|
wayfare
Apr 22, 2005, 8:07 PM
Post #1 of 80
(7219 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2005
Posts: 17
|
Does anyone else agree that land like the Shawangunks should not be privately owned? Its too much land that so many people should be free to enjoy. Don't get me wrong, I certainly appreciate that the owners have not turned it into a bunch of condos. But I certainly don't appreciate the outrageous cost (10$/day) to climb there. If the Gunks were on the West coast, they would have been turned into a state park to prevent this kind of profiteering. No one needs this much land and there is no sense in anyone owning it. Its nature and it belongs to all of us.
Remember Woody Guthrie? "this land is your land..."
|
|
|
|
|
wideguy
Apr 22, 2005, 8:23 PM
Post #2 of 80
(7219 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 15046
|
In reply to: Does anyone else agree that land like the Shawangunks should not be privately owned? Its too much land that so many people should be free to enjoy. Don't get me wrong, I certainly appreciate that the owners have not turned it into a bunch of condos. But I certainly don't appreciate the outrageous cost (10$/day) to climb there. If the Gunks were on the West coast, they would have been turned into a state park to prevent this kind of profiteering. No one needs this much land and there is no sense in anyone owning it. Its nature and it belongs to all of us. Remember Woody Guthrie? "this land is your land..."
Be glad it's privately owned. Hundreds of acres of famland in my town have been donated to the town which promptly turned around and sold it to developers. Pay your $10 and be glad for every day that it is protecting by whoever does it. Transferring it to state ownerstip is no guarantee against exploitation.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Apr 22, 2005, 8:25 PM
Post #3 of 80
(7219 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
Respecting private property rights is one of the foundations of this country.
You don't like paying 10 bucks? Buy the property.
How do you decide what kind of property gets to be private, and what doesn't?
|
|
|
|
|
troutboy
Apr 22, 2005, 8:26 PM
Post #4 of 80
(7219 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2003
Posts: 903
|
Oh boy, this is gonna be good....... :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
mistertyler
Apr 22, 2005, 8:30 PM
Post #5 of 80
(7219 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 9, 2003
Posts: 197
|
You should go to their site and read more about the organization; I think that might give you a better idea of what your money is going towards.
If the $10 is too steep a price for you, consider becoming a member. Personally, I think $10/day is a very fair price to pay for the priviledge to climb at the Gunks.
Letting in anyone and everyone for free and to do whatever they want would do nothing but invite abuse of the preserve.
|
|
|
|
|
mlcrisis
Apr 22, 2005, 8:31 PM
Post #6 of 80
(7219 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 27, 2003
Posts: 51
|
Quite simply the dumbest post I have ever seen....search this site and others for closures to climbing in public lands going on all over.....suppose you won't want ranger services when you get hurt up there either...
|
|
|
|
|
jumpingrock
Apr 22, 2005, 8:34 PM
Post #7 of 80
(7219 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 5692
|
Get a job. You don't want it to be private, go buy it then donate it to the public.
Idiot.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Apr 22, 2005, 8:39 PM
Post #8 of 80
(7219 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: Does anyone else agree that land like the Shawangunks should not be privately owned? Its too much land that so many people should be free to enjoy. Don't get me wrong, I certainly appreciate that the owners have not turned it into a bunch of condos. But I certainly don't appreciate the outrageous cost (10$/day) to climb there. If the Gunks were on the West coast, they would have been turned into a state park to prevent this kind of profiteering. No one needs this much land and there is no sense in anyone owning it. Its nature and it belongs to all of us. Remember Woody Guthrie? "this land is your land..."
Profiteering? Do a little research next time before you click on "submit" and post something stupid. I got a lifetime membership to the Mohonk Preserve last year ($2,500.00) and I think it was money well spent for a very worthy cause. Don't think it is worth $10 to climb in the Gunks? Fine--go somewhere else.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
gunksgoer
Apr 22, 2005, 8:41 PM
Post #9 of 80
(7219 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 1290
|
suck it up ya pansy and pay your 80 bucks a year
i dont think you realize how good the situation is
|
|
|
|
|
fitzontherocks
Apr 22, 2005, 8:49 PM
Post #11 of 80
(7219 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 864
|
j_ung beat me to the punch again. Check the OP's profile. He's a nOOb. And pay to play just may be the wave of the future, so don't get too comfortable with those socialist free love/free land ideas.
|
|
|
|
|
justhavefun
Apr 22, 2005, 8:56 PM
Post #12 of 80
(7219 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 23, 2004
Posts: 81
|
You might want to look up what the costs are to climb in several state parks on the west coast.
|
|
|
|
|
piton
Apr 22, 2005, 9:01 PM
Post #13 of 80
(7219 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2002
Posts: 1034
|
does preserve mean anything to you.
remember what Arlo Guthrie said "Grain for grain, sun and rain
Find my way in nature's chain"
|
|
|
|
|
shakylegs
Apr 22, 2005, 9:03 PM
Post #14 of 80
(7219 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2001
Posts: 4774
|
You might also want to look into the lyrics of Woody Guthrie's song. And then look up the word 'irony.'
Because the song isn't about what you think it's about.
|
|
|
|
|
grayhghost
Apr 22, 2005, 9:05 PM
Post #15 of 80
(7219 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 444
|
Man am I glad I live in Utah, all I have to worry
about is my boulders getting destroyed by mining
companies who bought the land from the state.
Be happy someone gives a sh_t about letting you
climb on those bits of rock that have no value to
99% of the general population.
|
|
|
|
|
wolfram
Apr 22, 2005, 10:02 PM
Post #16 of 80
(7219 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 29
|
Maybe it is time for a boycott of the gunks. Especially on the weekends. That will show them.
I volunteer to patrol the area and spread the word.
|
|
|
|
|
foograbbinstone
Apr 22, 2005, 10:09 PM
Post #17 of 80
(7219 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 18, 2002
Posts: 225
|
T3...................... atleast!
Love the gunks
Foo
|
|
|
|
|
gunkiemike
Apr 23, 2005, 4:44 PM
Post #18 of 80
(7219 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 1, 2002
Posts: 2266
|
You do realize that the state owns a big chunk of the Gunks ridge, right? And that it is neither free ($5/day) nor, with minor exception, open to climbing.
Get a clue.
|
|
|
|
|
brad84
Apr 23, 2005, 5:16 PM
Post #19 of 80
(7219 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 18, 2004
Posts: 149
|
In reply to: Respecting private property rights is one of the foundations of this country. You don't like paying 10 bucks? Buy the property. How do you decide what kind of property gets to be private, and what doesn't?
exactly. well said.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Apr 23, 2005, 5:25 PM
Post #20 of 80
(7219 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
I have a healthy disrespect for private property, as opposed to an unhealthy disrespect for it. An unhealty disrespect for private property will land you in jail.
I totally respect my neighbor's private property and I'm pretty sure they respect mine. We are neighborly. If I knocked his fence down and tossed dog shit bombs into his back yard, that would be unhealthy, capice???
But I also think people like Randolph Hearst fencing off a gazillion acres of prime California land is a crime against all Californians, all Americans. If I take it in my head to climb a peak on Hearst land, I will do so and won't feel the least little bit guilty about the trespass. FUCK THE HEARST FAMILY.
That, my friends, is a healthy disrespect of private property.
All that said, it seems to me that the Gunks are well preserved and that climbers the world over have benefitted from the the Preserve. They have been excellent stewards of the land.
Land barons suck, simple as that. I HATE land barons. I do not respect the property boundaries of land barons. FUCK EM.
The Gunks owner's don't behave like land barons, as evidenced by all the climing that gets done there.
So there.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
edge
Apr 23, 2005, 5:35 PM
Post #21 of 80
(7219 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9120
|
Now that you mention it, I will be purchasing Colorado tomorrow, or perhaps next week if Mom won't co-sign.
This of course means that I can do whatever I want with the state. All of the Denver metro area will be open to urban cragging, with the hopes of getting a one page spread in the new Urban Climber mag. Please add one V grade to every story buildered above the 24 story level.
To make up for lost revenue (I don't want to be a slum lord, after all,) I will open up the Three Flatirons for "hollow style mining," meaning they can look for gold, corn, or whatever grows inside them as long as the entry point is small and the rock's skeleton remains intact. The resulting fissures will be leased out on a first-come, first served to Starbucks, Wendy's, and the Gap, in that order. Skylights will be refused for aesthetic reasons.
Finally, what to do with the towns east of the front range? I say just give them to Kansas, what the hell.
RMNP will get amusement rides, but only at Estes Park, which is to wilderness as STD's are to itch-free. Kids, pay attention as I think that last analogy may be on the new SAT's.
Welcome to the state of "Edge." Please keep your arms inside the moving vehicles at all times.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Apr 23, 2005, 5:45 PM
Post #22 of 80
(7219 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: .....All that said, it seems to me that the Gunks are well preserved and that climbers the world over have benefitted from the the Preserve. They have been excellent stewards of the land......
Well said, Dingus. I would like to add that the Mohonk Preserve enjoys 501-c3 (non-profit) status and was set-up in the early 1960s specifically to protect those lands for public use.
All of the money raised through user fees and donations in the Gunks goes toward maintaining the lands, acquiring additional lands on the Shawangunk ridge, education and research.
Some of the most detailed weather data in the northeast US--as well as plant and animal studies (going back 100 years) have been collected there, first by members of the Smiley family and later by Preserve staff members.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
climbingnurse
Apr 23, 2005, 6:02 PM
Post #23 of 80
(7219 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2003
Posts: 420
|
I don't think you understand anything about the mohonk preserve. Go to the website (someone else already posted a link). You might learn something.
I get really pissed about paying to enter national parks because I figure I am part owner. The people who own the mohonk preserve can charge whatever they want and I will gladly pay it and thank them for letting me climb.
And besides, how much do you pay to climb in the gym? A day pass at my local gym costs more than $10 and a yearly membership costs WAY more than a membership at Mohonk. And, umm... the climbing at the Gunks is a little better than any gym I've ever been to.
|
|
|
|
|
taino
Apr 23, 2005, 6:11 PM
Post #24 of 80
(7219 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 5371
|
In reply to: Does anyone else agree that land like the Shawangunks should not be privately owned? Its too much land that so many people should be free to enjoy. Don't get me wrong, I certainly appreciate that the owners have not turned it into a bunch of condos. But I certainly don't appreciate the outrageous cost (10$/day) to climb there. If the Gunks were on the West coast, they would have been turned into a state park to prevent this kind of profiteering. No one needs this much land and there is no sense in anyone owning it. Its nature and it belongs to all of us. Remember Woody Guthrie? "this land is your land..."
If you don't want to pay to climb there, fine - don't climb there. The Gunks are already crowded enough, and with people that appreciate being able to climb there and are willing to pay the measly $10 fee to do so.
Or, you could suck it up and pay the $80 for a yearly pass. I personally got in over 70 climbing days last season, climbing almost only on the weekends; hardly a grand total, but I got there as much as possible. Final cost to me? Just over $1 per visit.
Don't you dare whine about how "the Gunks are so expensive!" Nearly all the money collected goes to taking care of the preserve, paying the rangers (oh, you'll sing their praises when you get hurt), etc. You want the land to go to the State, so that it's free? Ask the folks in Phoenix about Queen Creek - which is in danger of being closed, so that someone can open up a copper mine.
Oh, and about your cute little song quote...
Remember Joan Baez... "They paved paradise, and put up a parking lot."
I can't wait until Monday; this thread has amazing potential.
T
|
|
|
|
|
d.ben
Deleted
Apr 23, 2005, 6:45 PM
Post #25 of 80
(7219 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
I am a complete advocate socialism. However, due to 2 things it's only success story can be found in Bhutan. First of all even socialism has to be controlled by people, and frankly people in almost all cases have distorted/destroyed the concept for personal gain (people are greedy), secondly, which is interrelated to problem #1, lack of moral/belief system hegemony, there is no spiritual hegemony, so everyone thinks they can decide what is "right" in this unverse for themselves. If everyone agreed on what was right and there were people who could actually see to it that this order was carried out, sure all the land in the country could be owned by the state (in actuality everyone) and nobody would make any money off it and everybody would be good little boys and girls and not trash the place. Short of this utopian fantasy, private parties owning land and protecting it from both us (overusers) AND THE STATE (who would surely find a way to make $$$$ off it and harm it) is a good thing. Take a poli-sci class before you decide Marxism is perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
kpj240789
Apr 23, 2005, 7:34 PM
Post #26 of 80
(7024 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Posts: 232
|
I wish I had a chance to go climbing in the Gunks.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Apr 23, 2005, 8:19 PM
Post #27 of 80
(7024 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
You'll pardon me. every state park I've ever been to was pay to play to one extent or another. Shoot, my local stomping grounds (Vedauwoo) is pay to play for the central area, unless you want to walk in. If you can't tell where your money is going (maintenance, staff, extra programs), maybe you should open your eyes.
|
|
|
|
|
a_guy_named_smith
Apr 23, 2005, 10:01 PM
Post #28 of 80
(7024 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2004
Posts: 142
|
In reply to: I am a complete advocate socialism. However, due to 2 things it's only success story can be found in Bhutan. First of all even socialism has to be controlled by people, and frankly people in almost all cases have distorted/destroyed the concept for personal gain (people are greedy), secondly, which is interrelated to problem #1, lack of moral/belief system hegemony, there is no spiritual hegemony, so everyone thinks they can decide what is "right" in this unverse for themselves. If everyone agreed on what was right and there were people who could actually see to it that this order was carried out, sure all the land in the country could be owned by the state (in actuality everyone) and nobody would make any money off it and everybody would be good little boys and girls and not trash the place. Short of this utopian fantasy, private parties owning land and protecting it from both us (overusers) AND THE STATE (who would surely find a way to make $$$$ off it and harm it) is a good thing. Take a poli-sci class before you decide Marxism is perfect.
with advocates like you . . .
you might want to heed your own advice and take a poli-sci class to understand the differences between socialism and marxism
|
|
|
|
|
orangekyak
Apr 23, 2005, 10:50 PM
Post #29 of 80
(7024 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 1832
|
I want to pile on, too. Just to reserve my space. This page two realty is going to be valuable when the OP chimes in again and we go full on bar-be-que up in here! :wink:
On topic, while we're freeing the gunks, could we move it a bit closer to Worcester and install some escalators and a tram? The drive is too long, then that walk from Broken Sling to Ant's Line is a bit much.
$85 per year, for amazing climbing and I don't have to worry about Bush sending his buds over to drill oil wells, let alone Fixes. Don't tell the MP, but I'd pay $86.
|
|
|
|
|
frantik
Apr 23, 2005, 11:11 PM
Post #30 of 80
(7024 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2001
Posts: 128
|
Good one, doc.
|
|
|
|
|
d.ben
Deleted
Apr 23, 2005, 11:30 PM
Post #31 of 80
(7024 views)
Shortcut
Registered:
Posts:
|
socialism is communism's little brother so to speak. Political philosophies don't work out so well in practice. Communism, (not totalatarianism under the guise of communism) has never been really attempted, where as socialsim ahs succeded a number of times. I understand both quite well, And I'd be glad to discuss both over PM's if you want. This concept of property is obviously marxist.
|
|
|
|
|
nedsurf
Apr 24, 2005, 1:37 AM
Post #32 of 80
(7024 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 9, 2004
Posts: 387
|
Troll :!:
To get the cost down for a yearly membership sign up with a bunch of climbing buddies then you can split the extra $35 for the first membership. Three of us paid $61.66 this year. That is truely a good deal considering the climbing support (now with a titanium litter thanks to R&S) and free camping. Its not that much, stop being cheap.
|
|
|
|
|
ctardi
Apr 24, 2005, 1:46 AM
Post #33 of 80
(7024 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2004
Posts: 1278
|
Just to be different, I won't be an asshole, and will answer your question.
No We do not agree with you. :!:
|
|
|
|
|
shiva523
Apr 24, 2005, 2:22 AM
Post #34 of 80
(7024 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2004
Posts: 122
|
In reply to: If I take it in my head to climb a peak on Hearst land, I will do so and won't feel the least little bit guilty about the trespass. FUCK THE HEARST FAMILY
...and wayfare, suck it up. 10 bucks is not going to break the bank, and it's going for a good cause.
|
|
|
|
|
climbingnurse
Apr 24, 2005, 2:38 AM
Post #35 of 80
(7024 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2003
Posts: 420
|
In reply to: That is truely a good deal considering the climbing support (now with a titanium litter thanks to R&S) and free camping.
Umm... Actually, the titanium litter came from the Gunks Climber's Coalition (though I'm sure the folks at R&S donated). You can donate here:
http://www.gunksclimbers.org/rescuefund.shtml
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Apr 24, 2005, 3:10 AM
Post #36 of 80
(7024 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: Does anyone else agree that land like the Shawangunks should not be privately owned? Its too much land that so many people should be free to enjoy. Don't get me wrong, I certainly appreciate that the owners have not turned it into a bunch of condos. But I certainly don't appreciate the outrageous cost (10$/day) to climb there. If the Gunks were on the West coast, they would have been turned into a state park to prevent this kind of profiteering. No one needs this much land and there is no sense in anyone owning it. Its nature and it belongs to all of us. Remember Woody Guthrie? "this land is your land..."
First off, people have the right to own whatever they want. And as such quit your whining and be happy that the Smiley (??) family was generous enough to donate the Mohonk Preserve. Also be happy that climbing has been allowed to continue on the preserve.
Second, $10 a day is a bargain. A movie is $10, sports game is $20-100+, a gym is $10-25 a day, ski lift tickets are $40 plus. But if you climb at the Gunks a lot you should buy a season pass. I've had one a few years and it was good as gold. $120 for me and my wife and we just showed up and climbed whenever we wanted. $120 to climb 365 days a year at some of the best trad cliffs in the world. I'll take that.
Finally, screw the west coast. Dude. Take a look the the mismanagement of the west. National Parks, NFS, and the BLM. All wasteful government branches run/funded by cogress. They rape you every chance they have while giving big business every break they can. State Parks I can't comment on but i'm always skeptical as they tend to be heavily regulated and over developed.
In New York we have the only free and constitutionally protected wilderness (that I know of) in the United States. No fees, no bullshit and no federal goverment. Thank god the people of New York pissed on the Adirondack National Park fire ASAP back in the late 60's. What a disaster that would be.
In anycase, instead of bitching about the fact that you have hundreds of great routes open to climbing for a measly $10 you should be happy. If the Palisades Interstate Park Commision owned the Mohonk Preserve as it does Minnewaska you would not be able to climb on any of it. Nor would you be albe to swim or do anything that might endanger your fragile life.
I don't mean to be hard on you but I just wanted you to see that we are actually quite lucky living where we do. Sure I'd love to through some of the topography of the Wind Rivers, Sierra and Cascades into NY but I'll take what I have and love it.
"The lands of the state, now owned or hereafter acquired, constituting the forest preserve as now fixed by law, shall be forever kept as wild forest lands. They shall not be leased, sold or exchanged, or be taken by any corporation, public or private, nor shall the timber thereon be sold, removed or destroyed."
--The Legislature and People of the State of New York, by constitutional amendment, creating America's first Wilderness on Nov. 6, 1894
|
|
|
|
|
grover
Apr 24, 2005, 3:24 AM
Post #37 of 80
(7024 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2002
Posts: 569
|
I would give my left nut and 10$ to climb right about now.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Apr 26, 2005, 3:52 AM
Post #38 of 80
(7024 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
is this post done already? certainly a topic this contentious can do better than 38 post. Curt didn't even really tear the OP a really big one yet.
|
|
|
|
|
mowz
Apr 26, 2005, 4:42 AM
Post #39 of 80
(7024 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 1495
|
One word: Capitalism. It's what built this country.
|
|
|
|
|
fitzontherocks
Apr 26, 2005, 1:09 PM
Post #40 of 80
(7024 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 864
|
Wayfare (the original poster) is being mighty quiet. Are you getting this, Wayfare? Wayfare?
|
|
|
|
|
wjca
Apr 26, 2005, 2:19 PM
Post #41 of 80
(7024 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Posts: 7545
|
I agree with the OP, I think the Gunks should be free. Actually, I think everything in this county that was founded on the principals of freedom, should be free. I don't want to pay taxes anymore to the US Treasury or the State of Maryland. I don't need maintained or even paved roads, I got four wheeled drive baby. Civil services, who needs that crap. I plan on driving really fast on the unpaved roads in my 4wd and don't have time to be getting pulled over by the cops. I don't need cops for protection either, because if everything is free, there will be no crime, right. We won't need money for anything. Hell if I don't need money because everything is free, I can quit working and be able to climb at the gunks everyday.
I am going to start a grass roots movement called: Freedom Means Free Baby.
FREE SHIT NOW! FREE SHIT NOW!
F-you Monhonk preserve. Fire the rangers, get rid of any and all facilities, let the garbage fall where it may. I have some developer friends that would love to piece meal that place out to the crowds of overpaid New York executives needing a new Hamptons. New Paltz is the new Hamptons, man, don't you know. Just keep a couple 5.2s open for Wayfare to climb once or twice a year.
Dumbass.
|
|
|
|
|
kubi
Apr 26, 2005, 2:37 PM
Post #42 of 80
(7024 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2004
Posts: 815
|
In reply to: Does anyone else agree that land like the Shawangunks should not be privately owned? Its too much land that so many people should be free to enjoy.
At first I disagreed....but then I thought about it and wayfare knows whats up! I think this attitude should apply to everything. A dude down the street has a sweet BMW convertable that is way too much car for one man, everyone should be free to use it, there is no way a car like that should be privately owned. I'm going to go talk to him, tell him whats up.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Apr 26, 2005, 2:58 PM
Post #43 of 80
(7024 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: One word: Capitalism. It's what built this country.
Actually that's 8 words.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
Apr 26, 2005, 3:07 PM
Post #44 of 80
(7024 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
In reply to: In reply to: Does anyone else agree that land like the Shawangunks should not be privately owned? Its too much land that so many people should be free to enjoy. A dude down the street has a sweet BMW convertable that is way too much car for one man
I believe I will have to agree with you guys. I saw a hot prostitute the other day getting picked up by this guy that must have been 90. I thought to myself, "that is too much for that guy to handle." Next time this happens, I will go talk to that guy and offer my *free* assistance for the burden he is about to undertake.
|
|
|
|
|
rokjunky
Apr 26, 2005, 3:17 PM
Post #45 of 80
(7024 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 84
|
joni mitchell. not joan baez. i'm probably the only one here old enough to know what the hell i'm talking about. gladys, get me my walker.
|
|
|
|
|
shakylegs
Apr 26, 2005, 3:27 PM
Post #46 of 80
(7024 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2001
Posts: 4774
|
sort of. joni mitchell sang it, joan baez whined it.
|
|
|
|
|
josephgdawson
Apr 26, 2005, 4:07 PM
Post #48 of 80
(7024 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 20, 2004
Posts: 303
|
I am pleasantly surprised to see so many pro property rights posts on this site.
Special props to the guy who pointed out the trend toward the banning of climbing on many public lands in the country.
|
|
|
|
|
wayfare
Apr 27, 2005, 8:16 PM
Post #49 of 80
(7024 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2005
Posts: 17
|
First just I want to make it clear, that I'm very appreciative of Mohonk Preserve for taking care of the place and letting it become a climbing haven for North Easterners. However, as far as I can find, they are not a non-profit (I'm not positive, so let me know if you find somewhere that says they are) and they do indeed use the land for making profit. That is the only part I'm against.
Now to contrast the Gunks with say Disneyland: Disney has taken land which is otherwise nothing special and invested a huge amount of capital to make it an amusement park and they deserve to make profit from it.
And to compare the Gunks with say Smith Rock: The State of Oregon recognized the potential value of the land to common people and incorporated it into its state park system to protect it. Now you can have access to it for $3/day or $25/year. And for those of you who haven't been there, it is an extremely well maintained area. It is supported by the Access Fund, the State of Oregon, and with organized volunteer help of local climbers. In hindsight, the state of NY might also have done that with the Shawangunks.
My conclusion: IMHO, I don't think its fair that people should be able to profit from these natural wonders, given to us by mother Nature. (and Curt, I do have a job. Unfortunately it doesn't afford me the $2500 lifetime membership)
And again, thanks to Mohonk preserve. I'm not actually advocating that NY should take the land from you (that would also be wrong). ...just wanted to see if anyone else had the same thoughts.
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Apr 27, 2005, 8:27 PM
Post #50 of 80
(7024 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
Life ain't fair.
|
|
|
|
|
ben87
Apr 27, 2005, 8:35 PM
Post #51 of 80
(6727 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 26, 2004
Posts: 229
|
You have a good/interesting point about profiting from something that might be viewed as "the commons" or our collective heritage, as opposed to something that you have privately enhanced - such as disneyland. And certainly, I think there is currently a lot of activity by corporations trying to encrouch on and profit from the collective commons.
But, you're wrong about the Gunks. According to their website, The Mohonk Trust was est. as a non-profit organization in 1963 and renamed the Mohonk Preserve in 1978. Definitly a non-profit. A very succesful and valuable private conservation effort.
Both public and private land conservation can be very successful and are valuable - and both can also be done poorly or not really be effective.
|
|
|
|
|
deschamps1000
Apr 27, 2005, 8:42 PM
Post #52 of 80
(6727 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 29, 2004
Posts: 343
|
First, it is important to remember what non-profit means. An organization can be non profit, but the director can still get paid $300,000/year. That can still be non-profit.
I just don't see how they need $10/person to cover their costs. It seems incredibly high. I feel like they could still cover operational costs for $5. I don't mind paying the money, as long as I'm not taken advantage of by a "non-profit" organization. If they really need $10 to keep operating, fine but I am very surprised.
|
|
|
|
|
a_guy_named_smith
Apr 27, 2005, 8:43 PM
Post #53 of 80
(6727 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 9, 2004
Posts: 142
|
In reply to: First just I want to make it clear, that I'm very appreciative of Mohonk Preserve for taking care of the place and letting it become a climbing haven for North Easterners. However, as far as I can find, they are not a non-profit (I'm not positive, so let me know if you find somewhere that says they are).
nice 'finding skills' buddy :roll: :roll: :roll:
with finding skills like that you must be a sport climber :wink:
page two of this thread
from curt
I would like to add that the Mohonk Preserve enjoys 501-c3 (non-profit) status and was set-up in the early 1960s specifically to protect those lands for public use.
All of the money raised through user fees and donations in the Gunks goes toward maintaining the lands, acquiring additional lands on the Shawangunk ridge, education and research.
http://www.rockclimbing.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=87062&postdays=0&postorder=asc&topic_view=&start=15
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Apr 27, 2005, 8:48 PM
Post #54 of 80
(6727 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
In reply to: First, it is important to remember what non-profit means. An organization can be non profit, but the director can still get paid $300,000/year. That can still be non-profit. I just don't see how they need $10/person to cover their costs. It seems incredibly high. I feel like they could still cover operational costs for $5. I don't mind paying the money, as long as I'm not taken advantage of by a "non-profit" organization. If they really need $10 to keep operating, fine but I am very surprised.
True about the high salaries. Hell, the NFL is a non-profit! :lol:
However, speculating about how the preserve spends the cash without looking at it's financial records is pointless. Rangers, toilets, administration are expensive. Maybe the fee has the effect of keeping the place (slightly) less crowded.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Apr 27, 2005, 8:57 PM
Post #55 of 80
(6727 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: First just I want to make it clear, that I'm very appreciative of Mohonk Preserve for taking care of the place and letting it become a climbing haven for North Easterners. However, as far as I can find, they are not a non-profit (I'm not positive, so let me know if you find somewhere that says they are) and they do indeed use the land for making profit. That is the only part I'm against.....
The Mohonk Preserve is non-profit. What part of my earlier post didn't you understand?
Also, according to the Mohonk Preserve website, they get 150,000 visitors per year. Do the math. Even if every visitor paid $10 per visit (which they do not--because memberships can lower the effective charge) the entire budget of the Preserve would be $1,500,000 - except for additional donations.
Do you really think anyone is getting rich here--after paying a staff of 25 people, paying for trail and carriage road maintenence, conducting research, holding educational activities and then banking some money away for the purpose of acquiring additional lands along the Shawangunk ridge? You've got to be kidding.
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
wjca
Apr 27, 2005, 8:57 PM
Post #56 of 80
(6727 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2005
Posts: 7545
|
In reply to: First, it is important to remember what non-profit means. An organization can be non profit, but the director can still get paid $300,000/year. That can still be non-profit. I just don't see how they need $10/person to cover their costs. It seems incredibly high. I feel like they could still cover operational costs for $5. I don't mind paying the money, as long as I'm not taken advantage of by a "non-profit" organization. If they really need $10 to keep operating, fine but I am very surprised.
Non-profit can also mean that everyone working for them does so on a volunteer basis. What non-profit means that generally, the entity is supported by the public and that no money recieved by the entity may inure to the benefit of an individual. All funds received are not taxed at the entity level and must be expended in furtherance of their stated charitable purpose. They are allowed employees, but the IRS knows each year how much their executives are being paid. If it is excessive for the job they do, the entity will loose its tax-exempt status. This is the checks and balance system of the Internal Revenue Code.
As for their operating budget, do you really "feel" like they could cover all of their expenses with half of the money they receive? What does that feel like? Unless you have access to their budget, shut up. You have no idea what their expenses and revenue actually is. I bet that their liability policy alone for allowing rock climbing on their property is staggering.
|
|
|
|
|
troutboy
Apr 27, 2005, 9:05 PM
Post #57 of 80
(6727 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2003
Posts: 903
|
In reply to: However, as far as I can find, they are not a non-profit (I'm not positive, so let me know if you find somewhere that says they are) and they do indeed use the land for making profit. That is the only part I'm against.
The Mohonk Preserve is very definitely non-profit. The Mohonk Mountain House and associated facilities are FOR profit. Are you sure you are not confusing the two ????? The Mohonk Mountain House, Inc does not own the Trapps and Near Trapps. The Mohonk Preserve does, and they are who is charging you the $10 day fee.
TS
|
|
|
|
|
jayp
Apr 27, 2005, 9:10 PM
Post #58 of 80
(6727 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 6, 2003
Posts: 32
|
Don't pay and just sneak in, pretty easy to do(and lots of fun)
Jay
|
|
|
|
|
orangekyak
Apr 27, 2005, 9:22 PM
Post #59 of 80
(6727 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 1832
|
In reply to: as far as I can find, they are not a non-profit (I'm not positive, so let me know if you find somewhere that says they are) and they do indeed use the land for making profit. That is the only part I'm against.
Let's grow up a little and remember that NOTHING IS FREE (especially freedom). It's 2005, Thoreau, God rest his special soul, is dead, and we're all incurring expenses at this very moment.
Non-profit organizations need lots of money to survive. The Mohonk Preserve newsletter asks its members to contribute additional money. The place is a gem, a natural and recreational treasure, and it serves a far greater population than selfish climbers.
Your free and reduced-priced state parks cost you money, just like the free and reduced-priced lunches of the poor students in public schools cost YOU money. I'll say it again: NOTHING IS FREE.
I do not know the salaries of the MP directors, but I do know that all non-profits are required to have a board of directors for oversight, and must conform to tax code.
Now, let's bitch about a real money grubbing 501c3: the AMC. :twisted:
|
|
|
|
|
gunksgoer
Apr 27, 2005, 9:31 PM
Post #60 of 80
(6727 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 1290
|
In reply to: In reply to: However, as far as I can find, they are not a non-profit (I'm not positive, so let me know if you find somewhere that says they are) and they do indeed use the land for making profit. That is the only part I'm against. The Mohonk Preserve is very definitely non-profit. The Mohonk Mountain House and associated facilities are FOR profit. Are you sure you are not confusing the two ????? The Mohonk Mountain House, Inc does not own the Trapps and Near Trapps. The Mohonk Preserve does, and they are who is charging you the $10 day fee. TS
Yep, troutboy is right. There may be some confusion because what is now the preserve used to be part of the mountain house, wich the smiley family owned. then in the early 60s they realized they had a crap load of land and they couldnt manage it all. they then decided to open some of it up and do a charitably thing, wich is when the trust was formed. the trust (now preserve) is legally seperate from the mountain house, but they get along nicely... with the exception of climbing policies.
|
|
|
|
|
tradrenn
Apr 27, 2005, 11:50 PM
Post #61 of 80
(6727 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2005
Posts: 2990
|
How cheap do you get ? It's only $10.
|
|
|
|
|
floridaputz
Apr 28, 2005, 12:34 AM
Post #62 of 80
(6727 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 30, 2002
Posts: 136
|
I don't know what you're complaining about, after all, New Yorkers invented the "Pay Toilet". That's the real crime !
|
|
|
|
|
ben87
Apr 28, 2005, 12:45 AM
Post #63 of 80
(6727 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 26, 2004
Posts: 229
|
In reply to: I don't know what you're complaining about, after all, New Yorkers invented the "Pay Toilet". That's the real crime !
what are you talking about....?
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
Apr 28, 2005, 1:01 AM
Post #64 of 80
(6727 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
In reply to: In reply to: I don't know what you're complaining about, after all, New Yorkers invented the "Pay Toilet". That's the real crime ! what are you talking about....?
He just wanted to work the words "pay toilet" into a post.
Those crazy chickens. What will they think of next?
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Apr 28, 2005, 3:09 AM
Post #65 of 80
(6727 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: And to compare the Gunks with say Smith Rock: The State of Oregon recognized the potential value of the land to common people and incorporated it into its state park system to protect it. Now you can have access to it for $3/day or $25/year. And for those of you who haven't been there, it is an extremely well maintained area. It is supported by the Access Fund, the State of Oregon, and with organized volunteer help of local climbers. In hindsight, the state of NY might also have done that with the Shawangunks.
Let me make this clear. Goverment owned land is not always good. The only exception I can note is the NYS Forest Preserve which has generally exceeded expectations. Fees once enacted never go away, they only go up. Smith Rock will eventually hit $5 a day and then $7 and then $10. Government is far more wasteful then the private sector. If private companies were run like the government was they'd be belly up in no time at all.
Now, as far as not being able to afford a Gunks pass? Let me explain how easy it is. Every time you get paid put $3.50 in a jar for a whole year. Believe me you can afford to take $3.50 out of your checks. Thats 26 paychecks and you'll have your Gunks season pass. Now getting that first pass might take some sacrifice but you could eat ramen for a month or two while not climbing or going anywhere to make up money. Or charge it and pay it off over the course of a few months. Or you could ask for it as a birthday present. I've done that for a few years. It's like 365 presents in one. Bottom line is $90 might not be $25 but it's not horrendously exhorbitant.
The Mohonk Preserve is non profit and the day passes are $10 to curb overuse. More than likely they will one day hit $15 or $20. However, if you haven't noticed the Preseverve doesn't just collect fees. At a certain point they close it down to new visitors. If they were merely interested in making a profit they'd keeping taking your money regardless of impact.
The fact is Smith Rock is a rare example of state land being affordably priced and open to climbing. I guarantee you that the fees will go up.
I say you take a stand and boycot the Mohonk Preserve. Show them that you won't be a part of the greedy American capitalist landowning aristocracy. Perhaps you should stage a hunder strike or chain youself to High Exposure.
|
|
|
|
|
piton
Apr 28, 2005, 12:55 PM
Post #66 of 80
(6727 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2002
Posts: 1034
|
wayfare you obviously have only been to the gunks once with your observations. did you noticed how the rangers live, what programs they do on the preserve, maintenance, rescue, trail work, how they try to keep the preserve pristine, but have to clean up after your dirty ass. how the preserve goes all out to be environmental friendly. go walk in the visitor center get a year pass then use the bathroom, then read how there toilets save around 40,000 gallons of water/year.
Pay the $10, unless you get up early and climb late which i doubt because you're too busy at the MUA spraying about the climbs you say you’re going to do but won’t do because you're too scared. Sack it up idiot
|
|
|
|
|
fitzontherocks
Apr 28, 2005, 1:06 PM
Post #67 of 80
(6727 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 11, 2003
Posts: 864
|
A little civility, please....
|
|
|
|
|
nich_popsicle
Apr 28, 2005, 1:52 PM
Post #68 of 80
(6727 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 26, 2005
Posts: 42
|
Not sure if anyone has ever heard of this place, I think they call it Horse Pens 40 (sarcasm, anyone?), but it is owned by this nice couple and they have done a swell job of making it fun and friendly to climbers :wink: . HP-40, in my opinion, is a glowing example of how private ownership can benefit climbers everywhere. The day fee is a MEASLY $3, and for another $5, you can camp FIFTY FEET from some of the best bouldering in the south! I went down for Spring Break with 3 other guys, and we had an INCREDIBLE time (except it rained a majority of the time we were there), and even the other climbers were incredibly friendly and helpful (WOW, sociable boulderers??, haha). I completely recommend HP-40 to anyone looking for some fantastic climbing, and as a perfect example of how ALL private ownership should go. The owners are climbers, and HP-40 is run FOR climbers, and if only ALL privately-owned property was run so well, the world would be a better place.
|
|
|
|
|
orangekyak
Apr 29, 2005, 1:20 AM
Post #69 of 80
(6727 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 1832
|
In reply to: Not sure if anyone has ever heard of this place, I think they call it Horse Pens 40 (sarcasm, anyone?), but it is owned by this nice couple and they have done a swell job of making it fun and friendly to climbers :wink: . HP-40, in my opinion, is a glowing example of how private ownership can benefit climbers everywhere. The day fee is a MEASLY $3, and for another $5, you can camp FIFTY FEET from some of the best bouldering in the south! I went down for Spring Break with 3 other guys, and we had an INCREDIBLE time (except it rained a majority of the time we were there), and even the other climbers were incredibly friendly and helpful (WOW, sociable boulderers??, haha). I completely recommend HP-40 to anyone looking for some fantastic climbing, and as a perfect example of how ALL private ownership should go. The owners are climbers, and HP-40 is run FOR climbers, and if only ALL privately-owned property was run so well, the world would be a better place.
I've spent a few days at HP 40, and a couple months worth of days at the gunks. I appreciate your contribution to this discussion, but you have to admit that managing 120 acres (can I get a mule?) in rural Alabama is a shade different than managing over 6500 acres located 90 miles north of NYC. I'm willing to bet that more people live within 100 miles of The Gunks than live within 500 miles of HP40.
Further, the Mohonk Preserve is a nature preserve. Horsepens is "Alabama's Premiere Outdoor Nature Park &
"The Home Of The South's Bluegrass Music""
Managing the two is a vastly different situation.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Apr 29, 2005, 2:20 AM
Post #70 of 80
(6727 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: Not sure if anyone has ever heard of this place, I think they call it Horse Pens 40 (sarcasm, anyone?), but it is owned by this nice couple and they have done a swell job of making it fun and friendly to climbers :wink: . HP-40, in my opinion, is a glowing example of how private ownership can benefit climbers everywhere. The day fee is a MEASLY $3, and for another $5, you can camp FIFTY FEET from some of the best bouldering in the south! I went down for Spring Break with 3 other guys, and we had an INCREDIBLE time (except it rained a majority of the time we were there), and even the other climbers were incredibly friendly and helpful (WOW, sociable boulderers??, haha). I completely recommend HP-40 to anyone looking for some fantastic climbing, and as a perfect example of how ALL private ownership should go. The owners are climbers, and HP-40 is run FOR climbers, and if only ALL privately-owned property was run so well, the world would be a better place.
Ha Ha ha Ha!!!! HorsePens 40 compared to the Gunks. Not even on the same scope. Gunks are thousands of acres located within 8 hours of 30+million people. HP40 probably has that much within a 16 hour drive. Gunks are also world renowned and offer easy access from other countries do to the proximity to NYC. I don't think a lot of europeans are flying into Mobile or Memphis or Red Bay or where ever around Alabama to climb at HP40.
So for $8 a day you can climb and camp at HP40 and for $10 I can climb and camp at the Gunks which have arguably the finest assortment of good quality 3 pitch trad routes in the US on high quality rock ranging from 5.1 to 5.13, plus a shit load of bouldering just to make things interesting. HP40 just might be the better deal :wink: ....reality is what you believe.
|
|
|
|
|
piton
Apr 29, 2005, 1:35 PM
Post #71 of 80
(6727 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2002
Posts: 1034
|
pico23In reply to: the Gunks which have arguably the finest assortment of good quality 3 pitch trad routes in the US on high quality rock ranging from 5.1 to 5.13
don't be suprised if a couple 14 go up by fall time. Cody is superstrong and has some projects. hopefully the new wave at the gunks is coming.
|
|
|
|
|
jkarns
Apr 29, 2005, 2:18 PM
Post #72 of 80
(6727 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 13, 2003
Posts: 542
|
In reply to: Let me make this clear. Goverment owned land is not always good. The only exception I can note is the NYS Forest Preserve which has generally exceeded expectations. Fees once enacted never go away, they only go up. Smith Rock will eventually hit $5 a day and then $7 and then $10. Government is far more wasteful then the private sector. If private companies were run like the government was they'd be belly up in no time at all.
Bzzzt! Wrong answer (although its very american of you). The government is generally engaged in providing that are not profitable and probably never will be. The shining example of privatization is trash collection. yes, the private sector has figured out how to collect trash more cheaply than the public.
Additionally, the purpose of the government is not to be as efficient as possible, but rather (theorically) effective and equitable.
|
|
|
|
|
photonicgirl
Apr 30, 2005, 1:57 AM
Post #73 of 80
(6727 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2003
Posts: 152
|
I buy my yearly membership in the Gunks and enjoy unlimited climbing. So do all my friends. What you forgot to mention about state parks out west is the daily use fees...
Quartz mt in OK was once about to get developed/sold and the climbers coalition out there teamed up with the Access fund and bought some rock. To save it, just like the Gunks got saved by climbers.
Pay your money and don't whine about it. The Gunks are well taken care of and that cost money. The rangers are cool, you will get rescued should you deck, and hey, that new bathroom may be nasty but it's available should you shit your pants!
Jules
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Apr 30, 2005, 3:05 AM
Post #74 of 80
(6727 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: I buy my yearly membership in the Gunks and enjoy unlimited climbing. So do all my friends. What you forgot to mention about state parks out west is the daily use fees... Quartz mt in OK was once about to get developed/sold and the climbers coalition out there teamed up with the Access fund and bought some rock. To save it, just like the Gunks got saved by climbers. Pay your money and don't whine about it. The Gunks are well taken care of and that cost money. The rangers are cool, you will get rescued should you deck, and hey, that new bathroom may be nasty but it's available should you s--- your pants! Jules
Actually, Jules, the Gunks wasn't necessarily saved by climbers. Although I don't know that it wasn't. The land was owned in it's entirety by the Smiley Family and they created the preserve from their land holdings. Someone on here can probably fill us in more on the specifics as I don't really remember the who deal. I don't think climbers necessarily saved the gunks. To be honest. If you look at the usuage on a typical weekend I'd bet only 50% of the day passes are climbers. Likewise, not all season pass holders for the Mohonk Preserve are climbers. Anyway, there was one weekend in particular that we got up there mid morning/afternoon and the place was packed. I thought about heading to Peterskill to just hike around for an hour or two till it died down but we ended up parking in the lower lot and when we got to the carriage road the climbs were oddly deserted even as far down as Laurel. A lot of use at the Preserve is non climbers.
Now those Access Fund shirts would make you think the Gunks are endangered just because you can't climb at Sky Top. I suppose when I knock off the hundreds of other climbs available to me below my lead and follow limits I'll worry about the Sky Top.
But what I'd love to know is why they put the bathroom right on the carriage road by Boston? Why not further down by Baby?
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Apr 30, 2005, 3:50 AM
Post #75 of 80
(6727 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: In reply to: Let me make this clear. Goverment owned land is not always good. The only exception I can note is the NYS Forest Preserve which has generally exceeded expectations. Fees once enacted never go away, they only go up. Smith Rock will eventually hit $5 a day and then $7 and then $10. Government is far more wasteful then the private sector. If private companies were run like the government was they'd be belly up in no time at all. Bzzzt! Wrong answer (although its very american of you). The government is generally engaged in providing that are not profitable and probably never will be. The shining example of privatization is trash collection. yes, the private sector has figured out how to collect trash more cheaply than the public. Additionally, the purpose of the government is not to be as efficient as possible, but rather (theorically) effective and equitable.
I knew this would get good eventually.
Actually there is nothing equitable about goverment. If you work in it or around it you see the waste.
Medicaid is one area. People drive through pharmacies driving hummers and cadilacs and refuse their $3 copay. Certainly if they can afford to drive a $50,000 car they have $3, heck the gas to get to the pharmacy was $3. Thats not equitable when there are harder working people with no insurance. Because they work harder they make enough to not be eligible for medicaid but to little to afford the crappy insurance they might be eligible for. And those people can't turn down their $30-100 copays. Thats not equitable.
You realize that there are literally thousands of loopholes that congress is too lazy to close that cost you as a tax payer billions a year. For instance they pay out over a billion in extra student loan aid via some loop hole but students don't get the aid. The loan companies actually bill the government for this money. I have the article saved somewhere because it fascinated me so much. The reason they don't fix it is that it's only 1 Billion dollars and not worth the trouble. So last year when Bush harshened the criteria for Pell Grants to curb spending it was for nothing. They could have simply closed the loophole and disbursed an extra 1 Billion to students. If that was the private sector they'd fix that ASAP. But you as a taxpayer have to make up that billion regardless of whether some needy kid gets it or some big company. Equitable? nope!
The government subsidizes logging and mining companies to use MY LAND that my grandparents, parents, and myself as a generally hard working tax paying individual have paid for for nearly 100 years. But they have the balls to charge me a fee to tread lightly on that same land when it is I who in fact has personally done the trail maintainence on various USFS trails around the US. Equitable? My ass!!!!
Congress enacts demonstration fee programs that by law you CANNOT demonstrate against. Thus the fee program appears to have nearly 100% support of all US citizens. The fees are enacted, raised exponentially on an annual basis, sent into a general fund and then a tiny bit is sent back to the collecting NP/NF. What happens then is congress after gouging you with the promise that your park/forest will be better maintaned for a few dollars a visit actually cuts funding each year, while you pay more each year. Equitable? Nope.
One of the brightest stars of the Republican congress, Sen. Santorum spends his days writing bills to privatize the National Weather Service as another ploy to make us bend over and pay twice. I find that interesting considering we paid to put those satelites in space as well as the ocean gauges and river gauges. And IMO severe weather warnings and information are a right and not a priviledge of the those who are willing to subscribe to yet another fee. With all we are paying supplemental fees for you would think this would be a golden age of America but rather we are rapidly sinking into a chasm. Equitable? I don't know i guess if you want us to sink to the bottom.
The US Gov makes decisions without any long term regard for national interest. Borrow now, pay back in a generation. Private sector can't do that. Congress cuts the average Americans benefits while increasing their own. Equitable? Hell no. When has Congress taken a pay cut? When has Congress opted out of pension plans. You do realize while the overall payout compared the national budget is miniscule your Senators and Representatives get paid a kings ransom for a few years of limited work. And their medical benefits are incredible. I seem to remember the founding principles of this country were to avoid an aristocracy and a central powerful leader. We've created both.
Why can't they create legislation that helps the average American. because they have no clue who the average American is.
The policies are clueless: Bush's answer to the oil/gas prices is more oil and more refineries. You idiot. Can't you see that oil isn't the answer. Start weening us from Big Oil. It will hurt and it's gonna piss your Texas buddies off but it's time to admit we need a completely overhauled plan, one that doesn't simply call for more oil from alternative sources.
Once the goverment enacts a fee, only by the grace of god, or an election year ploy does it remove such a fee. Tolls never go away, demo fees never go away. As a matter of fact they not only don't go away but they go up at a significantly higher rate than inflation.
Bottom line is you are living in a fairy land. Keep believing government is some benovolent soul that only cares for the needy while minimizing waste. Government isn't all bad but it's not all good. I prefer to place as little as possible into hands of our lawmakers.
So I stand by the fact that Smith Rock will be around $10 in 5 years. More in ten years. Government is far to wasteful to bet any other way. The Gunks on the other hand will probably go up in price but at a reasonable cost.
|
|
|
|
|
photonicgirl
Apr 30, 2005, 11:20 AM
Post #76 of 80
(5846 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2003
Posts: 152
|
Thanks for the correction, I've always read and been told that the Gunks is a by climbers for climbers place, and it's certainly climber friendly. I think the bathroom is by Boston due to it's proximity to the Stairmaster.
Once you climb that, you need to pee bad!
Jules
|
|
|
|
|
troutboy
Apr 30, 2005, 2:46 PM
Post #77 of 80
(5846 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2003
Posts: 903
|
The Smiley family had huge land holdings in Ulster County. As the 20th century rolled on, the Ulster County taxes were just too much to pay for idle land. Fortunately for us, the Smiley family was very appreciative of the area where they owned land, of nature, and of the environment. They chose to donate the land for a preserve rather than sell it off.
This is my understanding. I could be wrong. Perhaps RG, JS or another long-time local can add more details.
TS
|
|
|
|
|
rgold
May 1, 2005, 6:20 PM
Post #78 of 80
(5846 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 3, 2002
Posts: 1804
|
The Mohonk Preserve was not created by climbers nor is its purpose in to serve climbers' interests. The events leading to its existence go back to 1869, when Albert Smiley, a school teacher, bought the first tract from a local farmer. Together with his brother, Alfred, the Smileys and their descendents acquired 400 separate parcels of land, about 20,000 acres in all, including Lake Mohonk and Lake Minnewaska.
The Smileys built hotels at each of the lakes and linked them with a series of carriage roads. The carriage roads, trails, gazebos, and benches constructed by the Smileys certainly constitute development, but it was development informed by the deeply held belief that the beauty and interest of the natural world would provide an opportunity for contemplation and a sense of peace that was fast disappearing in the cityscapes of the East Coast. The Smileys believed in a balanced mix of preservation, stewardship, and access that defies the hardened positions today of both developers and conservationists.
When the first climbers showed up in the late 1930's, the Smileys recognized in them a kindred affinity for the land and welcomed them.
In 1955, the Minnewaska Hotel properties were sold to Kenneth B. Phillips, a former manager for the Smileys. Phillips tried to add "improvements" like a nine hole golf course and a small downhill ski area, but he was unable to operate profitably and eventually started looking for buyers for the land. Some of the more remote portions were sold to the Palisades Interstate Park Commission as Minnewaska State Park. Large hotel chains, Marriot in particular, were interested and a battle between the chains and those who wanted to save the area from development was settled first in the courts and finally when, in the 1980's, several years after filing for bankruptcy, Phillips sold the remainder the land to the Palisades Park Commission, thereby relegating all the original Minnewaska property to Minnewaska State Park.
This state entity, for those who are fond of such things, immediately banned all climbing on park lands, a ban that has to date only been relaxed in one small location at Peterskill.
Dan Smiley, the owner of the still viable Mohonk Mountain House and the embodiment of the Smiley commitment to land stewardship, viewed the demise of the Minnewaska property with intense alarm. Although the Minnewaska property had been ultimately "saved" by selling it to the state, the outcome was in doubt for a long time and the spectre of development hostile to the Smiley ideals of stewardship loomed large. It was clear that the remaining lands needed protection from unforseeable events might happen in the future, and so, in 1963, somewhat over 6000 acres of land, including the Trapps, Near Trapps, and part of Millbrook, was put into the Mohonk Preserve as a way to protect it in perpetuity from development, no matter what happened financially to the Mohonk Mountain House, which retained 2,000 acres of grounds and Sky Top.
The purpose of the Preserve was and continues to be a delicate balancing act of preserving the environment and native ecology while providing access to the public. Climber visits account for approximately half of the 100,000 vists per year, so although climbers are certainly a major user of the Preserve, they are by no means the only users. Furthermore, as the nature of climbing has evolved, climbers as a group have become far less attuned to the goals of the Preserve than they were in the early years of climber visits. The path to climbing no longer begins with an extended outdoor apprenticeship; nowadays people with little or no connection to wilderness pursuits are drawn to climbing for its athletic and social aspects. Modern climbers often congregate in large, boisterous groups that are seeming oblivious to the primary goals of the Preserve, no longer the kindred spirits the Smileys' welcomed seventy years ago. In the face of liability concerns and a perception that climbing activity had begun to detract from the experience of hotel guests, a new generation of Smileys banned all climbing at Sky Top. The Preserve, meanwhile, has to some extent accomodated the relentless pressure from climbers for more conveniences by establishing bolted belay, rappel, and top-roping stations.
The Preserve's relation with climbers is arguably the best in the nation,if not the world. This relationship is an outgrowth of the Smileys' love of the land, their mission to preserve it and access to it, and their recognition that climbing constitutes a significant and appropriate use. Many climbers seem to take this relationship for granted, as if the entire Preserve is a park dedicated solely to their needs. This is very far from reality. The ultimate goal of the Preserve is, after all, preservation, and climbers will need to think in those terms themselves if they wish the relationship to prosper.
|
|
|
|
|
nich_popsicle
May 1, 2005, 8:09 PM
Post #79 of 80
(5846 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 26, 2005
Posts: 42
|
For those who jumped on my back for comparing HP-40 to the Gunks, please remind me of exactly where in my post I drew the comparison :?... I personally have not been fortunate enough to check out the Gunks in person (lack of time and money for travel), but yes I am aware that it is a substantially larger area than HP-40... I also know that it is an extremely diverse area, offering phenomenal trad, sport and bouldering.
Once again people on this site are too ready to argue over the stupidest details :roll:, the point I was trying to make was that private ownership can be extremely beneficial to an area if the owners are cool. (as the owners of HP-40 are extremely friendly and helpful) From what people describe, the Smileys are, and as such the Gunks have remained open, and a fantastic place to climb :D ...
Is that simple enough for everyone??
|
|
|
|
|
photonicgirl
May 1, 2005, 8:25 PM
Post #80 of 80
(5846 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2003
Posts: 152
|
Oh, you should definitely find a way to vist the Gunks!
And yes, I support your theory, because Quartz Mountain in Oklahoma was also privately owned, by a very cool farmer. Now it's climber owned, and Access Fund supported.
Jules
|
|
|
|
|
|
