|
marc801
Jul 14, 2008, 7:31 PM
Post #51 of 76
(3795 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
CaptainPolution wrote: wow 15 per day? thats pretty steep.
In the 60's the Mohonk Trust (now the Preserve) was created. The goal was to preserve the land. The agreement that was arranged was that the Trust would give up all future development rights and in exchange the towns gave them an extremely low tax rate. The condition was that they allow public access and could charge a reasonable fee.
|
|
|
|
|
dj69
Jul 14, 2008, 8:09 PM
Post #52 of 76
(3760 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 18, 2006
Posts: 43
|
In reply to: First off, who the hell wants to pay $15 to go climbing for the day?
I am sure everyone would be happy if it were free, however most major areas around here (montreal) require you to pay as well. Val-D, Argent, and Orford all have an entrance fee (5$-10). I don't know about you, but i would much rather pay 10-15 dollars to climb at a well maintained area, then climb at sort of dumb that is constantly having access issues.
In reply to: Seriously, why would anyone want to climb here?
Because it's much better than any area around here that's why! I don't care how nice the 30m 5.3's are at val-David, i'd much rather climb the longer routes of the gunks or the adirondacks. Now thats not to say quebec doesn't have some nice lines, but IMO you shouldn't form an opinion about the quality of the routes until you try a good portion of them. Which by the sounds of it you didn't.
(This post was edited by dj69 on Jul 14, 2008, 8:12 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
coppertone
Jul 14, 2008, 8:26 PM
Post #53 of 76
(3732 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2005
Posts: 32
|
You remind me of a friend who complained about everything when we were out in J-Tree. We were there in January. It's never crowded then! He got pissed when every starred route he walked up to was taken. There were too many people, too many taken climbs, rock sucks. What do you expect when you go to one of the most popular climbing areas in the world that is located near major population centers.
Enjoy what you have. There are so many routes in the Gunks at every grade. If you expected to go to the Gunks on a summer weekend and just walk up to every 3 star route from 5.5 to 5.8 then you are a fool. I doubt that you walked much past Madame G's, unless you were one of the masses that just had to do High E.
This past weekend I decided to hit the Near Trapps. It was pretty empty other than Gelsa and Birdland. We got on many 3 star routes without waiting. I even saw a few ropes hanging from the cliff as I walked by but somehow this did not ruin my day. I also managed to make in through the day even though I hear people saying "off belay" "on belay" "off rapel". Imaging that people vocalizing commands at a climbing area.
Good to know that you won't be back, now we can all relax and enjoy ourselves.
|
|
|
|
|
markc
Jul 14, 2008, 8:40 PM
Post #54 of 76
(3721 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 2481
|
marc801 wrote: Once again, most folks who complain about the fee forget that the Gunks are on private land - it's not a public (ie: government run) park. It's a private land preserve held in public trust.
That's a pretty big assumption on your part, don't you think? I've never forgotten that the Gunks aren't public land, and that the preserve can charge what it pleases. That doesn't mean that $15 per day is reasonable from a personal perspective. If you're a Gunks local and spread out the $85 annual membership over the season, it doesn't seem so bad. If you're coming in from out of state for a long weekend, it becomes hard to justify almost $100 for a party of two.
Needless to say, I'm used to climbing at areas with much lower fees. Climbing at Seneca Rocks, the New, the Daks, and other areas I've visited is free. The fees at both Red Rocks and Yosemite are very reasonable. With other options for fantastic climbing, the Gunks hasn't risen to the top of the list for me. YMMV.
|
|
|
|
|
coppertone
Jul 14, 2008, 9:54 PM
Post #55 of 76
(3666 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2005
Posts: 32
|
markc wrote: marc801 wrote: Once again, most folks who complain about the fee forget that the Gunks are on private land - it's not a public (ie: government run) park. It's a private land preserve held in public trust. That's a pretty big assumption on your part, don't you think? I've never forgotten that the Gunks aren't public land, and that the preserve can charge what it pleases. That doesn't mean that $15 per day is reasonable from a personal perspective. If you're a Gunks local and spread out the $85 annual membership over the season, it doesn't seem so bad. If you're coming in from out of state for a long weekend, it becomes hard to justify almost $100 for a party of two. Needless to say, I'm used to climbing at areas with much lower fees. Climbing at Seneca Rocks, the New, the Daks, and other areas I've visited is free. The fees at both Red Rocks and Yosemite are very reasonable. With other options for fantastic climbing, the Gunks hasn't risen to the top of the list for me. YMMV.
There are some pretty cheap people out there. Everybody wants free camping, free access, free everything. No matter what you think nothing is for free. What is $100 for three days to fully entertain two people. What do you think in costs to go skiing, out to movies and many other activities. Many of the areas that you have named have completely different situations than the Gunks. If the Gunks was not maintained by the Preserve as a trust then it wouldn't be here for us to climb on. It would all be privately held land that would be developed and no climbing would be allowed just like Skytop. Most of the other areas that are being named are on public land which are support by your taxes, so in essence you are paying for it more than you know you just don't see it in a day use fee. If you don't want to go and pay the fee then that means that there will be one less person in a crowded area. You are right that the annual fee is no big deal especially for someone like myself who gets to the Gunks at least 30 or so days a year. With that being said I wouldn't have a problem paying the same fee at any of the other areas that you mentioned such as Red Rocks, Yosemitee, the New etc.
|
|
|
|
|
happiegrrrl
Jul 14, 2008, 10:52 PM
Post #56 of 76
(3628 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 4660
|
Perhaps, those who complain about the fee, if you take some time to learn just what the Mohonk Preserve is, besides a climbing/hiking destination, it might not bother you so hotly to support them.
Our natural world is being sold to the highest bidder - people are so thirsty for oil that they are willing to look the other way and let lands designated for animal habitat and geological preserve "get the shaft"(oil shaft, that is). It is, frankly, quite amazing that the Smiley family had the foresight and resources to save such a large area from what would have become of it.
You don't have to like paying $15. There's a simple solution - do not enter. One less set of footprints probably means a whole bunch more of those creepy crawly millipede prints..... who are probably food to birds that have seen their habitat dying off. Those millipedes poop like crazy and that, along with their decomposing bodies, makes the soil fertile, too.
|
|
|
|
|
curtis_g
Jul 15, 2008, 12:01 AM
Post #58 of 76
(3588 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2005
Posts: 594
|
sungam wrote: zeke_sf wrote: the_leech wrote: charley wrote: Why do you have to harp on a persons nationality? There is nothing wrong with being canadian, or speaking french or for that matter, a pink rope. I can not say the same for someone who dis' a persons nationality. We are what we are. If you don't agree just say so. You're just sensitive because you're Vietnamese. That also explains your poor English skills. You better watch it with the VC. He's a worthy fucking adversary. sexest.
Ahahaha, I get it.
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Jul 15, 2008, 12:08 AM
Post #59 of 76
(3582 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26804
|
curtis_g wrote: sungam wrote: zeke_sf wrote: the_leech wrote: charley wrote: Why do you have to harp on a persons nationality? There is nothing wrong with being canadian, or speaking french or for that matter, a pink rope. I can not say the same for someone who dis' a persons nationality. We are what we are. If you don't agree just say so. You're just sensitive because you're Vietnamese. That also explains your poor English skills. You better watch it with the VC. He's a worthy fucking adversary. sexest. Ahahaha, I get it.
|
|
|
|
|
yarps
Jul 15, 2008, 12:31 AM
Post #60 of 76
(3570 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 6, 2006
Posts: 31
|
I saw a Troll at the Gunks once..
|
|
|
|
|
sky7high
Jul 15, 2008, 1:46 AM
Post #61 of 76
(3548 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 15, 2006
Posts: 478
|
happiegrrrl wrote: Perhaps, those who complain about the fee, if you take some time to learn just what the Mohonk Preserve is, besides a climbing/hiking destination, it might not bother you so hotly to support them. Our natural world is being sold to the highest bidder - people are so thirsty for oil that they are willing to look the other way and let lands designated for animal habitat and geological preserve "get the shaft"(oil shaft, that is). It is, frankly, quite amazing that the Smiley family had the foresight and resources to save such a large area from what would have become of it. You don't have to like paying $15. There's a simple solution - do not enter. One less set of footprints probably means a whole bunch more of those creepy crawly millipede prints..... who are probably food to birds that have seen their habitat dying off. Those millipedes poop like crazy and that, along with their decomposing bodies, makes the soil fertile, too.
Yup, I once asked a fellow climber what he'd do if he were to be the owner of the woods that are near my hometown. He said he'd charge a ridiculously hefty entrance fee because it's the only way to keep littering, trampling, graffitiying (is that a word?), chipping, gluing, campfire-under-overhang-making chilangos out. (chilangos are residents of mexico city that seem to have a desperate urge to make everything as ugly as the sh*thole they call their city, and yes, I do hate them.)
It's sad, but probably the only way to keep the woods nice.
|
|
|
|
|
camhead
Jul 15, 2008, 2:01 AM
Post #62 of 76
(3538 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2001
Posts: 20939
|
good topic. I agree with much that Beyond Gravity has said, and it is also nice to hear from him again after all these years. Yes, the Gunks have more annoying people than any other crag. Yes, it sucks to pay, yes, the grades are not as stout as they say.
It is a damn cool place, though. I have NEVER seen trad climbing with such intricate sequences anywhere else. And, like any other trad crag, once you break the 5.11 barrier you have your pick of anything, no lines.
I definitely want to get back there.
|
|
|
|
|
stymingersfink
Jul 15, 2008, 8:24 AM
Post #63 of 76
(3501 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 12, 2003
Posts: 7250
|
sky7high wrote: happiegrrrl wrote: Perhaps, those who complain about the fee, if you take some time to learn just what the Mohonk Preserve is, besides a climbing/hiking destination, it might not bother you so hotly to support them. Our natural world is being sold to the highest bidder - people are so thirsty for oil that they are willing to look the other way and let lands designated for animal habitat and geological preserve "get the shaft"(oil shaft, that is). It is, frankly, quite amazing that the Smiley family had the foresight and resources to save such a large area from what would have become of it. You don't have to like paying $15. There's a simple solution - do not enter. One less set of footprints probably means a whole bunch more of those creepy crawly millipede prints..... who are probably food to birds that have seen their habitat dying off. Those millipedes poop like crazy and that, along with their decomposing bodies, makes the soil fertile, too. Yup, I once asked a fellow climber what he'd do if he were to be the owner of the woods that are near my hometown. He said he'd charge a ridiculously hefty entrance fee because it's the only way to keep littering, trampling, graffitiying (is that a word?), chipping, gluing, campfire-under-overhang-making chilangos out. (chilangos are residents of mexico city that seem to have a desperate urge to make everything as ugly as the sh*thole they call their city, and yes, I do hate them.) It's sad, but probably the only way to keep the woods nice.
(and i think the word "graffiti" encompasses what you're trying to say... I'd cut those fukkin' punks' fingers off, that's about the only way to stop them)
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Jul 15, 2008, 9:31 AM
Post #64 of 76
(3496 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26804
|
stymingersfink wrote: sky7high wrote: happiegrrrl wrote: Perhaps, those who complain about the fee, if you take some time to learn just what the Mohonk Preserve is, besides a climbing/hiking destination, it might not bother you so hotly to support them. Our natural world is being sold to the highest bidder - people are so thirsty for oil that they are willing to look the other way and let lands designated for animal habitat and geological preserve "get the shaft"(oil shaft, that is). It is, frankly, quite amazing that the Smiley family had the foresight and resources to save such a large area from what would have become of it. You don't have to like paying $15. There's a simple solution - do not enter. One less set of footprints probably means a whole bunch more of those creepy crawly millipede prints..... who are probably food to birds that have seen their habitat dying off. Those millipedes poop like crazy and that, along with their decomposing bodies, makes the soil fertile, too. Yup, I once asked a fellow climber what he'd do if he were to be the owner of the woods that are near my hometown. He said he'd charge a ridiculously hefty entrance fee because it's the only way to keep littering, trampling, graffitiying (is that a word?), chipping, gluing, campfire-under-overhang-making chilangos out. (chilangos are residents of mexico city that seem to have a desperate urge to make everything as ugly as the sh*thole they call their city, and yes, I do hate them.) It's sad, but probably the only way to keep the woods nice. See? Even Mexico has a problem with "Fukkin' Spics" (and i think the word "graffiti" encompasses what you're trying to say... I'd cut those fukkin' punks' fingers off, that's about the only way to stop them)
I guess you get those fannys everywhere. Are yours obscenely sexist and ridiculously violent, too?
I met one who was an expert in dental care and (true story) saved me from having to get braces.
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Jul 15, 2008, 9:58 AM
Post #65 of 76
(3489 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26804
|
yarps wrote: I saw a Troll at the Gunks once..
|
|
|
|
|
jimo
Jul 15, 2008, 10:44 AM
Post #66 of 76
(3475 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 21, 2005
Posts: 79
|
sungam wrote: yarps wrote: I saw a Troll at the Gunks once.. Whoah! was he under a bridge?
|
|
|
|
|
sungam
Jul 15, 2008, 10:50 AM
Post #67 of 76
(3474 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 26804
|
Haha. I'm so glad there's nae rangers over here to piss you off.
I guess that there alot less traffic, too, so we probobly don't need any.
|
|
|
|
|
markc
Jul 15, 2008, 1:22 PM
Post #68 of 76
(3430 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 2481
|
coppertone wrote: markc wrote: marc801 wrote: Once again, most folks who complain about the fee forget that the Gunks are on private land - it's not a public (ie: government run) park. It's a private land preserve held in public trust. That's a pretty big assumption on your part, don't you think? I've never forgotten that the Gunks aren't public land, and that the preserve can charge what it pleases. That doesn't mean that $15 per day is reasonable from a personal perspective...With other options for fantastic climbing, the Gunks hasn't risen to the top of the list for me. YMMV. There are some pretty cheap people out there.
I love that 'cheap' is a four-letter word in our culture. If the shoe fits (and doesn't cost a lot), I guess I'll wear it. Your post hasn't provided any new information. Marc801 said people that complain about the high day-use fee forget that the Gunks is on public land. I refuted that, and you said I'm just cheap. So be it.
|
|
|
|
|
coppertone
Jul 15, 2008, 1:28 PM
Post #69 of 76
(3423 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 29, 2005
Posts: 32
|
markc wrote: I love that 'cheap' is a four-letter word in our culture. If the shoe fits (and doesn't cost a lot), I guess I'll wear it. Your post hasn't provided any new information. Marc801 said people that complain about the high day-use fee forget that the Gunks is on public land. I refuted that, and you said I'm just cheap. So be it.
Cheap isn't necessarily a bad thing. My father in law lived a very frugal life and now has a very comfortable retirement. If you don't want to spend the money that is fine, just don't complain that it is too expensive or not for free.
|
|
|
|
|
happiegrrrl
Jul 15, 2008, 2:01 PM
Post #70 of 76
(3407 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 4660
|
In reply to: With other options for fantastic climbing, the Gunks hasn't risen to the top of the list for me. YMMV.
Well, for me, the Gunks is really the only current viable option. Hopefully that will change in the not so distant future, but for now, it is what it is, and I am glad for it.
I have often wondered why the Preserve doesn't do a "5-Day" or some other sort of pass; one that would give at least some sort of break to the people doing an annual trek. I can only guess that they feel making an effort to promote the membership is important, as it allows them a way to educate(through their newsletter) amongst other reasons.
A person getting a one-day pass learns very little about the mission of the Mohonk Preserve, unless they make a concerted effort. Some will - most won't. I suppose that can be said about those with annual memberships too, but I have the feeling that awareness of the preserve environment and other issues probably does seep in to even the most stringent "the Gunks is my outdoor gym" type of user.
On the other and, if I compare spending 10 days at the Gunks and JTree.....
Gunks: $85.00 annual pass, $0.00 camping - Total - $85.00
Jtree: $30 annual pass(If I remember correctly, $90 camping(@ $10 per night) - Total - $130.00
EITHER of these places can be done on a less expensive scale, if one is so inclined. Not very difficult to do, either. They know that someone "could" scam, or heaven forbid, volunteer their time in exchange for a for a membership, and get a better deal....so it irritates them that, as an upright and law-abiding citizen with a job and limited free time, they have to pay the damned higher price - grrrrr....
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Jul 15, 2008, 2:32 PM
Post #71 of 76
(3387 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
happiegrrrl wrote: On the other and, if I compare spending 10 days at the Gunks and JTree..... Gunks: $85.00 annual pass, $0.00 camping - Total - $85.00 Jtree: $30 annual pass(If I remember correctly, $90 camping(@ $10 per night) - Total - $130.00
Fingers are crossed that it remains this way. Boo-hiss to the AMC and preserve with this regard. I know there's a history with local residents at the MUA and that the Preserve doesn't think Slime is a good, long-term solution due to a lack of facilities, but that doesn't mean I want pay camping. I kind of like parking my car in the lot and not moving it all weekend...for free. Makes the $85 worth it.
BTW - somewhat off the subject, what is the status of the land that is way down at the end of the Near Trapps where the climbing is not on Preserve Land. Who owns that land and what are the access restrictions? Just curious.
|
|
|
|
|
davidcollins
Jul 15, 2008, 4:17 PM
Post #72 of 76
(3331 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2002
Posts: 52
|
markc wrote: Needless to say, I'm used to climbing at areas with much lower fees. Climbing at Seneca Rocks, the New, the Daks, and other areas I've visited is free. The fees at both Red Rocks and Yosemite are very reasonable. With other options for fantastic climbing, the Gunks hasn't risen to the top of the list for me. YMMV.
It's true that the costs do add up at the Gunks but, in my opinion, the climbing at the Gunks is so good that it is well worth it. If you want trad climbing at ratings lower than 5.7, the Gunks is vastly superior to Seneca, the New and Red Rocks (I've never been to the Daks or Yosemite). There are dozens and dozens of good routes with those easier ratings (compared to the New where there are virtually none and Seneca where there are probably fewer than twenty). Even when the cliff is crowded, it is not hard to find a worthwhile lesser-known route that is open. I've been on one-star (out of three) easy routes at the Gunks which were as good as any route of comparable difficulty at Seneca. At other ratings, the story may be different but for easy trad the Gunks is phenomenal.
|
|
|
|
|
markc
Jul 15, 2008, 5:09 PM
Post #73 of 76
(3292 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 2481
|
I haven't trusted your opinion since you left CMU! It's good to bump into you, if just online. I hope Colorado is treating you well. I'll have to take you on your word this season, my one far-flung trip has already been taken. I'm sure I'll eventually get to the Gunks, and I'm willing to stand corrected.
|
|
|
|
|
ckirkwood9
Jul 15, 2008, 6:10 PM
Post #74 of 76
(3248 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 262
|
WOW, the original poster must not have reaized that the area already lost acres of forest due to flames! *laugh*
what a flame!
yes... everyone should stay away from the gunks, it's expensive, horrible, too-easy too hard climbing on over crowded, overly noisy, overly doggy-ed rock.
Leave it to those of us who want to pay the few measly sheckles to help defray the costs of keeping the port-a-potties lower than your ass-cheeks, the trail free of trash/major debris, and the anchors relatively shiney and new (where they exist *smile*) OH YEA... and the parking lot free of criminals who may break into your car while you're hating your day on some super quality rock.
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Jul 15, 2008, 7:21 PM
Post #75 of 76
(3215 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
markc wrote: coppertone wrote: markc wrote: marc801 wrote: Once again, most folks who complain about the fee forget that the Gunks are on private land - it's not a public (ie: government run) park. It's a private land preserve held in public trust. That's a pretty big assumption on your part, don't you think? I've never forgotten that the Gunks aren't public land, and that the preserve can charge what it pleases. That doesn't mean that $15 per day is reasonable from a personal perspective...With other options for fantastic climbing, the Gunks hasn't risen to the top of the list for me. YMMV. There are some pretty cheap people out there. Marc801 said people that complain about the high day-use fee forget that the Gunks is on public land. I refuted that, ...
Cheap isn't a bad thing, but it's pretty disingenuous for a climber who travels several hundred miles round trip in a private vehicle with $120 shoes, a $160 rope, a $65 harness, a dozen $45 - $85 cams, 30 $7 biners, and the remaining several hundred dollars worth of trinkets, all in a $150 pack, along with a few hundred dollars worth of sleeping bag, pad, and tent to complain about the exorbitant $15 (less than the cost of a movie for two or 4 gallons of gas) day fee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
