|
kpj240789
Apr 23, 2005, 7:34 PM
Post #26 of 80
(7013 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
(7013 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
(7013 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
(7013 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
(7013 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 7, 2001
Posts: 128
|
Good one, doc.
|
|
|
|
|
d.ben
Deleted
Apr 23, 2005, 11:30 PM
Post #31 of 80
(7013 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
(7013 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 $61.66 this year. That is truely a good deal considering the climbing support (now with a titanium litter thanks to R&S) and free camping. Its not that much, stop being cheap.
|
|
|
|
|
ctardi
Apr 24, 2005, 1:46 AM
Post #33 of 80
(7013 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2004
Posts: 1278
|
Just to be different, I won't be an asshole, and will answer your question.
No We do not agree with you. :!:
|
|
|
|
|
shiva523
Apr 24, 2005, 2:22 AM
Post #34 of 80
(7013 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 4, 2004
Posts: 122
|
In reply to: If I take it in my head to climb a peak on Hearst land, I will do so and won't feel the least little bit guilty about the trespass. FUCK THE HEARST FAMILY
...and wayfare, suck it up. 10 bucks is not going to break the bank, and it's going for a good cause.
|
|
|
|
|
climbingnurse
Apr 24, 2005, 2:38 AM
Post #35 of 80
(7013 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2003
Posts: 420
|
In reply to: That is truely a good deal considering the climbing support (now with a titanium litter thanks to R&S) and free camping.
Umm... Actually, the titanium litter came from the Gunks Climber's Coalition (though I'm sure the folks at R&S donated). You can donate here:
http://www.gunksclimbers.org/rescuefund.shtml
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Apr 24, 2005, 3:10 AM
Post #36 of 80
(7013 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
In reply to: Does anyone else agree that land like the Shawangunks should not be privately owned? Its too much land that so many people should be free to enjoy. Don't get me wrong, I certainly appreciate that the owners have not turned it into a bunch of condos. But I certainly don't appreciate the outrageous cost (10$/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 $10 you should be happy. If the Palisades Interstate Park Commision owned the Mohonk Preserve as it does Minnewaska you would not be able to climb on any of it. Nor would you be albe to swim or do anything that might endanger your fragile life.
I don't mean to be hard on you but I just wanted you to see that we are actually quite lucky living where we do. Sure I'd love to through some of the topography of the Wind Rivers, Sierra and Cascades into NY but I'll take what I have and love it.
"The lands of the state, now owned or hereafter acquired, constituting the forest preserve as now fixed by law, shall be forever kept as wild forest lands. They shall not be leased, sold or exchanged, or be taken by any corporation, public or private, nor shall the timber thereon be sold, removed or destroyed."
--The Legislature and People of the State of New York, by constitutional amendment, creating America's first Wilderness on Nov. 6, 1894
|
|
|
|
|
grover
Apr 24, 2005, 3:24 AM
Post #37 of 80
(7013 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 17, 2002
Posts: 569
|
I would give my left nut and 10$ to climb right about now.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Apr 26, 2005, 3:52 AM
Post #38 of 80
(7013 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
(7013 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
(7013 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
(7013 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
(7013 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
(7013 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
(7013 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
(7013 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
(7013 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
(7013 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
(7013 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
(7013 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
Life ain't fair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
