|
Lucas79
Oct 26, 2011, 10:33 PM
Post #52 of 102
(13142 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 26, 2011
Posts: 7
|
First, I'm not comparing climbing at the gunks to climbing gyms....someone else made that silly comparison and I was simply replying to him. Second, I don't feel like I'm being entitled at all. I'm all for paying to upkeep the natural areas that we use......I'm just saying that they are charging way to much. Am I the only one who thinks that $17 per day per climber is to much? The bottom line is that this is the most expensive place to climb in the country....probably the continent. I'm not a whiner....just stating the obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Oct 26, 2011, 10:54 PM
Post #53 of 102
(13135 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
Lucas79 wrote: First, I'm not comparing climbing at the gunks to climbing gyms....someone else made that silly comparison and I was simply replying to him. Second, I don't feel like I'm being entitled at all. I'm all for paying to upkeep the natural areas that we use......I'm just saying that they are charging way to much. Am I the only one who thinks that $17 per day per climber is to much? The bottom line is that this is the most expensive place to climb in the country....probably the continent. I'm not a whiner....just stating the obvious.
don't go then. we appreciate the parking spot and less people on the wall. at least stop whining.
Go read the PDF i posted. 13% of revenue comes from day passes, 25% from memberships.
put down 3 grand and climb for there for life, plus friends with the guest passes you get.
|
|
|
|
|
sp115
Oct 27, 2011, 12:05 AM
Post #54 of 102
(13128 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2007
Posts: 515
|
Lucas79 wrote: First, I'm not comparing climbing at the gunks to climbing gyms....someone else made that silly comparison and I was simply replying to him. Second, I don't feel like I'm being entitled at all. I'm all for paying to upkeep the natural areas that we use......I'm just saying that they are charging way to much. Am I the only one who thinks that $17 per day per climber is to much? The bottom line is that this is the most expensive place to climb in the country....probably the continent. I'm not a whiner....just stating the obvious.
Happy with the responses so far? Because you got the answer you need: go buy a pass and enjoy. The rest is you ignoring an appropriate analogy and not understanding the difference between a state/federal funded park and a private reserve. But since you have the shovel, feel free to dig yourself in deeper if that's what you want.
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Oct 27, 2011, 1:59 AM
Post #55 of 102
(13107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
Yep, it's kind of expensive - when you want shit someone has to pay for it. In this case taxpayers are out of the loop so you have to pay for what you want as opposed to someone else paying for it for you.
My daughter just got a season pass. Soon she'll be able to out climb you in bouldering, trad, and sport, indoors and out.
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Oct 27, 2011, 2:04 AM
Post #56 of 102
(13105 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
Well, maybe not indoor trad.
|
|
|
|
|
petsfed
Oct 27, 2011, 2:14 AM
Post #57 of 102
(13099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 8599
|
A-Bowl wrote: You're funny man. This thread is one of the reasons I spent over a week up in the adirondacks and a month at the new and one only one day at the gunks. Just tried to stay clear of you guys. We got the sense on the east coast that people were so used to paying for shit they actually sought it out rather than find free/cheap alternatives. Examples being everyone packed into pay camping when there was free national forest camping close by. I Guess you guys need your "services" like extra wide paved trails, paid security guards and sweet smelling toilets. I for one am super stoked your kind huddle together in groups banding together to pay some guys mortgage somewhere.
Good to know who to blame when areas get closed or switch to pay-to-play models to handle the ever-growing numbers of freeloading, self-styled iconoclast "dirtbags" who roll up in new cars.
I don't have a dog in the Gunks fight, but getting pissed off when the people who can afford nicer services actually, you know, PAY for nicer services is kind of silly, especially when I've seen some of my favorite crags in the west come under increasing external control because a thousand trust-funders with dredlocks think they don't have to pay for anything since they're somehow (inexplicably) cut from the same cloth as the Stonemasters. Its a libertarian paradise of free camping out west because there's too much land to manage it strictly, not because climbers (or people in general) have shown that they can be entrusted with anything and not shit all over it.
|
|
|
|
|
Lucas79
Oct 27, 2011, 3:08 AM
Post #58 of 102
(13088 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 26, 2011
Posts: 7
|
Wow....your daughter must be proud to have a father like you. Talking shit to me and taking low blows instead of having a level headed adult conversation. Nice job....you've really outdone yourself.....
(This post was edited by Lucas79 on Oct 27, 2011, 3:08 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
Lucas79
Oct 27, 2011, 3:24 AM
Post #59 of 102
(13082 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 26, 2011
Posts: 7
|
I understand the differences between state, federal, and privately owned land. In this case the PRIVATE landowners are charging way to much. I'm not going to beat this dead horse anymore. We all know that climbing at the Gunks is way more expensive than everywhere else. If I lived in NYC I'd take your advice and buy an annual pass. Living in Boston I doubt I'd get my moneys worth, having the white mountains, the Adirondacks, and trips to indian creek and yosemite planned. I'll probably get to the Gunks 3 or 4 times, pay the daily fees, and continue sobbing about how expensive it is.
Thanks to those of you who gave me some level headed responses though. I purposely haven't attacked anyone or anything. I've simply presented my case like an adult.....as I'd expect other adults to do as well. Cheers
|
|
|
|
|
jakedatc
Oct 27, 2011, 4:16 AM
Post #60 of 102
(13071 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 11054
|
Lucas79 wrote: I understand the differences between state, federal, and privately owned land. In this case the PRIVATE landowners are charging way to much. I'm not going to beat this dead horse anymore. We all know that climbing at the Gunks is way more expensive than everywhere else. If I lived in NYC I'd take your advice and buy an annual pass. Living in Boston I doubt I'd get my moneys worth, having the white mountains, the Adirondacks, and trips to indian creek and yosemite planned. I'll probably get to the Gunks 3 or 4 times, pay the daily fees, and continue sobbing about how expensive it is. Thanks to those of you who gave me some level headed responses though. I purposely haven't attacked anyone or anything. I've simply presented my case like an adult.....as I'd expect other adults to do as well. Cheers
I live in RI and go to NH and NY and they are similar distances. Daks are far further than the gunks. just sayin'
what we are trying to say is that the Mohonk preserve uses that money for a ton of things that make paying a bit more worth it. They also use a lot of money to secure areas nearby so they are not built into housing developments.
You don't seem to complain about the areas that people donate money to the access fund to buy? PNRP at the red... Laurel Knob etc.
Btw Rumney costs $3 to park and $8-15 per night per person to camp so it is not that far off. and has less parking, less area maintenance, limited ranger staff, very limited rescue service, etc
Think less of it as just a climbing pass and i think you will feel better about it.
if that doesn't work go climb at quincy quarries and Hammond pond and decide if climbing quality rock is worth more than those choss heaps
|
|
|
|
|
jbrown2
Oct 27, 2011, 4:21 AM
Post #61 of 102
(13068 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 4, 2005
Posts: 96
|
A point that hasnt been made yet is that the Gunks is located next to one of the most populated places in the country. If the gunks was open to the public, for free, it would not only be over run my climbers it would be mobbed by kids looking to drink behind boulders, families taking the dog for a walk, young adults looking for a place to make out etc. The preserve is a beautiful place and people want to be there. 17 dollar fee keeps people aweay. that is a big purpose. it preserves, somewhat, the atmosphear for poeple who can and want to spent the money. I bet there is a scholership program if you cant afford it.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Oct 27, 2011, 2:41 PM
Post #62 of 102
(13030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
Lucas79 wrote: Am I the only one who thinks that $17 per day per climber is to much? T
No, I think $17 per person per day is too much, but the place is overrun on the weekends, so it's probably appropriate for the demand. The annual pass, however, is more than worth it.
Buy the annual pass. You'll find that many Boston climbers climb in the 'Gunks on a frequent basis. Six days in the 'Gunks is a perfectly reasonable number of days to climb there, even with the Whites, Rumney, and Cannon.
As Jake said, the 'Daks are a lot further from Boston than the 'Gunks are.
|
|
|
|
|
koonuy
Oct 27, 2011, 3:59 PM
Post #63 of 102
(13007 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 27, 2011
Posts: 3
|
I just went to the gunks for the first time this year near the end of the season. And though $17 seems like alot (compared to week long JTree car pass i got) i didnt mind paying it for a days worth of hanging out with some friends and getting some amazing climb on. Next year i'll definitely get the pass, also people... if 17 is too much, just go a little further down the road to peterskill where there's tons of bouldering and fun single pitch routes, its only $7 per person.
I mean come on, you come to new york and pay 6 for a bud or 11 for a cocktail, yeah it sucks, but you didnt come here for bargains. You came for the experience, and frankly $17 for a day of awesome experience is well worth it, go more than 6 times, get the annual pass and then its free everytime after. Considering how much it costs to go up to the ESB and waiting in dismal lines, i'd take the day at the Gunks any day.
And if you're visiting, you paid for plane tickets, gas money, lodging, or whatever it costs for a visit, and now you complain about $17 for some beautiful rock? Why dont you go watch a movie, oh right, because its $12 a ticket.
$17 can go a long ways at the gunks, try that in the city you chose to visit, move to, or make a stop in.
Brainwashed? maybe. But im in love with gunks quartzite (NOT GRANITE as originally posted), and my hometown.
(This post was edited by koonuy on Oct 27, 2011, 5:42 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Oct 27, 2011, 4:26 PM
Post #64 of 102
(12998 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
koonuy wrote: Brainwashed? maybe. But im in love with gunks granite, and my hometown.
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Oct 27, 2011, 4:37 PM
Post #65 of 102
(12993 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
johnwesely wrote: koonuy wrote: Brainwashed? maybe. But im in love with gunks granite, and my hometown.
+1
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Oct 27, 2011, 4:38 PM
Post #66 of 102
(12992 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
Lucas79 wrote: First, I'm not comparing climbing at the gunks to climbing gyms....someone else made that silly comparison and I was simply replying to him. Second, I don't feel like I'm being entitled at all. I'm all for paying to upkeep the natural areas that we use......I'm just saying that they are charging way to much. Am I the only one who thinks that $17 per day per climber is to much? The bottom line is that this is the most expensive place to climb in the country....probably the continent. I'm not a whiner...
Then why are you whining?
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
johnwesely
Oct 27, 2011, 4:40 PM
Post #67 of 102
(12988 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Posts: 5360
|
curt wrote: Lucas79 wrote: First, I'm not comparing climbing at the gunks to climbing gyms....someone else made that silly comparison and I was simply replying to him. Second, I don't feel like I'm being entitled at all. I'm all for paying to upkeep the natural areas that we use......I'm just saying that they are charging way to much. Am I the only one who thinks that $17 per day per climber is to much? The bottom line is that this is the most expensive place to climb in the country....probably the continent. I'm not a whiner... Then why are you whining? Curt
Never heard of cognitive dissonance?
|
|
|
|
|
sp115
Oct 27, 2011, 5:11 PM
Post #68 of 102
(12977 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2007
Posts: 515
|
curt wrote: Lucas79 wrote: First, I'm not comparing climbing at the gunks to climbing gyms....someone else made that silly comparison and I was simply replying to him. Second, I don't feel like I'm being entitled at all. I'm all for paying to upkeep the natural areas that we use......I'm just saying that they are charging way to much. Am I the only one who thinks that $17 per day per climber is to much? The bottom line is that this is the most expensive place to climb in the country....probably the continent. I'm not a whiner... Then why are you whining? Curt
He probably just saw this:
http://www.numbeo.com/...p;city2=Boston%2C+MA
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Oct 27, 2011, 5:37 PM
Post #69 of 102
(12963 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
koonuy wrote: Brainwashed? maybe. But im in love with gunks granite, and my hometown.
The Gunks rock is not granite.
|
|
|
|
|
koonuy
Oct 27, 2011, 5:41 PM
Post #70 of 102
(12960 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 27, 2011
Posts: 3
|
My bad, quartzite.
though gunks granite does sound so much better.
Anyways. Point still holds true!
Post edited
|
|
|
|
|
curt
Oct 27, 2011, 5:42 PM
Post #71 of 102
(12958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
|
shockabuku wrote: koonuy wrote: Brainwashed? maybe. But im in love with gunks granite, and my hometown. The Gunks rock is not granite.
moral of this thread:
Do not take the Gunks for granite. 
Curt
|
|
|
|
|
koonuy
Oct 27, 2011, 6:27 PM
Post #72 of 102
(12947 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 27, 2011
Posts: 3
|
I see what you did there.
Well played.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Oct 27, 2011, 9:11 PM
Post #73 of 102
(12921 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
sp115 wrote: curt wrote: Lucas79 wrote: First, I'm not comparing climbing at the gunks to climbing gyms....someone else made that silly comparison and I was simply replying to him. Second, I don't feel like I'm being entitled at all. I'm all for paying to upkeep the natural areas that we use......I'm just saying that they are charging way to much. Am I the only one who thinks that $17 per day per climber is to much? The bottom line is that this is the most expensive place to climb in the country....probably the continent. I'm not a whiner... Then why are you whining? Curt He probably just saw this: http://www.numbeo.com/...p;city2=Boston%2C+MA
Holy crap, Boston higher than both New York and SF!!!!??? Can that be right?
GO
|
|
|
|
|
mheyman
Oct 27, 2011, 9:43 PM
Post #74 of 102
(12910 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 25, 2002
Posts: 607
|
There have been plenty of well stated arguments here as to why it is well worth a climbers $17 fee to climb at the Mohonk Preserve. I’d simply want to add stress to the fact if these climbers thought a day pass at a gym more worthwhile, they’d be there instead.
Personally I often get my yearly memberships worth of climbing almost any nice day I climb there, and I consider $90/yr a bargain! That’s why I have a keep my membership since many years I actually don’t climb there at least 6 days.
Those trespassers who aren’t paying should be thank the others like me who are. We are the people making it possible for you to climb at the Mohonk Preserve.
It has been stated here that the Mohonk Preserve was the most expensive place to climb in the US! I suggest they try climbing on Palisades Interstate Parkway land in daylight! Though some of its cliffs are much closer to NYC I am sure they will find it less friendly less convenient and and ultimately far more expensive too!
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Oct 28, 2011, 2:41 AM
Post #75 of 102
(12889 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
cracklover wrote: sp115 wrote: curt wrote: Lucas79 wrote: First, I'm not comparing climbing at the gunks to climbing gyms....someone else made that silly comparison and I was simply replying to him. Second, I don't feel like I'm being entitled at all. I'm all for paying to upkeep the natural areas that we use......I'm just saying that they are charging way to much. Am I the only one who thinks that $17 per day per climber is to much? The bottom line is that this is the most expensive place to climb in the country....probably the continent. I'm not a whiner... Then why are you whining? Curt He probably just saw this: http://www.numbeo.com/...p;city2=Boston%2C+MAHoly crap, Boston higher than both New York and SF!!!!??? Can that be right? GO
Yeah, Boston is arguably the most expensive city to live in cost-of-living-wise. I know, it's weird, but it's true when you factor in income vs. expenses.
And yet, 10 years ago, when I was a budget analyst for the House Ways and Means committee, I was stunned to learn that the only states with a lower total tax rate than "tax"achusetts were all the states without an income tax. Yeah, go figure that one out. Sounds weird, but it was true (might even still be).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
