The Gunks are way worthy!

Colonel Mustard wrote: 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.

Mind you, anyone visiting the Gunks regulaly will shell out the $80 (is that how much it costs now) for the annual pass. If you live in the region and go there somewhat regularly, lets say 40 days per year, that $80 suddenly becomes a very reasonable $2 per climbing day.

Really, the only people affected by the $17 fee are non locals who only visit once or twice a year. No one is paying $17 every time they go climbing.

Colonel Mustard wrote: 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.

The quality of the rock and of the climbing in the Gunks is several orders of magnitude better than that at Joshua Tree. Not even in the same universe.

Colonel Mustard your addition doesn't add up, you are comparing apples to oranges.

RGold was comparing day passes to day passes.

$17 a day is similar to most day gym passes.

A YEAR of climbing at the gunks is $85. How muchy is a year of climbing at your gym?

Jon Moen wrote: Mind you, anyone visiting the Gunks regulaly will shell out the $80 (is that how much it costs now) for the annual pass. If you live in the region and go there somewhat regularly, lets say 40 days per year, that $80 suddenly becomes a very reasonable $2 per climbing day. Really, the only people affected by the $17 fee are non locals who only visit once or twice a year. No one is paying $17 every time they go climbing.

I don't think that works out with the substantial amount we pay for gas. And that's 40 visits per year! I don't buy that's the average amount of visits per climber, but whatever. Say for the NY City climber, you have 170 miles of driving (about 3 hours), that's around $30 in gasoline you're spending and adding to your $2/40 visit fee. The gym is much cheaper. Apples 'n oranges.

A federal parks pass also costs $80 per year and grants access a whole nation's worth of parks. I know those who go regularly have to rationalize the cost, but even you guys are still getting ripped off. Sorry to point out that inconvenient fact.

Wayne Crill wrote:Colonel Mustard your addition diesn't add up, you are comparing apples to oranges. RGold was comparing day passes to day passes. A YEAR of climbing at the gunks is $85. How muchy is a year of climbing at your gym?

Only gumbies pay a day pass at the gym. And Rgold is comparing apples and oranges. $85 gets you into the best climbing in the world, not just the East Coast. Sorry, sometimes the gold man is fallible as well.

Jon Moen wrote: The quality of the rock and of the climbing in the Gunks is several orders of magnitude better than that at Joshua Tree. Not even in the same universe.

Hehehe... this is awesome. Talk about apples 'n oranges in climbing styles alone. I like that you've cleared up the overhanging versus crack debate in one fell swoop though! As well as God's favored rock! Wow!

You ignore the Yosemite comparison entirely though.

I paid $3 for a camping pass to go the Incredible Hulk this summer, which I assure you makes the Gunks look like a piece of playground equipment.

Colonel Mustard wrote: Say for the NY City climber, you have 170 miles of driving (about 3 hours), that's around $30 in gasoline you're spending and adding to your $2/40 visit fee.

You just echoed my original point, that started this whole shooting match: It is really unfortunate that climbers will willingly give $30 to Exxon or Chevron every time they go climbing, but grumble about having to contribute a few dollars per climbing day to keep the area that they enjoy so much in good working order.

This is all that I am saying.

Jon Moen wrote: You just echoed my original point, that started this whole shooting match: It is really unfortunate that climbers will willingly give $30 to Exxon or Chevron every time they go climbing, but grumble about having to contribute a few dollars per climbing day to keep the area that they enjoy so much in good working order. Also: 40 climbing days/year at your home crag isn't that much. Any self-respecting climber should hit at least twice that.

Definitions of what a self respecting climber is to boot!

There are still much better deals in climbing, buckaroo. Straight facts.

I'll admit, if I lived in the area, I'd probably pay the fee and justify it too! That's human nature, and I'm a trad climber by preference, so I'd have just as many reasons as you do.

And your figure of 80 days of climbing at whatever the local crag means you're doing 1.5 days a week at the Gunks every week of the year. Whatever that means. So, we should be logging 80 days at a single crag to respect ourselves? I have no idea how many days I spend out there a year, but 80 days at one crag is a failure in my book. And I don't think the average climber spends a day or two days every week climbing out doors.

The funny part for me is I'd very much like to climb at the Gunks. I'm sure I will in the next coupla years, so I'll be ponying up my $17 like a true gumby. Cheers ya crazy duh Gunx duh Gunx duh Gunx climbers!

"there are still much better deals in climbing".

Nobody argued that there weren't. R gold just pointed out that in this case, the deal is still worth it...

My wife and I paid $155 for two annual passes. We climbed 5 days. Worth every penny.

And, for what it is worth, I've logged hundreds and hundreds of days in JTree... and.... never thought I'd say it, the climbing in Gunks might be better. Though JTree will forever hold a special place in my heart.

BigA wrote:"there are still much better deals in climbing". Nobody argued that there weren't. R gold just pointed out that in this case, the deal is still worth it...

He did so by comparing two things that don't really compare at all, and others like myself are trying to compare like subjects. I haven't once argued it's not worth it, for whatever that's worth. I'd love to visit the Gunks.

I forget if it was Climbing Mag or Rock n Ice that stated the gunks is the most expensive place to climb foot for foot. Of course they were referring to the most expensive option... having to rent a room at the mountain top resort and getting a guide to climb at sky top. With the longest route it came out more per foot than going up everest. I was trying to find the article but the search function on their site isn't working.

Colonel Mustard wrote:Not accurate, rgold. For instance, I pay $40 a month for hundreds of hours of access to a gym...He did so by comparing two things that don't really compare at all, and others like myself are trying to compare like subjects.

Oh, it's accurate all right, and you're the one who is mixing up the comparisons. I'm comparing the visitor who comes to the Gunks for a day or two to the person who just visits a gym to a day or two. The prices are about the same.

Moreover, there is a difference in both Gunks and gym fee structure between day rates and long-term rates. For what it costs the good Colonel for two months of gym access, he could have a full year of gunks access---no contest, Gunks are way cheaper if you are going to base your calculations on long-term rates.

P.S. A number of figures have been tossed around. Current rates for climbing are $17/day and $90/year, and two climbers from the same household are $150/year.

Population density and the accompanying development pressures make the mid-Hudson region significantly different from the West. The Gunks is smack dab in the midst of the densest urban conglomeration in the country; it is a miracle that it hasn't been subdivided among very wealthy landowners and/or resorts; those prospects have arisen in recent years, have been beaten back only by concerted efforts, and we may not be so lucky in the future.

The Preserve has been a bulwark against a huge and still-growing tsunami of development. A gym day-fee for the privilege of such an area still being there for climbers is a bargain. But if it seems too much and keeps some people away, so much the better. As it is, the lots are all full on good weekend days.

Andy Laakmann wrote:My wife and I paid $155 for two annual passes. We climbed 5 days. Worth every penny.

As Cheap as 1 day at a ski resort.

Andy Laakmann wrote: I've logged hundreds and hundreds of days in JTree... and.... never thought I'd say it, the climbing in Gunks might be better.

What is great about the Jtree-house is the time of year you can climb there. Save for that, I'd go elsewhere. IE: City of Rocks.
Each place has it's merits. Around Halloween/Early November, the Gunks leaves are a changin' and the Great Pumpkin delivers candy to the tops of climbs, a cool tradition.
And we Front Rangers miss good color at the cliffs, so there is something to be said for that.

Does anyone else find it hilarious that the person arguing the most about this has never even been to the Gunks?

rgold wrote: Oh, it's accurate all right, and you're the one who is mixing up the comparisons. I'm comparing the visitor who comes to the Gunks for a day or two to the person who just visits a gym to a day or two.

Then this is a comparison for those who travel far and wide to sample different gyms just for a day or two? Who might go to, say, NYC, and really scratch their head in considering whether they are going to the gym over the Gunks?

I go to the gym only when conditions or my schedule do not allow for outdoor climbing. It augments, rather than competes with outdoor climbing. The comparison you made fails drastically in that regard alone. With very little exception, I go to the same gym year-round on the same fee schedule (unless I put a hold on my gym fees if I'm out of town for an extended time. Say, visiting the Gunks). I never travel around sampling gyms as I would climbing areas. I suspect these conditions are true for many climbers.

It's still apples and oranges for me. Indoor and outdoor climbing aren't comparable in my book. The few here who still don't get it and think I'm arguing against the fee, or whether the Gunks is a worthy area are truly lost. The analogy stretches too far and simply fails to ring true in my personal experience.

I will stop arguing because clearly tradition dictates that rgold is always right when it comes to duh Gunx. Btw, I still can't wait to pay my $17! I have a free pad lined up nearby, I just need the air fare and vacation time.

Rob Kepley wrote:Does anyone else find it hilarious that the person arguing the most about this has never even been to the Gunks?

To the contrary, it's so cliche that it is expected.

Colonel Mustard wrote: The few here who still don't get it and think I'm arguing against the fee, or whether the Gunks is a worthy area are truly lost.

I must be lost, then. If you aren't arguing against the fee, what are you arguing?

Not trying to stir the pot here, just perplexed.

This thread isn't about how expensive it is to climb at the gunks... It's about how amazing it is. The price of a membership is relatively insignificant.

During the autumn months I wouldn't give it up for anywhere else in the world.

Jon Moen wrote: I must be lost, then. If you aren't arguing against the fee, what are you arguing? Not trying to stir the pot here, just perplexed.

It's about how I wouldn't pay the fee thinking: Wow, I'm sure glad I got to pay that on top of everything else! And I get to pay this tomorrow too! Wheeeeee!

I still think it's expensive compared to other like areas (and that comparing the Gunks to anywhere else really gets up the local ire too). More in terms of the visiting climber, as I have been shown what the deal is for locals.

Also, that comparing gym to outdoor climbing just doesn't work. Although, that was admittedly more just gnit picking.

If nobody sees it and thinks I'm just a guy who must really have some balls to dare speak anywhere near the complex awesomeness of the Gunks, even to broach more general issues of cost, and gym vs. outdoor climbing, then that's their vaunted, Gunks-like opinion.

Mostly, it was about how I was a bit grumpy yesterday ;).