|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Oct 3, 2007, 5:58 PM
Post #51 of 202
(6146 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
BradP wrote: The Gunks is supposedly a climbing destination ensconced in traditional ethics. That is, a climbing area where routes are led from the ground up and ideally without permanently placed protection. In fact, many routes have been put up in the Gunks in impeccable style; hundreds of fine examples abound. Jacob's Ladder is quintessential. In 1960 Phil Jacobus on-sight led the first ascent of the Gunks' first 5.10. Jacob's Ladder is now rated 10b X. The 1970s saw the firm establishment of 5.12 in the Gunks, routes such as The Throne, Kama Sutra and Kansas City were established - the first ascentionists adhering to a staunch traditional ethic. Meanwhile Rich Romano developed Millbrook in the purest of style, forcing the creation of many R and X rated testpieces. In 1975 Creature Features saw its FA, only to have its first first ascentionists berated by Henry Barber as they had "Violated the high stylistic standards of the day by previewing the route... [on] toprope" (Dick Williams). Mark Robinson of Creature Features' FA party repented after Barber's chastising. The 80's saw a cadre of hard climbers out to demonstrate that difficult routes could be climbed ground up and without the use of pre-placed protection. This past weekend I saw countless top-ropes obscuring the rock at the Nears and Trapps alike. Routes with proud histories are now being top-roped by 5.8 climbers ( just because you can top-rope 5.11 or 5.12 does not mean you are a 5.11 or 5.12 climber). This undermines the potential for a 5.11 or 5.12 leader to repeat a route in the style of the FA. A progressive mindset dictates that one repeat the past with the minimum being the manner of the first ascent. No reversionism please. Worse than top-roping routes into submission however is the unnecessary clutter of flashy nylon adorning the gray quartzite as fixed top-rope anchors. With the dictums established by past generations of Gunks climbers and leave no trace ethics in mind, I chose to begin the task of eliminating unnecessary clutter from the rock. I took a first step by removing years of slings off of the classic Bonnie's Roof. Many arbitrary anchors as these abound throughout the Gunks which serve no purpose other than to facilitate the ease of a top-rope ascent of a nearby route. Most of all climb safe. I'll see you out there, Brad
oh boy, there is going to be a lot of editing in RC profiles
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Oct 3, 2007, 6:12 PM
Post #52 of 202
(6128 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
cracklover wrote: shockabuku wrote: cracklover wrote: shockabuku wrote: Personally, I always thought it odd that the Preserve itself didn't just replace the webbing on those anchors that need it once or twice a year and let people know what color is current to prevent the buildup of tattered old shit. But they don't, or didn't when I last climbed there regularly two years ago. Are you kidding? Just because the place has a lot of people does not make it a gym. The preserve is not (and *should* not be) responsible for "maintaining" the cliff. No, I'm not kidding. You're dealing with a problem that right now has no solution. This is a potentially effective solution. I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. I am not "dealing with a problem." I disagree with you that there *is* a problem. You are the one who wants mommy to come and clean your room after you mess it up. Do you also think the preserve should be responsible for gluing on loose holds, trundling bigger ones, and maintaining every anchor? Never!!! The Gunks looks like a gym, but it is not!
Nice, the infantile remark that is. Great. Why does a legitimate discussion have to degrade into personal insults? If I insulted you somewhere, I apologize, it wasn't intentional.
cracklover wrote: And as for why it shouldn't be - you think the preserve fees are high now - how bad do you think they'd be if the preserve was responsible for maintaining a "safe" environment for the climbers? Holy hell, imagine the actuarial table needed to calculate the insurance required to cover all the New Yorkers with their potential lawsuits on a weekly basis! It's astronomical! In reply to: You say the Preserve is not, and should not, be responsible for maintaining the cliff. And if they aren't, and shouldn't be, then I extend your idea that no one is, or should be, responsible for maintaining the cliff and it should disintegrate into chaos. As far as fixed slings are concerned? Yup! shockabuku wrote: My point is, it doesn't appear that you're proposing an effective solution; you just seem to be bitching that you don't like something and you want other people to be like you and believe what you believe. That's not terribly useful. Now if all you want to do is complain, well, ok, just let that be known in the future and I'll refrain from making any judgemental commentary. Huh? Where did you see that I'm complaining about anything? I agree that some nests of old tat are an eyesore, and maybe next time I go I'll bring some new webbing and do some replacing, or even just strip some. Though I'm not really enough of a local to have a good sense of what should be stripped. Which is why I phrased my question about the nest of webbing at the intermediate belay on Horseman as a question. GO
My mistake. I mistook it as sarcasm.
I took this thread as a discussion about ethics and style at the Gunks, particularly toproping behavior and the accompanying effects, which include leaving behind undesirable evidence. I assumed that said discussion might also include some suggestions on how the negative effects of that behavior might be mitigated. So I threw out an idea. I expected that it might receive some criticism in an objective form that might lead to other discussion.
What is your perspective on the content and purpose of the discussion?
|
|
|
|
|
jgloporto
Oct 3, 2007, 6:16 PM
Post #53 of 202
(6120 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 8, 2006
Posts: 5522
|
BradP wrote: There are values tied up in this too. The top-roping is endemic of the destruction of a system of ethics once held high. I for one would love to see the Gunks' historical values upheld.
I personally have no objections to people TR'ing something and I think it says nothing about style or ethics. Style is always a personal decision and ethics is far bigger than tying up lines on a busy weekend.
What we are talking about is etiquette. These are things we don't need to learn in the Gunks, these are things we should have learned in the Pre-K playground. Share, be polite, and clean up after yourself. That is all.
The people at the Gunks are no worse than the people on the trails or the people on the beach for that matter.
The last time (and I can tell you it will be the last time) I went to Peter's Kill, 18 idiots set up three top ropes and clogged six or seven lines for an entire afternoon as they confiscated an entire section of the cliff. That's not style or ethics, that's just obnoxious. That's the guy who cuts in line at the supermarket, the guy that flashes his lights on the highway, the guy who doesn't give up his seat on the bus for the pregnant chick, etc., etc.
Manners and etiquette, not style and ethics.
|
|
|
|
|
wonderwoman
Oct 3, 2007, 6:23 PM
Post #54 of 202
(6107 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 14, 2002
Posts: 4275
|
Dear Mohonk Preserve -
Clean the effing bathroom once in a while! That pit toilet is scarier than hell! I'm sure the Access Fund is so proud to have their name attached to that thing.
That is all!
|
|
|
|
|
lucander
Oct 3, 2007, 6:33 PM
Post #55 of 202
(6094 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2003
Posts: 274
|
"but standing at the uberpooper spouting off about historical ethics to someone setting up camp on Laurel (who most likely wouldn't know who Fritz and Hans were) seems like pissing into the wind."
Maybe that's why the Preserve has the plaque dedicated to Hans and Frtz over there.
On a more serious note, this is the first intelligent post I've seen on rockclimbing dot com in a long time - it can almost pass a thread on Supertopo from Stannard or Rezucha.
I've only been climbing regularly at the Gunks for three seasons and in the past two I've been on the stone for at least one hundred days. Although living there makes me more relaxed about the paucity of good style at the Gunks, I sympathise with the poor guy who works Monday - Friday, drives 2-5 hours to onsight Bonnie's Roof as a 5.9 testpiece, and arrives at the base of the climb to find that this prize route is being used to toprope the Throne. Compounding matters is that there is a rope from the same group on Ant's Line, a nearby route that is shorter but of similar quality. That route still has the gear in it and a toprope is hanging down Ent's Line. Meanwhile, there's "climbers" hanging around in a hammock while their inept friend flails away on a hard testpiece.
Mac Wall is a whole different story, it's often crowded by very good climbers who are Gunks regulars. Many times they'll set up shop with their friends and enjoy a great afternoon workout...can you blame them - especially when they've probably all lead each route many times? But imagine rolling three hours to try your skill onsighting Co Ex and finding a toprope for 3-5 climbers set up for most of the day. Again, grim. There's a time and place (hell, there's even a photo of an aging Fritz toproping a much less polished Never Never Land), A *** route on the weekend just isn't it.
In addition to not respecting leader's rights, endemic toproping builds excess chalk, polishes the rock, and creates a bad crag atmosphere. It's one thing when people tr in the Uberfall, a whole different story when folks take up the first pitch of a classic multipitch (Bonnie's, Snooky, Birdland, et. al.).
Despite having a disproportionate amount of bad style, the Gunks remain the fiest crag in the northeast. There's no need to seige toprope a 5.8 or a 5.11 because there's outstanding well protected and safe routes at all grades. In short, if 5.10 is too hard, go lead Moonlight (5.6), Limelight (5.7), or Casablanca (5.8ish). Build a base of skills, a good head, and then take your turn on Retribution or Transcon...as long as no one is climbing Bunny or Birdland and dropping their toprope on your head.
Like life, there's such a grey area between the black and white. Following a route is one thing, ganging a route is another. Is there a difference in a resident hardman taking his 20 lap rope solo than three folks with a tr on Something Interesting?
Finally Brad, thanks for calling us out and cleaning up the rubbish. The days of Raffa, Clune, and Hill trying their damndest to put up difficult run out test pieces from the ground up are long gone. Maybe it's time we return to our climbing roots and re-visit tried and true conservative climbing style.
David
|
|
|
|
|
lucander
Oct 3, 2007, 6:40 PM
Post #56 of 202
(6080 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2003
Posts: 274
|
What do you expect a 4,000 gallon vault of shit to smell like?  The toilet gets cleaned every Monday and Friday. It's usually pretty gross but hey, it's better than thousands of shitholes in the talus.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Oct 3, 2007, 6:41 PM
Post #57 of 202
(6078 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
shockabuku wrote: cracklover wrote: I'm sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. I am not "dealing with a problem." I disagree with you that there *is* a problem. You are the one who wants mommy to come and clean your room after you mess it up. Do you also think the preserve should be responsible for gluing on loose holds, trundling bigger ones, and maintaining every anchor? Never!!! The Gunks looks like a gym, but it is not! Nice, the infantile remark that is. Great. Why does a legitimate discussion have to degrade into personal insults? If I insulted you somewhere, I apologize, it wasn't intentional.
No you didn't insult me, and while my remark was meant to be worded strongly, it was not intended as a personal insult. I was trying to show you the fallacy of your argument. I think you understand my point. I really *do* think some of the actions of the Preserve are so "maintenance" oriented, that it's hard not to allow ourselved to feel coddled.
In truth, I've made the mistake in the past of thinking of the Gunks as a playground, a gym. It's easy to see it that way, because it kind of looks like it! Not only have I realized my error, but I I've realized that it's terribly dangerous both for our own health and for the health of the Preserve to think that way. Holds break, webbing wears out, pins fall out, loose rock gets kicked off, etc, etc, etc.
That's why I worded my statement strongly. It's easy to have a "The Preserve is looking out for me" attitude at the Gunks. IMO, such an attitude is dangerous and should be strongly discouraged.
In reply to: I took this thread as a discussion about ethics and style at the Gunks, particularly toproping behavior and the accompanying effects, which include leaving behind undesirable evidence. I assumed that said discussion might also include some suggestions on how the negative effects of that behavior might be mitigated. So I threw out an idea. I expected that it might receive some criticism in an objective form that might lead to other discussion.
Sorry the form of the criticism wasn't to your liking. Eh, I'm from NJ originally, sorry about that! Basically, we agree on the what this discussion is about.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
lucander
Oct 3, 2007, 6:46 PM
Post #58 of 202
(6061 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2003
Posts: 274
|
A review of Accidents in North American Mountaineering reveals that the number of accidents at the Gunks has decreased incrementaly over the past several years - maybe Gunkies' propensity to toprope has something to do with it?
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Oct 3, 2007, 6:52 PM
Post #59 of 202
(6051 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
Ok, thanks for the response. Yeah, you're right about thinking the Gunks is a safe/maintained place is dangerous. I seem to remember a couple of winters ago a big block fell out from pretty low and took out a medium sized tree, I think somewhere around Shockley's ceiling and there are pretty big pieces sitting around just waiting to crush people. I was looking at the idea of the preserve maintaining the webbing as a measure to reduce garbage than one to improve safety. I guess that would probably mire them in liability however. Oh well, I'll be back in a couple of years - I hope it'll still be a good place to climb.
|
|
|
|
|
armsrforclimbing
Oct 3, 2007, 6:55 PM
Post #60 of 202
(6042 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2004
Posts: 214
|
I started out years ago top roping at Peterskill, then took some guided trad trips. Now that I have been competently leading trad solo I try to find a top rope free area. Just like I don't want to be bothered with unsolicited advice, I also don't want to infringe on other peoples right to learn the same we all did.
If you know that the top ropers are annoying, unsafe, whatever, park at the minnewaska lot and take the stairmaster up to where the multipitch starts. This whole attitude of "my pursuits are the most noble, out of my way" really flys in the face of the traditional outdoors ethic.
The Gunks aren't the wilderness anymore. Unless we go down the road of limiting the amount of "toproping passes" that are handed out with respect to the amount of "trad passes" the problem will not go away. The idea of limiting access to the climbs is ugly, and smacks of the idea of area closures.
Those that have suggested going to Millbrook are thinking along the right lines in my opinion. That area is untapped (for now). I think that areas like those should be kept pristene for as long as possible. Before we know it Rock and Ice will feature it in a "Hidden Areas" article, and that area will be over run too. Then the last option will be to pay to stay at skytop and climb in the newly reopened, guide only, area.
|
|
|
|
|
armsrforclimbing
Oct 3, 2007, 6:57 PM
Post #61 of 202
(6039 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 11, 2004
Posts: 214
|
After re-reading my post, I am going to move to Alaska.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Oct 3, 2007, 7:08 PM
Post #62 of 202
(6015 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
shockabuku wrote: I think somewhere around Shockley's ceiling and there are pretty big pieces sitting around just waiting to crush people.
Just a few weeks ago, on a busy weekend morning, one of those big chunks fell off. No-one was hurt, but I understand that one guide's clients decided to call it a day early. Climbing, it turned out, can be dangerous and scary. No doubt about it, big rock fall is scary as hell.
In reply to: Oh well, I'll be back in a couple of years - I hope it'll still be a good place to climb.
I believe you just got to the heart of what we're *all* hoping for with this thread.
Cheers,
GO
|
|
|
|
|
sknowlton
Oct 3, 2007, 7:09 PM
Post #63 of 202
(6012 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2004
Posts: 99
|
To the OP:
Weekdays. Climb weekdays.
Climbed on Monday this week (10/1) beautiful day----saw only 2 other parties besides my self and partner until 12 noon, when a few other folks meandered in (BTW---to the 2 ladies on Betty----nice leads!) and had my choice of routes.
Agree with you re: toprope hogging of routes, but remember----there are only about 1000 other choices at the Gunks.
And: Get out early or get over it. Even on weekends if you're out early, you can get your route.
|
|
|
|
|
Dillbag
Oct 3, 2007, 8:01 PM
Post #64 of 202
(5964 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 9, 2007
Posts: 93
|
In reply to: Humidity, rain, heat, millipedes, stiff grades, lichen, dying trees - this has to be the worst good crag in America
...Dave, you forgot the wasps! And TRs everywhere!
You back at school? Or still Rangering?
|
|
|
|
|
BradP
Oct 3, 2007, 8:05 PM
Post #65 of 202
(5958 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2007
Posts: 20
|
I do climb my share of weekdays, in fact I was there on Monday, and it was a really nice day. My buddy thought the same, especially after he battled his way up a very choice route on his ticklist.
|
|
|
|
|
surgeon1
Oct 3, 2007, 8:55 PM
Post #66 of 202
(5902 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 25, 2006
Posts: 13
|
This is a timely thread, having just returned from the Gunks this past weekend. My wife and I were just starting to lead a "classic" 5.7 when some lard ass suddenly comes down on his top rope from the adjacent climb and basically forced us off the climb after my wife had started climbing. She had to down climb to get off the route. He and his buddies claimed they had been waiting a "long time" to get on the route, but really they had been enjoying the adjacent route while we waited for the party ahead of us to finish leading the climb. I didn't feel like getting into a big argument but clearly they were now tying up two classic climbs with their dam top rope and I don't think that is fair..if a party has started to lead a climb you can't just lower down from an adjacent climb clipping gear as directionals from the top down and claim the climb for your own.
I have no problem with people toproping climbs but people need to be reasonable..if a party has started to lead a climb you can't bully them off of it by lowering of the adjacent climb! If you read Williams' guide book he is quite specific about what to do in this situation: "Because this is a trad climbing area, custom dictates that the party that plans to lead has the right to go first. This means that no party that is climbing one route in order to top rope an adjoining route should try to claim that route and stop another party from leading it"
nuff said
|
|
|
|
|
Dillbag
Oct 3, 2007, 9:03 PM
Post #67 of 202
(5891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 9, 2007
Posts: 93
|
surgeon1 wrote: ...My wife and I were just starting to lead a "classic" 5.7 when some lard ass suddenly comes down on his top rope from the adjacent climb and basically forced us off the climb after my wife had started climbing. She had to down climb to get off the route. He and his buddies claimed they had been waiting a "long time" to get on the route, but really they had been enjoying the adjacent route while we waited for the party ahead of us to finish leading the climb. I didn't feel like getting into a big argument but clearly they were now tying up two classic climbs with their dam top rope and I don't think that is fair..if a party has started to lead a climb you can't just lower down from an adjacent climb clipping gear as directionals from the top down and claim the climb for your own. I have no problem with people toproping climbs but people need to be reasonable..if a party has started to lead a climb you can't bully them off of it by lowering of the adjacent climb! If you read Williams' guide book he is quite specific about what to do in this situation: "Because this is a trad climbing area, custom dictates that the party that plans to lead has the right to go first. This means that no party that is climbing one route in order to top rope an adjoining route should try to claim that route and stop another party from leading it" nuff said
No, "nuff" was not said...
Yes it is unfortunate for you that this happened, but you said it yourself... You didn't want to get into an argument.
Well, this is the kind of thing that allows people who are obnoxious "bully" types to continue doing what they are doing... (maybe some don't know better) Instead of whining about it on RC.com, perhaps a bit of live education would have been more beneficial.
If myself or one of my partners is leading and someone does something along those lines (it has happened) they hear about it immediately... Because it's not just rude, it's a safety issue!
Next time sack up and do a bit of educating!
(I always try to start out in a friendly way... but, well... you know how it goes)
|
|
|
|
|
caughtinside
Oct 3, 2007, 9:07 PM
Post #68 of 202
(5884 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 30603
|
surgeon1 wrote: This is a timely thread, having just returned from the Gunks this past weekend. My wife and I were just starting to lead a "classic" 5.7 when some lard ass suddenly comes down on his top rope from the adjacent climb and basically forced us off the climb after my wife had started climbing. She had to down climb to get off the route. He and his buddies claimed they had been waiting a "long time" to get on the route, but really they had been enjoying the adjacent route while we waited for the party ahead of us to finish leading the climb. I didn't feel like getting into a big argument but clearly they were now tying up two classic climbs with their dam top rope and I don't think that is fair..if a party has started to lead a climb you can't just lower down from an adjacent climb clipping gear as directionals from the top down and claim the climb for your own. I have no problem with people toproping climbs but people need to be reasonable..if a party has started to lead a climb you can't bully them off of it by lowering of the adjacent climb! If you read Williams' guide book he is quite specific about what to do in this situation: "Because this is a trad climbing area, custom dictates that the party that plans to lead has the right to go first. This means that no party that is climbing one route in order to top rope an adjoining route should try to claim that route and stop another party from leading it" nuff said
I can't believe you let them get away with that horseshit. Weren't the rest of those topropers right next to you while your racked up? WHy didn't they say anything??
|
|
|
|
|
cliffmama
Oct 3, 2007, 9:17 PM
Post #69 of 202
(5878 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 16, 2003
Posts: 65
|
I find it amusing how people are dropping Dick Williams' name to justify their points about how evil top-roping is. Kinda funny since I've climbed with him and top-roped climbs. 
For better or for worse, times have changed. Be patient, spread etiquette by example, teach newbies good ethics, communicate with other parties, and remember to have fun.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Oct 3, 2007, 9:18 PM
Post #70 of 202
(5876 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Dillbag wrote: Instead of whining about it on RC.com, perhaps a bit of live education would have been more beneficial.
I think it's way beyond that. It's well worth having a larger public discourse, because the folks who think that "first come, first served" is the highest ethic are simply taking over.
So yes, I hope he didn't just quietly abandon his route. But if it gets to the point where it's a hundred to one, well, he, and you, and I, will have no choice. That's kind of the point of this thread, no? I for one am glad he raised that example here.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
surgeon1
Oct 3, 2007, 9:34 PM
Post #71 of 202
(5861 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 25, 2006
Posts: 13
|
I actually put up a bit of a stink but they were greener than green and obviously had no idea what they were doing was wrong/ bad ethics... I did try and reason with them but it was quickly escalating into an argument and, well, I just wanted to climb so we moved on to another climb.
And to respond to caughtinside... I was in such a state of shock that no one said anything because they clearly saw us racking up but didn't say anything. Maybe next time I will bear my fangs and put up more of a fight because I agree, it is not safe and more experienced climbers have a role to play in educating the noob masses regarding climbing ethics and proper crag behavior.
(This post was edited by surgeon1 on Oct 3, 2007, 9:40 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
surgeon1
Oct 3, 2007, 9:36 PM
Post #72 of 202
(5855 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 25, 2006
Posts: 13
|
I was not "dropping" Dick Williams' name I was quoting his publication as a guide to proper Gunks climbing behavior.
|
|
|
|
|
taino
Oct 3, 2007, 9:42 PM
Post #73 of 202
(5847 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2003
Posts: 5371
|
Sorry man, but frankly the beginning of that guidebook - as shameful as this is - is rarely read by those who just want to figure out where the route are. Quoting his book is all well and good, but if your target hasn't read the relevant passages...
Shoulda stuck to your guns, man - you had the right-of-way. At the Gunks, IMHO, a leader has precedence over someone who wants to TR the route, and ANYONE has precedence over someone who wasn't on the bloody route to begin with. If the leader is willing to trail a line for the TRers, great - otherwise, they wait their turn.
The only way that they could have had right-of-way over you is if they started setting up the route for TR before you started racking up, which - in this case - doesn't sound accurate.
T
|
|
|
|
|
vector
Oct 3, 2007, 10:08 PM
Post #74 of 202
(5821 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 13, 2004
Posts: 88
|
surgeon1 wrote: My wife and I were just starting to lead a "classic" 5.7 when some lard ass suddenly comes down on his top rope from the adjacent climb and basically forced us off the climb after my wife had started climbing....
Wow, just wow. I would serious start looking around for handy weapons and backup at that point.
This sort of behavior will always be what I associate with the Gunks (or at least the Trapps) as I have seen so much like it the few times I have been there.
Sadly I have to agree with others that state the solution is to not climb there on weekends. Kind of seems like giving up but, as someone said, anything else is "pissing into the wind".
Best of luck to the locals (the decent ones at lease).
|
|
|
|
|
al_piner
Oct 3, 2007, 11:19 PM
Post #75 of 202
(5789 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 20, 2006
Posts: 142
|
sknowlton wrote: To the OP: Weekdays. Climb weekdays. Climbed on Monday this week (10/1) beautiful day----saw only 2 other parties besides my self and partner until 12 noon, when a few other folks meandered in (BTW---to the 2 ladies on Betty----nice leads!) and had my choice of routes. Agree with you re: toprope hogging of routes, but remember----there are only about 1000 other choices at the Gunks. And: Get out early or get over it. Even on weekends if you're out early, you can get your route.
This post sums it up . It's a PUBLIC access area so if you can't hit it during the week ......
get there BEFORE the so called fat , lazy , weak climbing gumby crowds .
Nothing worse than a self righteous climber crying because a bunch of more enthusiastic nooBs woke up a little earlier to grab that classic .
Or better yet park your ass in one of the " accommodating " campsites if you want to copy the true style of the FA's .
Crowds are a part of New York metro area . If you can't deal with it , move to Alaska !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
