Mountain Project Logo

Lost City

divnamite · · New York, NY · Joined Aug 2007 · Points: 90
Tabo wrote:Edited to add: Oh yeah, the best sammies are from... the Deli, yeah, that's it, go to the deli and get your sammies there. HA! You think I'd reveal the results of my hard work trying every sammie shop within 10 miles of the Gunks? Think again!
That's just total BS. It used to be really good, then word of mouth put it on the map. With more people going there, the service and quality dropped while price increased just in the past few years. I think you should be banned from MP and the Gunks!
Andrew Gram · · Salt Lake City, UT · Joined Jan 2001 · Points: 3,725

This is my opinion, which is that of just one administrator(we are a diverse group with a lot of different opinions). I certainly believe in respecting landowners publication wishes. With Mohonk, this situation isn't completely straightforward because to my knowledge this wish is more anecdotal than the result any kind of written policy and they've never contacted mountain project directly. If anyone can point to a written policy that should end any kind of debate about Lost city immediately. I think all of the site administrators would agree with this.

Personally, I think "secret" crags have a lot of value, and I argue against them being posted on mountain project. I started climbingmoab.com years ago, which is one of the sites that was eventually rolled up into mountain project. My stance with the Moab area has always been to not publish a few longstanding "secret" areas with history similar to though maybe not as rich as Lost City. This opinion is in part because of my experiences at Lost City when I lived in new York - I loved climbing there, and I made some good friends showing people around or being showed around.

I look at Indian Creek as a place that was long mostly undocumented, but changed completely after a good guidebook came out. Prior to the Bloom guidebook, walls like Way Rambo were deserted. No one even tried to add them to climbingmoab, and most of the traffic at Indian Creek was limited to Supercrack Buttress, Battle of the Bulge, Donnelly Canyon, and a handful of other documented cliffs and towers. After the guidebook was published, crowds were everywhere, the number of routes posted to climbingmoab exploded, and regulations started to be passed to deal with the overcrowding. The experience is completely different now.

I don't think that secret areas and mountain project are incompatible. I love mountain project as a place to get descriptions for places that are poorly or outdatedly documented(though not by local wishes) such as the San Rafael Swell or Rock Canyon in Utah, the Black Hills Needles, etc. I love mountain project as a photo repository, as conditions log, and a supplement to published information. I think mountain project is an invaluable research tool for guidebook authors. I think it can be a great source of climbing history. I don't think it has to catalog every route ever climbed to be successful.

On a different note, as an administrator and a site user, I ask that people in general tone down the personal attacks, even when the topic is one that rouses passions. One of the really nice things about mountainproject is that in general the community is less prone to the mudslinging that happens elsewhere, and that we really don't have any active moderators policing the forums. Lets try to keep it civil so we can keep it that way.

Brian · · North Kingstown, RI · Joined Sep 2001 · Points: 804
Jake D. wrote: So i can bolt No Solution? sweeeeet. Should probably do Kama Sutra while i have the drill out..
Who said anything about bolting? Traditions change. But if you want to use that as an example: there was never any bolted belays at the Gunks and now there are. A tradition changed. I don't want to turn this into a bolting argument. I'm just saying that traditions change and if someone wants to propose changing one than that is valid. It doesen't really have to do with this thread specifically but more in general of the recent tone of the posts on Mountain Project.
MojoMonkey · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jan 2009 · Points: 66
Brian wrote:Just because a policy/tradition is old, established, and local that doesn’t mean people can’t propose changing it. We don’t use hemp ropes and swami belts anymore.
You are trying to imply those two sentences make sense together, but they do not. The fact that the general climbing population moved from swamis and hemp ropes wasn't a change in tradition, but a change in technology. A comfy and strong harness and durable, bi-weave, dry-coated 9.0mm nylon rope simply wasn't an option back then.
Eric Engberg · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Apr 2009 · Points: 0
Brian wrote: But if you want to use that as an example: there was never any bolted belays at the Gunks and now there are. A tradition changed.
Perfect example of the less knowledgable and experienced jumping to the wrong conclusion. There are no bolted belays in the Gunks (and if you had ever hung from the tat below the final pitch of the yellow wall you sure would have liked there to be). There are bolted rap routes put in where the anchors ofen coincide with traditional belay stances. Ascending paarties freguently use them as belay and top rope anchors - frequently leading to more clusters... But the belief that those bolts were put there for the sake of climbers is wrong. It was to keep the climbers from rapping off of trees.

It's a similar mentality of drawing conclusions without all the facts that lead to threads like this.
Smike · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jan 2010 · Points: 0
JSH wrote:Eric, as much as I truly wish I could agree with you about the bolt stations - there are far too many of them too close, and where there were never were trees, to suggest they're there only for rapping. It's never been clear to me what the Preserve's method was there, if there was one.
So it took my all of about 30 seconds to get the facts. (I knew the answer but didn't wanted spew without references to back it up, whadda concept??)

http://www.mohonkpreserve.org/pdf/UIAA_Article.pdf

Strategic response: Promoting a low-impact ethic
The Preserve encourages a low-impact ethic through its Climbing Policy and Climbing Instruction Policy, which forbid trundling rocks, chipping holds, affixing new holds, cutting trees, and placing new bolts and pitons. The policies further discourage rappelling off trees, and encourage climbers to limit chalk use. Fixed anchors are maintained at tops of many popular pitches. The anchors were originally placed by climbers, but are now maintained by the Preserve, which has replaced over 40 dangerous, unsightly anchors with safe, unobtrusive ones. The use of fixed anchors minimizes damage to vegetation and limits visual clutter.
Tom Halicki · · Boulder, CO · Joined Jun 2006 · Points: 35

"One of these policies was the creation of fixed anchors at the top of certain very popular routes to allow for a quick and safe return to the ground. Funded by a grant from the American Alpine Club, the Preserve has been able to form a subcommittee to assess climber use and install these anchors in the most needed spots. This results in less impact at the top of the cliffs, fewer social trails, fewer nylon slings left behind by climbers descending, and a safer situation. "

From Russ Clune's article "Climbing at the Gunks" on the Preserve's web site. One would have thought a Gunk's administrator would know this. They did the same thing at Seneca.

Tom Halicki · · Boulder, CO · Joined Jun 2006 · Points: 35

It's not a snarky comment. It is, unfortunately, a serious comment.

You might also see caughtinside's comment from yesterday.

Jake D. · · Northeast · Joined Nov 2006 · Points: 365

byeeeeeeeeeeee

Brian · · North Kingstown, RI · Joined Sep 2001 · Points: 804
Eric Engberg wrote: Perfect example of the less knowledgable and experienced jumping to the wrong conclusion. There are no bolted belays in the Gunks (and if you had ever hung from the tat below the final pitch of the yellow wall you sure would have liked there to be). There are bolted rap routes put in where the anchors ofen coincide with traditional belay stances. Ascending paarties freguently use them as belay and top rope anchors - frequently leading to more clusters... But the belief that those bolts were put there for the sake of climbers is wrong. It was to keep the climbers from rapping off of trees. It's a similar mentality of drawing conclusions without all the facts that lead to threads like this.
Eric,
Perfect example of what I'm talking about. Whether you call them bolted belays or rappels (they are used for both despite the intent) by throwing in the uncessary commit about the poster being "less knowledgeable and experienced" is unnessary to make the arguement and says more about you than about me. BTW...I've been climbing at the Gunks for 22 years now. My point was a tradition was changed when they put in the bolted "rappels" and that caused heated controversy.
Brian
Gunkiemike · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2009 · Points: 3,492
Andrew Gram wrote:This is my opinion, which is that of just one administrator(we are a diverse group with a lot of different opinions). I certainly believe in respecting landowners publication wishes. With Mohonk, this situation isn't completely straightforward because to my knowledge this wish is more anecdotal than the result any kind of written policy and they've never contacted mountain project directly. If anyone can point to a written policy that should end any kind of debate about Lost city immediately. I think all of the site administrators would agree with this.
To expect the Preserve to reach out to MtProj. in this situation is a bit much, don't you think? OTOH, a simple phone call from any of the Admins to Hank would provide a quick resolution. Ask for a copy of the Land Management Plan. That's what you want. It is a written policy. Better yet, ask if they're OK with a photo gallery here on LC. Then lock this dead horse of a thread and be done with it.

And to those who think that climbers changed the tradition re. bolted anchors at the Gunks...just who do you think put those bolts in? The LANDOWNER!
Jake D. · · Northeast · Joined Nov 2006 · Points: 365

Bye julie

steve richert · · Taunton MA · Joined Jun 2008 · Points: 10

Part of the Gunks tradition seems to be an us vs them mentality about anyone who isn't deemed to be a local. I lived 20 minutes away from the gunks and climbed there regularly for years and rarely felt anything approaching friendliness from anyone climbing there. Contrast this with the fact that out west you can't stop people from being your friend because they all want to show you around, loan you their guidebook and ask you how your trip has been so far.

I don't think its right to force a change on everyone by posting LC on here or anywhere else, at least not in too much detail. However I think it is worthwhile for area leaders in the climbing community to examine their motivations for keeping areas secret. I think it could be done discreetly enough that we could see the pictures without having it spoon fed to the public.

I was a local for 20 some odd years and I never felt like making the hike up there, even when it was crowded. Most of the beta spraying noobs are not going to be walking all the way out there just to crash your party...

Andrew Gram · · Salt Lake City, UT · Joined Jan 2001 · Points: 3,725
Gunkiemike wrote: To expect the Preserve to reach out to MtProj. in this situation is a bit much, don't you think?
It is probably too much to expect them to contact us Mike, but by the same token it is probably a bit much to expect anyone to follow a policy that can only be found by calling a land stewardship ranger.

I just extensively searched the Mohonk Preserve website and found nothing about a no publishing policy, even after diving through a few climbing policy documents not easily found in the mohonkpreserve.org/pdf directory. It has been a few years, but I also don't remember seeing this policy in my membership information or posted in the visitor center/information kiosks around the preserve.

I don't want Lost City posted here personally, but we can't not post it based on a word of mouth only policy.
Smike · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jan 2010 · Points: 0
Andrew Gram wrote: It is probably too much to expect them to contact us Mike, but by the same token it is probably a bit much to expect anyone to follow a policy that can only be found by calling a land stewardship ranger
Isn’t that part of the function of this very forum to help inform? In all respect if MP didn’t want or feel the need for opinions of others to help with info why bother even having a forum in the first place? It would be hard for MP to justify seeking out information in a public forum about locations and only choosing to act on or acknowledge information that suits a predetermined agenda. Of course it’s a free country as they say.
Andrew Gram · · Salt Lake City, UT · Joined Jan 2001 · Points: 3,725

I'm not sure what you are getting at smike. After all, the Lost City page was taken down in response to user feedback. My point is simply that it is difficult to proactively abide by a policy that is not documented. Please keep in mind that I think it is a bad idea to post Lost City - I am just making a statement about one point of debate.

In other news, it turns out Ranger Hank is trying to join the site to contribute to the discussion, but has had some spam filter difficulties. We are working to fix that and then we can get the preserve's position from the source.

Jake D. · · Northeast · Joined Nov 2006 · Points: 365
Andrew Gram wrote:I'm not sure what you are getting at smike. After all, the Lost City page was taken down in response to user feedback. My point is simply that it is difficult to proactively abide by a policy that is not documented. .
It may not be as visible on the Preserves page as it perhaps should be but it is well documented in most of the guidebooks in some form. The admin for an area should know the local ethics and rules of that area. Just the same way that folks post up Bird closures(rumney), archeological closures (like hueco's mushroom boulder) and private property information (torrent falls, Farley)
MojoMonkey · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jan 2009 · Points: 66
Gunkiemike wrote:Then lock this dead horse of a thread and be done with it.
But if locked, just let it float to the bottom instead of deleting it. It sucked that the other thread was deleted. If the insulting posts were so horrible and violate site rules, toss them. No need to lose the good posts (rgold, JSH, and others) with them.
Smike · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jan 2010 · Points: 0
Andrew Gram wrote:I'm not sure what you are getting at smike.
What Jake said, he said it much better then me.
Jake D. · · Northeast · Joined Nov 2006 · Points: 365
Smike wrote: What Jake said, he said it much better then me.
No, no.. all my posts are personal attacks and useless. Please go about the business of biting the hand that feeds you. They are more like "guidelines" anyway
Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Northeastern States
Post a Reply to "Lost City"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.