So in doing a bit of reading, it seems that if you were concerned about liability you'd just close access to climbing.

However, you're closing access to hiking as well, which is protected under the NY recreational statute. Thus, you're making climbers hike the top trail to the end (considerably less convenient) or rap off (more dangerous).

Now, maybe the Mohonk Preserve has been very discreet with using climbers as pawns in this game (i.e. - I haven't heard about it) and maybe the Town of Gardiner is being a big jerk (i.e. - I grew up in a national park town and am relatively immune to such grumblings), but you seem to be directly targeting climbers when climbers are likely not to blame. I haven't seen or heard of instances where the two bad guys have used us as pawns. If I'm wrong, please provide evidence otherwise. I'm honestly sympathetic with you if you're being squeezed, but right now I don't see how your method is helping you in the public arena.

I know first hand that towns can be tough to deal with. I understand completely that zoning laws sometimes suck and are prohibitive. I also understand how organizations such as the Preserve can be difficult to work with, but I've always figured that the best way to win an unfair fight is to get more people on your side. Preventing access to those folks who probably care about the land (note: not the money) more than even you do seems a bit daft.

From where I stand right now, I'm thinking you're a bit of a cry baby who has to intentionally hurt others in order to get attention. Sorry dude, but until I see more evidence that you're doing something more than trying to win a zoning battle, I'm rooting for the other team.

For disclosure's sake, yeah, I paid for my annual pass already.

This has little to do with liability.

I'm sorry, but the above is ridiculous. You sound more like the crybaby now. It would be more convenient if I could walk through your living room to get to your fridge to see what's in there, rather than having to go in through a window. This is private property, including the cliff. We were granted access, and now that access has been rescinded. Considering your convenience and relative safety as more important than the rights of the landowners is kind of an insult to them.

You are exactly right that both the Preserve/GCC and the owners coalition are using climbers as pawns. On the side of the Preserve/GCC, they are using hardball tactics on behalf of the Preserve mission and on behalf of climbers to try to buy out landowners at low prices. And on the side of the owners coalition, they are using climbers to attempt to pressure their representatives (the Preserve/GCC) to repeal the zoning law.

Kent has been trying to drum up support from the climbing community to fight the zoning law since it was first suggested, years ago. He did so quite publicly. My understanding is that he received only very limited support, and that he feels that local climbers are acting on only their narrowest self interest. So the next step on his part is to up the ante. Since y'all didn't know about this fight before, I'd say at least this move on their part was a smart one to raise more attention to their plight.

Um, I think it's more than a little presumptuous of you to suggest that you care more about the land than the actual owners do. Or are you suggesting that the owners have some nefarious intent to dump toxic chemicals into the groundwater?

Clearly this is an attempt to get more attention. Up until now, most Gunks climbers didn't give a shit about these landowners' plights, and were perfectly happy to use their land. Now the landowners are using the one remaining thing left at their disposal - asking people to refrain from trespassing, and you're throwing a hissy-fit? I really don't know who the cry babies are here.

And again, the Preserve doesn't own the land in question, so your membership privileges have their limits.

GO

Just to add one thing - while I think the responses here are wrong, I still doubt this was a wise move on the behalf of the landowners. So far as I can tell, Kent has taken a confrontational attitude from the start, and all it has led to is escalation. Perhaps, in his mind, the GCC left him no choice. It doesn't really look like they were very helpful either.

It's just a sad state of affairs.

GO

The landowner surely must not care about NYS General Obligations Law or they would let people climb. And no, climbing is not spelunking to you and I but it would qualify under the law. The guys and gals in Albany when the law was enacted had no clue climbing would be so great.
There is more to the story and I'm wait'in!
...and please don't tell be it's about money!
AMERICAN GREED!!!
Sell the property cheap and move somewhere else and know that when you die you did something honorable.

Not really, Gabe. The access wasn't rescinded because of anything climbers did. I can see closing things down if the climbers were incosiderate, destructive, rude, etc., but that doesn't seem to be the case. I'd be crying less if the people being punished were the ones at fault.

The point that I was making was that he could have still restricted climbing without restricting hiking, because NY state law protects him if he still allows hiking and doesn't charge for it. I understand and sympathize with his plight (you did read that in my post, right?), but I think he went further than he had to.

I doubt the Mohonk is doing this specifically to help climbers. Last I knew, there were many other types of active folks using the Preserve's land. Sure, climbers benefit quite a bit, particularly in the Nears, but there is also hiking in that area, too. Land ownership really should be looked at as the entire book of business.

GMBurns:

How are my tactics dishonorable?

I'm using the few tools I have to try to protect the reasonable interests of a few politically disenfranchised people at potentially great cost to myself.

How is that dishonorable?

The trouble is that what you describe as a "punishment" for climbers is ridiculous. Yes, it's an inconvenience for climbers. So what? I think that given the circumstances, it's pretty understandable that they've restricted access (though I don't have to like it), but there doesn't have to be a reason to restrict access. Look Greg, I've been in your apartment before. So far as I know, I didn't do anything to offend. But I'm not going to get all huffy if you say you would like me not to enter your apartment again without your explicit permission. As climbers, we don't have the right to climb whatever we damn well please, whether we "deserve" it or not!

The point that I was making was that he could have still restricted climbing without restricting hiking, because NY state law protects him if he still allows hiking and doesn't charge for it. I understand and sympathize with his plight (you did read that in my post, right?), but I think he went further than he had to.

My point was that the Preserve wants as much land as it can get. Here their interests line up nicely with the GCC. In that partnership, the Preserve gets the support of climbers for their own agenda. How is that not using climbers as pawns?

And if your philosophy is that everyone should look after only their own narrowest self interest, I think your philosophy is short-sighted at best.

GO

Really? REALLY? Unless your next post is going to offer a fair market price for the land so you can give it away, I think this qualifies as the most assinine thing I have ever read on RC.com.

What, specifically, do you want from us as climbers?

What, specifically, do you want from us as climbers?

Where land is closed we want you to respect the closure. What about that is so hard for you to comprehend?

i didn't understand 90% of what was said in this thread. can someone more well read/well spoken than I PLEASE summarize this thread so i can understand it. basically all i know now is that half of the nears is closed. someone elaborate. and use small words, i'm dumb.