Gunks MUA camping ticket - help?

In case you were wondering where the money goes 850 Acres in the Valley

Calling your bluff Emmet... you don't have a girlfriend!

To all the whiners who say "da Gunks cost too much" - go someplace else. Please. Just go away and shut up. Your sense of entitlement to property that is not yours wears thin...

Eric Engberg wrote:To all the whiners who say "da Gunks cost too much" - go someplace else. Please. Just go away and shut up. Your sense of entitlement to property that is not yours wears thin...

No you shut up, poopy pants smell cake.

Happiegrrrl wrote:As for free camping.... once the campground is open, the MUA and Slime are going to be closed. This new campground is brought to us in part by the American Alpine Club, and AAC members will have reduced rates. It is going to be a nice campground, with showers, some drive up spots and some walk in spots, a covered pavillion for cooking and such in rain, and a central firepit(which will definitely help with a reduction of loud after quiet hours are on, plus a reduction in idiots pulling limbs off live trees to burn.

I have four words for you: PAY CAMPING IS BULLSHIT

The MUA may be a perpetual source of problems, and the crowds at the Gunks may be excessive, but paying to park a car somewhere and put up a tent for the night is and always will be unacceptable. I don't care whether you agree or not.

Also, regarding Mohonk Preserve revenues and costs, it seems hardly reasonable to me that membership/fees go up every year without fail. It is implausible that money is not being wasted or siphoned off. Running a land preserve that is bought and paid for should not entail endless escalation of costs.

ah the good ole' days. When movies cost a nickel. The gunks used to cost $5 on a weekday and $7 on the weekend, when if you got there early enough in the morning there wasn't anyone around except a handful of early bird climbers such as myself, and the days when you could camp out on a road by the hairpin turn, and also pretty much park anywhere. Oh and it wasn't like climbing at a gym either.

All that being said I miss climbing there, but not all this other craziness.

CWood wrote: Also, regarding Mohonk Preserve revenues and costs, it seems hardly reasonable to me that membership/fees go up every year without fail. It is implausible that money is not being wasted or siphoned off. Running a land preserve that is bought and paid for should not entail endless escalation of costs.

Membership and day passes this year are same as last year.... My memory is not good enough to recall other years but I know for a fact that there has not been an increase each year since I have been going there (2004).

"Bought and paid for?" - This is not an accurate statement in any way, shape or form.

It is not helpful when people make statements as if they are factual when the words seem to have been plucked clean out of the air.

CWood wrote:paying to park a car somewhere and put up a tent for the night is and always will be unacceptable.

You're not being serious, are you? As they say in economics, there's no such thing as a free lunch, and there's no such thing as a free campsite either. Someone has to pay for construction and maintenance, water supply, latrines, garbage disposal, and supervising the area. Land isn't free either, not when you're only 85 miles from midtown Manhattan. Sure, I can understand that you don't like paying for it, but that doesn't mean there aren't any costs involved.

HG, perhaps you can share some facts about which parts of the preserve are not bought and paid for. I am curious.

For the Second Time

Happiegrrrl wrote:"Bought and paid for?" - This is not an accurate statement in any way, shape or form.

If that's not factually accurate, my apologies. From the looks of Jim's link, the preserve is acquiring a lot of land that's unrelated to rock climbing and this cost is passed on to those who only use the land for climbing (ie. climbing day passes). I don't particularly care to support new non-climbing acquisitions, but I'm not allowed to "opt out". The majority of other large, great climbing areas are typically free of charge, so unless the Trapps cliff isn't paid for, or they're trying to acquire Sky Top, it looks like bloated overhead to me.

Martin le Roux wrote: You're not being serious, are you? As they say in economics, there's no such thing as a free lunch, and there's no such thing as a free campsite either. Someone has to pay for construction and maintenance, water supply, latrines, garbage disposal, and supervising the area. Land isn't free either, not when you're only 85 miles from midtown Manhattan. Sure, I can understand that you don't like paying for it, but that doesn't mean there aren't any costs involved.

Dead serious. I'm not asking for construction, maintenance, water supply, latrines, garbage disposal OR supervision. If somebody makes a campsite that has that stuff and the end result is me having to pay for it, I would prefer to camp in an unimproved location which is free. I'm not lighting fires, leaving trash, or shitting in the woods. Ever been to New Hampshire? Lots of dumpy, expensive "managed" campgrounds for $20 a night - yet free camping elsewhere is possible. Fuck pay camping.

(also: fuck Manhattan, but that's a separate discussion)

You see, this is the problem with the East. (I'm a native of PA and lived in PA NY and NJ until I was 20). There is very little public land. It's why I moved west 30 years ago.
Don't get me wrong, I loved the Gunks but it sounds like a fiasco now. Too many people, not enough access.
Tell everybody in manhattan it's way worse here, so don't move. They'll get the lights and heat back on soon. I had to wear a long-sleeved t-shirt today. It was so cold. I feel your pain.

CWood wrote:] Fuck pay camping. (also: fuck Manhattan, but that's a separate discussion)

Fuck BosWash and CA would be more encompassing.

What does that mean?

TWK wrote:What does that mean?

Generic dislike of urban sprawl running for hundreds of miles.

Well, I'm sure we all agree, but don't lump all of NorCal in with that.

TWK wrote:Well, I'm sure we all agree, but don't lump all of NorCal in with that.

Shoot, CA is cool, sucky politics but cool state. I'm mostly adding to the silliness out of boredom.

CWood wrote: If that's not factually accurate, my apologies. From the looks of Jim's link, the preserve is acquiring a lot of land that's unrelated to rock climbing and this cost is passed on to those who only use the land for climbing (ie. climbing day passes). I don't particularly care to support new non-climbing acquisitions, but I'm not allowed to "opt out".

The Rosendale Water Works was also purchased a few years ago, wit the purposes of acquiring not only an ecologically sensitive area, but a historically significant piece of land both as a civic and recreational area, as well as to allow legal access to boulders. Apparently the bouldering is very good. There is also some rock with single pitch climbing.

You don't like paying what amounts to 25 cents per day to support the preserve, and are certainly entitled to your opinion. The opt-out is to simply not support with your membership.

The majority of other large, great climbing areas are typically free of charge, Another statement which is not actually true, sorry to say.

TWK wrote:You see, this is the problem with the East. (I'm a native of PA and lived in PA NY and NJ until I was 20). There is very little public land. It's why I moved west 30 years ago.

Same problem with the entire state of Texas. You wouldn't think so much crappy land would all be private, but it mostly is.

Stich wrote: Same problem with the entire state of Texas. You wouldn't think so much crappy land would all be private, but it mostly is.

Skipping Texas and NY are never a bad option.