The Gunks are way worthy!

mohonkpreserve.org/sites/de…

Page 16 has the financials.

Interesting to note that they spend over $300,000 a year on "communications" and "membership" expenses... ie, mailings. We get duplicates multiple times each year, whether for membership renewal or begging for more money. These mailings are not cheap to produce or distribute (postage is postage). The fact this hasn't been evaluated, and a more effective and efficiernt means of contacting their membership, or doing a cost analysis on whether those mailings even pay for themselves, is a sign of their deep pockets. Organizations struggling for cash don't waste a single mailing.

Hey Andy - what routes did you guys get on???

... and you haven't even seen the best climbing in the east. :)

Jake Jones wrote:Check out NC too one day Andy. You'll shit a meat axe. Guaranteed.

NC is def spectacular...

Darren in Vegas wrote: Red Rock is $30/year. Not sure what an annual pass to the Mohonk Preserve is, but $30 is cheap.

A Mohonk Preserve annual pass is about $90.

Yes I believe it was $85 when I was just there end of September, BIG FUN fo sure!

Jon Moen wrote: One thing that really dissapoints me about the climbing community is how climbers think nothing of driving 4 hours each way to get to a crag, blowing at least $50 on gas for the weekend, but then piss and moan when asked to contribute financially to the upkeep of the climbing area that they did all that driving to visit.

love this post!

I'm all for new places and new climbs but if you live and climb in the west the only real attractions in the east are the Gunks and SE sandstone, everything else is puny, chossy and crowded comparatively.

flame on

Its raining and I haven't climbed enough this year so I'll bite:

Wallface, Poke-O-Moonshine, Whitehorse, Cathedral Ledge, The N Face of Gothics are puny and or chossy? I suppose you can also lump the Lakes district and Ben Nevis into the chossy category also.

fair weather climber wrote: love this post! I'm all for new places and new climbs but if you live and climb in the west the only real attractions in the east are the Gunks and SE sandstone, everything else is puny, chossy and crowded comparatively. flame on

Your so right everything else is pure choss!! Stay at the Gunks! ;)

[warning: elitism ahead!]

My favorite thing about the Gunks is if you lead harder than 5.10, you'll almost never wait in line for anything. Try that at Indian Creek.

$90 a year to climb at the gunks is a no brainer. for that you get convenient parking for a quick approach, well kept carriage roads and access trails to the routes, a bathroom, trash receptacles, rangers and first aid close by in case of emergency and most importantly an entity that will strive to maintain the area as is for as long as possible, creating security for climbers. yes it's probably way steeper than most areas but in the grand scheme it's a pittance. we've all probably spent more on superflous gear.

and with at least 6 other crags, not being allowed to climb at skytop is a lame reason to bag on the gunks.

Andy Laakmann wrote: Thinking they might be on next October's agenda! Although I could come back here for another week. So much to do!

If you do, I can point you to effectivly "endless" good routes of any given style of trad. And sport beta in the Red should be easy to come by without any help.

No climbing east of the rockies! Im a NY native that moved to California 4 years ago and have been dying to get back east ever since. The volume of rock is now where near as much back east, but the quality surpasses everywhere I've been in CA, and i've been to alot of spots. Happily re-re-locating to Charlotte at the end of the month, can't WAIT to get back on east coast rock.

I remember when it was $5 weekdays and $7 on the weekends and you could camp out on a little road just before the hairpin. We used to get up early and have 3 -4 climbs in by noon when most other people were getting there. Love the climbing there, don't miss the crowds and the attitudes of some of the climbers.

What a Gunks day pass gets you:

Or, for the same price, you can choose instead







What a dilemma!

Please consider diverting your hard-earned funds from exorbitant Gunks day passes to a few hours in chalked-filled gym instead. We don't need more people out at the crags anyway.

Not accurate, rgold. For instance, I pay $40 a month for hundreds of hours of access to a gym and a smidgen of gas money, while climbing outside will cost more in gas money per month. But usually without fees where I live. If I had to pay $17 to get to my regular climbing areas, that would add a substantial amount to the cost of climbing.

But climbing outdoors is much nicer, I do agree with you there. I would frown while paying the fee though. Heck, it's close to the $20 in fees you pay at Yosemite, unarguably a much, much loftier climbing subject.

But I don't have to rationalize paying $17 fee for climbing either.

Let's say I'm doing two days a week at the gym for $40 a month. That comes out to $5 a visit, and less than a half gallon in gas (~$2). So, $7 to visit the gym per visit, versus paying several hours worth of gas and topping it off with $17.

Again, I'd rather be climbing outside by all means, but that is still a significant amount for many people.

There's no climbing in the southeast. Nothing to see here. Please move along.

Lets be real.
Gunks = $17/day, $100/year.
Colorado State Parks $7/day, $70/year.
National Parks Pass $?/day (depends), $80/year.

And when you are the only game in town, the prices escalate.
Yeah, they are profiting. I1 year pass is about what a lift ticket and lunch costs skiing.

Colonel Mustard wrote: It's close to the $20 in fees you pay at Yosemite...

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm under the impression that $20 gets you a week.

Darren in Vegas wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm under the impression that $20 gets you a week.

Heh. Yes, it's a better deal than I remembered. Joshua Tree too. I mean, isn't Joshua Tree the analogue to the Gunks? I've not been to the Gunks, but laying the facts of the two areas, I know it doesn't compare to Yosemite. Joshua Tree sounds more like the analogous area.