|
wayfare
Apr 22, 2005, 8:07 PM
Post #1 of 80
(7199 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$/day) to climb there. If the Gunks were on the West coast, they would have been turned into a state park to prevent this kind of profiteering. No one needs this much land and there is no sense in anyone owning it. Its nature and it belongs to all of us.
Remember Woody Guthrie? "this land is your land..."
|
|
|
|
|
wideguy
Apr 22, 2005, 8:23 PM
Post #2 of 80
(7199 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 9, 2003
Posts: 15045
|
In reply to: Does anyone else agree that land like the Shawangunks should not be privately owned? Its too much land that so many people should be free to enjoy. Don't get me wrong, I certainly appreciate that the owners have not turned it into a bunch of condos. But I certainly don't appreciate the outrageous cost (10$/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
(7199 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
(7199 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
(7199 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 $10/day is a very fair price to pay for the priviledge to climb at the Gunks.
Letting in anyone and everyone for free and to do whatever they want would do nothing but invite abuse of the preserve.
|
|
|
|
|
mlcrisis
Apr 22, 2005, 8:31 PM
Post #6 of 80
(7199 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 27, 2003
Posts: 51
|
Quite simply the dumbest post I have ever seen....search this site and others for closures to climbing in public lands going on all over.....suppose you won't want ranger services when you get hurt up there either...
|
|
|
|
|
jumpingrock
Apr 22, 2005, 8:34 PM
Post #7 of 80
(7199 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 5692
|
Get a job. You don't want it to be private, go buy it then donate it to the public.
Idiot.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Apr 22, 2005, 8:39 PM
Post #8 of 80
(7199 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
In reply to: Does anyone else agree that land like the Shawangunks should not be privately owned? Its too much land that so many people should be free to enjoy. Don't get me wrong, I certainly appreciate that the owners have not turned it into a bunch of condos. But I certainly don't appreciate the outrageous cost (10$/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
(7199 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
(7199 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
(7199 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
(7199 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
(7199 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
(7199 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
(7199 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
(7199 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
(7199 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
(7199 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
(7199 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
(7199 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
(7199 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
(7199 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 $10 and a yearly membership costs WAY more than a membership at Mohonk. And, umm... the climbing at the Gunks is a little better than any gym I've ever been to.
|
|
|
|
|
taino
Apr 23, 2005, 6:11 PM
Post #24 of 80
(7199 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 5371
|
In reply to: Does anyone else agree that land like the Shawangunks should not be privately owned? Its too much land that so many people should be free to enjoy. Don't get me wrong, I certainly appreciate that the owners have not turned it into a bunch of condos. But I certainly don't appreciate the outrageous cost (10$/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
(7199 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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
