Paying at the Gunks

Your arguement is a bit shrill and off track. No one in the thread indicated that the Preserve is "somehow theirs for the taking," or put forth any "preposterous notions." It is strictly a difference of opinion where some think that the fees are overly expensive and some don't. What is preposterous is that the Preserve is going to "disappear to developers in the blink of an eye." It can't, it is a Preseve and as such protected. If you are concerned with development along the Shawangunk Ridge you should get involved/donate to the Shawangunk Ridge Coailition which is a different topic than we are discussing here. shawangunkridge.org/threats… BTW...I only own one pair of climbing shoes and the have been resoled twice.

Brian

rgold wrote: Total operating income is in fact about $2 million dollars, just about all of which is spent on the Preserve. But entry fees only account for about $225,000, membership fees and contributions both around double that. Is $15 for sunrise-to-sunset use of 6,500 acres of Preserve land and more than 1,000 rock climbs excessive because people pay the same thing for a few hours indoors breathing chalk dust and pulling plastic on 40 foot walls? The only rational conclusion one can make from this particular comparison is that the Preserve is an incredible bargain at a mere $15 a day, because it sure as hell ought to cost a lot more than a friggin' gym. And its not as if we're talking about some tract in the Yukon. The Preserve sits in the midst of an gigantic population concentration. That land would disappear to developers in the blink of an eye, and climbers wouldn't get to touch an inch of it (or would indeed have to pay ski-resort day fees for some tiny part of it). Any climber who cares at all about the preservation of open space ought to put the purchase of a their next #4 camalot on hold and buy a year's membership to the Preserve, whether or not they climb there for six days. I see climbers walking around all the time with enough shiny gear for El Cap, Imelda Marcos climbing shoe collections, and clothes suitable for Fitz Roy in winter, and then they try to sneak out of supporting the organization that provides a fantastic place for them to cart around all this swag, mouthing self-serving pieties about excessive fees and leaning on preposterous notions that this land is somehow theirs for the taking.

Check at the HQ when you go. I seem to remember that they have a Family or student type membership where the first person in your house pays full and each person after pays about half of the yearly fee. So if you go as a group of 4 or 5 you get a pretty good discount (all use the same address). The ranger said this was specifically for students and kinda for climbers who just visit for a week or so.

Brian wrote:Your arguement is a bit shrill and off track. No one in the thread indicated that the Preserve is "somehow theirs for the taking," or put forth any "preposterous notions."

You're right, nobody has said anything like that in this thread. But, I have definitely heard stuff like that while hanging out with Gunks climbers.

Unfortunately, there are climbers who resent the fees that support the Mohonk Preserve. Fortunately, the people who care about climbing enough to belong to a climbing forum seem to have a slightly different perspective!

I know climbers who have gone to great lengths to avoid the fees (I'm not going to call out anyone here). I'll even admit that when I was a poor undergraduate student visiting one summer I bouldered a few days in the Nears to avoid the Rangers. That being said, I do think it's important to pay the fees, because without the Preserve (or something just like it) this incredible climbing resource, and part of our history would be lost.

rgold wrote: And its not as if we're talking about some tract in the Yukon. The Preserve sits in the midst of an gigantic population concentration. That land would disappear to developers in the blink of an eye, and climbers wouldn't get to touch an inch of it (or would indeed have to pay ski-resort day fees for some tiny part of it).

Bingo (Wassup RG)

R

Brian wrote:What is preposterous is that the Preserve is going to "disappear to developers in the blink of an eye." It can't, it is a Preseve and as such protected.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh young one, you have so much to learn about land management policy,

R

I'll never understand why people pay $15 to climb at a crowded "outdoor gym" when you could just goto the Dacks...

Okay, I jump on this...

How about location, history, quality and quantity of the climbing? Yeah, definitely worth $15.

Andy,
A reasonable arguement and I agree it is important to pay a fee. I think that most climbers (me included) support a fee to maintain the Preserve especially if some day you get hurt and a Ranger comes to your aid. I just think that the fee is overly expensive.
Brian

Andy Choens wrote: You're right, nobody has said anything like that in this thread. But, I have definitely heard stuff like that while hanging out with Gunks climbers. Unfortunately, there are climbers who resent the fees that support the Mohonk Preserve. Fortunately, the people who care about climbing enough to belong to a climbing forum seem to have a slightly different perspective! I know climbers who have gone to great lengths to avoid the fees (I'm not going to call out anyone here). I'll even admit that when I was a poor undergraduate student visiting one summer I bouldered a few days in the Nears to avoid the Rangers. That being said, I do think it's important to pay the fees, because without the Preserve (or something just like it) this incredible climbing resource, and part of our history would be lost.

Brian wrote:Andy, A reasonable arguement and I agree it is important to pay a fee. I think that most climbers (me included) support a fee to maintain the Preserve especially if some day you get hurt and a Ranger comes to your aid. I just think that the fee is overly expensive. Brian

What would be an inexpensive fee? I have season pass $85 for the year. I've already been there 8 days this season, I intend to go at least 20 days or more. Assuming I end up going 30 times this year, each day would come out to be around $3. I think that's pretty inexpensive.

Not everyone gets to go 30 times a year. You are very fortunate. I'm talking mainly about day passes. How about $8 on weekdays and $10 on weekends for a day pass? Leave the annual pass as is. That way you will still get your great deal of $3 per visit and I will get a break if I can only make it there 1-8 times a year. I would have to go there more than 9 times a year to make the annual pass worthwhile. This is all hyperthetical of course as the rates are not going to be reduced. I really believe that you will get more people to pay if the rates are lower. If the entry fees only account for $225,000 as rgold mentioned and there are 150,000 visitors a year as the Preserve web site mentioned then the math just doesn't add up. Does that mean that the average entry fee collected is $1.50 and the rest don't pay. If so how do they know that there are 150,000 visitors? Someone's numbers are suspect. Make sense to anyone else?
Brian

divnamite wrote: What would be an inexpensive fee? I have season pass $85 for the year. I've already been there 8 days this season, I intend to go at least 20 days or more. Assuming I end up going 30 times this year, each day would come out to be around $3. I think that's pretty inexpensive.

Rafiki wrote:I'll never understand why people pay $15 to climb at a crowded "outdoor gym" when you could just goto the Dacks...

My 10 Reasons to Climb at the Gunks (Humorous Edition):

10) Best "gym" climbing on the East Coast - I'll pay extra if you fix the air conditioner in July!
9) Gas is over 3.70 / gallon in NY;
8) I _like_ sand-bagged 5.6s;
7) I like my friends who live in New Palt;
6) I like fish tacos even more;
5) Climb harder than 5.8 and watch the lines disappear (usually);
4) I'd rather be traversing!
3) If I'm going to spend $85 on a membership, I oughta use it!
2) Millbrook - No further explanation needed;
1) Yellow Wall - Some day I'll have the stones to lead a real climb on this wall.

Brian wrote:Andy, A reasonable arguement and I agree it is important to pay a fee. I think that most climbers (me included) support a fee to maintain the Preserve especially if some day you get hurt and a Ranger comes to your aid. I just think that the fee is overly expensive. Brian

On that point, I may not want to disagree with you.

:-)

I actually emailed the preserve to see if I could obtain a copy of their operational budget. With this conversation, I'm curious to know where the money comes from (day-pass versus memberships, climbers versus others) and what it is used on.

I'm with rgold, the fee structure for the Gunks is a good deal given the incredibly high quality of the climbing, the land and the easy access to the 21+ million people living within 2 hours drive of the cliff. (Wikipedia from the census.) And of course, driving to the Adirondacks or New Hampshire, with the high cost of gas and tolls and then paying to camp in State Park, etc., means one will pay no matter what.

Brian wrote:Your arguement is a bit shrill...

Yeah, sorry about that...

Brian wrote:and off track. No one in the thread indicated that the Preserve is "somehow theirs for the taking," or put forth any "preposterous notions." It is strictly a difference of opinion where some think that the fees are overly expensive and some don't.

I'm addressing an attitude that does exist, even if not on this thread (yet), and whose arguments are identical to the ones presented here. Just read Andy Choens post above.

Brian wrote:What is preposterous is that the Preserve is going to "disappear to developers in the blink of an eye." It can't, it is a Preseve and as such protected.

You misrepresent me here, I never said the Preserve is going to disappear. But since you raise the point, what keeps it from disappearing is its income, the majority of which is from memberships and fees.

Brian wrote:If the entry fees only account for $225,000 as rgold mentioned and there are 150,000 visitors a year as the Preserve web site mentioned then the math just doesn't add up.

I guess it depends how the Preserve counts visitors, and it has already been pointed out that not all visitors pay the day fee. (I'm not just talking about members here; the Preserve hosts all kinds of groups, adding up to thousands of people, for educational purposes.) But there might also be a problem with the number I quoted, which comes from a 2006 annual report, since they might have raised the day fee after that report---I don't recall when it was raised.

Rafiki wrote:I'll never understand why people pay $15 to climb at a crowded "outdoor gym" when you could just goto the Dacks...

One source of your comprehension problem is that you live in Oneonta. Many of those who can make it to the Gunks for a day would find it highly impractical to go to the Daks for a day. The outdoor gym atmosphere can be bad, but it is also easily avoided. The Gunks have a much longer rock-climbing season than the Daks and a far shorter bug and fly season. But don't get me wrong, the Daks are fantastic and way under-appreciated by many climbers further South. Of course, nowadays, gas prices would make the visit as or more expensive for many of us than the day fees at the Preserve.

Andy,

#11. Ranger Bob has FREE coffee at the bridge(compliments of the Mountain Deli)

Brian wrote:I just think that the fee is overly expensive.

It's really quite a simple choice. If $15/day to climb at the Gunks seems overpriced, just don't go there. Not that you're one of them, but climbers who evade the fee are just lame.

rgold wrote:Is $15 for sunrise-to-sunset use of 6,500 acres of Preserve land and more than 1,000 rock climbs excessive because people pay the same thing for a few hours indoors breathing chalk dust and pulling plastic on 40 foot walls? The only rational conclusion one can make from this particular comparison is that the Preserve is an incredible bargain at a mere $15 a day, because it sure as hell ought to cost a lot more than a friggin' gym.

You may consider this a "shrill" response, Brian, but it's right on the money as far as I'm concerned; it's also pretty ironic for you to lecture someone like rgold on Gunks land use issues.

JL

Profits in and of themselves are not bad. People have to make a living somehow. When you work, hopefully you're making a profit. It's how life goes.

Yes, the $15 does seem a little steep, but from my experience, it's more than worth it. And with a membership, you can really get your money's worth.

The Mohonk Preserve hires one of the most elite rescue forces in the Northeast. They consistently maintain the trails, bolts, and the chemical toilet. A lot more than you get at a local rock gym. Not to mention scenery, fresh air, and (mostly) friendly people.

Also keep in mind that it's New York. Everything in New York costs loads. Taxes are crazy. Life is expensive in this region.

Saxfiend, I'm with you and Rgold.

If one doesn't think that the privilege of climbing in the Gunks is worth what a day pass in a gym is worth, don't climb there.

Simple.

To get the Financial Report, you write to an agency located in NYC. The address info is on the Mohonk Preserve website(but I am not going to go get it for you; a but of laziness on my part and also because I think if someone truly is interested, they can go search for it themselves. I don't want to facilitate a mass request deal...)

RGold's mentioned attitute of entitlement from some definitely does exist, and there was a small but fair example of that attitude shown on a recent rc.com thread(General Forum, "West Trapps Potty").

Next time I see the head ranger, maybe I will ask him if they ever considered an intermediate pass(vs. day pass/yearly membership). I do wish there was something, for the person on a road trip really does sort of get stuck.

I think the preserve does want people to go for the membership, though it's just my opinion and I have no reason to suggest that's their policy. But, if I were a non-profit, I'd like to have the contact info(which is received when membership purchased) to help with fundraising. It also is a way for them to educate, through the newsletters. Don't underestimate that aspect. How many climbing places as populated as the Gunks have you seen and not had a problem with some level of people trashing the place? The MP does an excellent job at educating memebrs to care for the environment, and they do it in a way that is so subtle many people aren't even aware of it. Also, the membership number may play into use when applying for grants.

By the way - IF you donate something like 40 hours per year to the preserve - you are eligible to receive a yearly pass(hiking rate, you'll have to pay the extra for the climbing rate). Check the website to get details on volunteering opportunities if this seems like something anyone be interested in.

Brian wrote: I suspect that us climbers paid for that fancy new visitor center. I would have rather done without the visitor center and kept the fees down but granted I'm not on the board of the Preserve so I don't get to vote.

Don't see where anyone else addressed this falsehood.

"Us climbers" only paid for the visitor center if we made a donation to the special fund that enabled it to be built. Regular fee collection and other operating funds were not used to construct the facility (although I do not know if those funds are used for maintenance and upkeep).

TS