racoon F$$%#ing a dog, Rab bolters captioned over the racoon and the rock over the dog I think this sums up his attitude.If the land owner was liable you wouldn't be able to climb at Fossil or North fork I think Weyerheauser would have more to loose than the sweet little old lady and this has been discused with Bill in the past .Get a clue it's not hard to see through the BS.Oh yea I think he has blown the Ice climbing on that side to the right of Winter Walk Wall, or maybe that landowner isn't liable?????

[ 10-30-2001: Message edited by: LUCKY ]

[LUCKY]

Bills quote She wrote in her letter (verbatim), “I herby give you (yes, she did underline “you” in her letter) permission to post my land with a No Trespassing sign. Also to post this letter and remove the Bolts that have been put there.

So face value Bill contacts landowner gets permission to chop bolts for the sole purpose to protect the little old lady (yea right )Makes an access problem where there wasn't one before and before the Access fund or the FCCC has time to address the problem .And I take it Bill was the one who BOLTED no trespassing signs to the wall with 3\8's bolts ,how gross ,what a smack in the face .I was going to let this thread die because it pissed me off and was putting me in a bad head space .But I see Will has drug it to the surface again, same shit different day

[ 10-30-2001: Message edited by: LUCKY ]

[Guest]

Osama Bill Robins. Now what a lovely chime that name has!

[Uncle_Tricky]

Seems pretty simple to me--yes, the idea to which I refer is the concept of private property. The woman has a right to decide who's invited onto her property and what they're allowed to do there.

If you're on private property without the owner's permission or consent, you're trespassing. If you alter or destroy that person's property (which would include installing bolts, crowbaring off blocks, or cleaning a crack) without their permission while trespassing on their property, its some sort of vandalism or property destruction. If you decide to trespass and mess with somebody's property, you're taking your chances. Trying to blame others or justify such actions if you're discovered misses the basic point. Trail and error has taught me that the best way to get an owner's permission is NOT to trespass first and ask permission only when you've been caught. When it somes to someone's else land, the "access problem" is those who feel they have a right to trespass and alter somebody else's private property without their permission. They are doing fellow climbers no favors.

[ 10-25-2001: Message edited by: Uncle Tricky ]

[LUCKY]

First let me say the 7 routes were not just any climbs they where the tallest entablature climbs at the Coulee 135 ft tall and thought to be some of the best rock art of the Coulee.These climbs have great meaning To myself and many others.I don't see anyone upset by liably of hunting on this property so again we are a singled out user group .Well the party got ruined last weekend .I would just like to get back to the good old days of partying and climbing it all at the coulee.I think I will delete myself for awhile,just can't take it

[ 10-30-2001: Message edited by: LUCKY ]

[Cpt.Caveman]

There is more rock somewhere else.

I bet this Bill dude is probably hanging low nowadays. If not he might wanna. Looks like the scalpers are out!

[Uncle_Tricky]

Lucky--I'm sorry to hear that these climbs that mean a lot to many people are apparently going to be gone. And I can empathize with the anger at whoever told the landowner about the climbs and offered to chop them and post the property--especially if it appears this was done for selfish self-rightous reasons. I don't know enough about the people and the situation to make such judgements.

Regardless, I do feel strongly that everyone's interests are better served if landowners are consulted before people establish new climbs on private property. Who knows--maybe if the landowner had been approached, her permission politely asked, and her liability concerns adequately addressed--BEFORE people started installing new climbs on her property, she would have been a lot more open to the possibility. At that point, the involvement of the FCCC or the Access Fund or the ACC might have made a positive difference.

Now, I doubt that she would consider allowing climbers access to her property. Asking somebody for permission to use their property AFTER you've already taken that liberty usually doesn't work very well.

It sounds like bad feelings and further access restrictions are the only thing coming out of this whole situation, and that's sad.

[This message has been edited by Uncle Tricky (edited 10-19-2001).]

[willstrickland]

This is from Bill Robins, a copy of what he is posting to the Vantage e-group. DO NOT contact me in regards to this issue. I DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT. I'm only posting this for your(our) information. -WS

Here is what I'm posting on the Vantage e-group:

The cliffs on the north side of Frenchman’s Coulee are on private property. How do I know this? First, if you look in Matt Stanley’s guide book, “Vantage Rock” in the section titled “What about access?” on page 7 it states, “The enticing cliffs on the north side of Frenchman’s Coulee are on private land and I would not advise trying to climb there.” In addition we went to the Grant County Court House in Ephrata and looked at the section maps. In rural areas, section maps show the property boundaries and names of each property owner. But let’s back up and look at the history of the issue of climbing on the north side of Frenchman’s Coulee. On June 9, 2000 I posted message 43 on the Vantage e-group asking about property ownership of the cliffs on the north side of Frenchman’s Coulee. On July 24, 2000 I stated in message 68 that the cliffs were on private property. In messages 126, 205, and 206 the idea of contacting the landowner was repeated. In messages 206 and 207 the idea of going to the Grant County Court House to determine the owner of record was discussed. In addition, I brought up the subject during the February meeting of the officers of the FCCC. No one made any attempt to contact the landowner. This summer we went to the Grant County Court House and got copies of the section maps. I looked up the address of the owner of record and sent her a letter and a week later talked to her by phone. She is a sweet little old lady. Her late husband bought the property so that he and some of his friends could hunt in the area. We had a marvelous conversation and she told me much of the history of the area before there was climbing. She had no idea that anyone was trespassing on her property and modifying it without her permission. She expressed concern over insurance issues and what the activities that had been done to her property would do to her insurance premium. She thanked me profusely for taking the time to contact her. She did not want to assume the liability of climbing on her property and wanted it stopped. One week later she sent me a letter part of which forms the message presently posted on the signboard at Vantage. She wrote in her letter (verbatim), “I herby give you (yes, she did underline “you” in her letter) permission to post my land with a No Trespassing sign. Also to post this letter and remove the Bolts that have been put there. I do not want “Anyone Climbing on my property. I will consider it trespassing and breaking the law and will call Grant County Sheriff.”

So, what was the problem? Let’s just for the moment ignore the issue of trespassing and modifying someone else’s property without their permission. The problem is liability and money. If someone got hurt on her property due to some of us modifying her property without her permission she was the one that would have gotten sued. Unlike the south side of Frenchman’s Coulee, owned by the government and thus immune from suit (message 224 on the Vantage e-group) a private landowner can easily be sued. Would any of us have stepped forward and said, “NO, don’t sue her, she is innocent! Sue us instead, we did this to her property without her knowledge” ? I don’t think so. Would any of us have stepped forward and said, “We will pay for your lawyer and other court costs because we did this to you” ? No, we sat by and let her assume all of the financial risk WITHOUT EVEN TELLING HER! If her insurance supplier had found out would any of us stepped up with our checkbooks and paid her premium? No way!!! WE, those that actually modified her land and those that sat by and did nothing let the innocent landowner assume ALL of the risk. I can already hear people saying, “Bill doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the property owner. He did this because he hates rappel bolting!” My opinions on rappel bolting or any other subject DOES NOT CHANGE THE FINACIAL RISK WE PLACED UPON AN INNOCENT, NON-INVOLVED, UNKNOWING PARTY!!! We weren’t even willing to tell her what we did to her nor that we had forced risk upon her.

Scream at me if you want but with the same breath scream for the property owner. Scream at the injustice of placing someone’s financial well being in jeopardy without even telling her. Scream for her, someone should.

Bill Robins

 

[NoBolt]

Do you think Bill has romantic feelings for older women and is thinking he could have this area all to himself? Hmmmmm.

[erik]

it is too bad that mr. robbins figured that he had to take actions into his own hands to deal with the winter wall. especailly what sounds like an end run.

my concern over it would be the fact that those climbs would bring increased traffic to a currently relativly untrammled area. which is not a good thing. the soil in the coulee is very fragile and to have poeple start walking all over it to climb a few more routes seems like a little bit too much. the area has many good climbs and the development should stay where it is at.

too bad that all your guys work is down the tube, but sounds like you should have done some research on the subject first.

[Peter_Puget]

There are two issues here being intertwined. Namely:

1) Access on private property. Property rights should be respected. If not merely in order to conform to the law, but also so as not to give climbers a bad name. This seems clear.

2) Bill Robbins actions. Do they help or hinder “climbers”. (also: are they truly what they purport to be on their face or are they fronts for a more self serving goal?)

Taken on their face value his assertions are clearly of (and I am being charitable) indeterminate accuracy. Is the helpless old woman at a high risk of being sued? Who knows? From what I have read it appears as though she is at little risk. He “screams” and yells but provides no supporting documentation. I would ask him to give us examples of lawsuits and increases in premiums. Does she have risk due to hunters? Bikers? Hikers? Have they been using this area? What has she done to mitigate her risk? In short, the issue is complex and BR is spewing bullshit undercover of being a caring person. This is a guy who threatened to go to the DOW and try to stop bolting BECAUSE HIS CHOSSY CRACK ROUTES WEREN’T BEING REPORTED.

 

Now assuming for the moment that he was acting altruistically, did his actions aid or hinder the cause of climbing? By telling this old woman spurious facts regarding her liability and (here is a guess) speaking badly of climbers in general he has helped to pollute the political environment. Think now what her neighbors might think when a “respectable” climber seeks permission to climb on their land. Doesn’t making an end run around the FCC Coalition reduce its stature in front of land owners and land managers? BR’s previous actions have caused LUCKY to stop participating in the FCCC thus his actions have kept people away from the very forum where they would have learned of the property issues. As a side bar I should confess that months ago I too was disgusted by his actions and decided against participating in the FCCC. Look at his postings on Rec.climbing regarding the Smoot guide. While not being a big fan of Washington Rock after reading his vitriolic attacks on Smoot, I compared the ratings of every climb in Smoot’s book to those in other guides. There were only a couple of significant differences. I ask that everyone do a google search read his comments and then do their own ratings comparison. I am sure you will agree that BR has a chip on his shoulder and that his actions do negatively impact our sport.

 

[Alasdair]

Oh good for you Bill looking after the little old lady. The only way this would be a good thing is if he got exclusive permission to climb on her property and spent most of his time over there. That way none of the rest of the people who climb at vantage would have to listen to his loud mouth boasting about what he has climbed there. Bill Robbins the Vantage Police?

[klar404]

uh..... I could give a shit about vantage. Bolts and shit will shut it down some day. This whole "osama bill" stuff should stop. How old are you guys? Do you really think that shit is funny? Do you think anybody thinks your intelligent 'cause you took a name of a terrorist and combinded with the name of someone you didn't like? If your trying to futher your cause (which is pointless beacause there is a shit under every rock) your not doing a good job.Please stop the "osama bill" shit. It only adds fuel to debates about your intelligence.

[BIGONES]

This is from MY MOTHER, a copy of what she is posting to the Moose e-group. DO NOT contact me in regards to this issue. I DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT. I'm only posting this for your (our) information. - BO

My goodnesss what a controversy! How very exciting to find PEOPLE LIKE ME featured on your very extensive site on the wide world web. I am a little old lady, too. (Well, maybe not "little". After all, I am BIG ONES mum. Had to get it somewhere! And not toooo old, either, if you know what I mean!)

I had no idea that I could get hordes of vigorous young men to come to my property and give me polite advice about the pile of rocks in my backyard! Not to mention showing up with crowbars and power tools and other manly implements. My goodness, maybe there is more to this "rockclimbing" craze than I thought, and that pair of "etriers" I bought on your advice might even come in handy! Just knowing that I could be sued by trespassers -- or call the sheriff on them!!! --- gives me thrills that I usually have to pay for....

It would give me excitement greater than you can imagine to have someone like BILL ROBINS, or LAMEBONE or even CAPTAIN CAVEMAN (he's my favorite) come and give me advice about MY pile of choss. Perhaps the publicity provided by your web site would cause even more well-developed types to show up....and then maybe someone would get hit on the head, or perhaps even a FIGHT could break out!

Like I said, I usually have to pay for entertainment on that scale. Thanks for providing a stimulating break from the boring same old same old in The National Enquirer. C'mon boys, everyone's welcome, here's my address:

[Lambone]

[This message has been edited by lambone (edited 10-23-2001).]