Gunks MUA camping ticket - help?

CaptainMo wrote:I swear your login name was HippieGrrrl... u sure you didn't just change it to crack one at Kevin here?

She plays a good martyr. She's the biggest hippy I know.

Kevin Heckeler wrote: How so? Saying that doesn't support it. Explain...

Let's see:

Limited/No climbing;
Houses;
Condos;
Hotels;
ATVs screaming along the carriage roads.

Do you need more?

Matt Davis wrote: For the preserve to collaborate with the anti-climbing PIPC to build a new for-pay campground while simultaneously using their influence with the state to get the free state owned campground shut down is bullshit.

Matt

I'm not trying to be argumentative. Why do you say (how do you know) the above? I (naively??)thought that it didn't matter much to the Preserve, whether or not the MUA stayed open, and that the state was under a good bit of pressure from neighbors and from their 'internal standards' to close it.

oldfattradguuy wrote: Let's see: Limited/No climbing; Houses; Condos; Hotels; ATVs screaming along the carriage roads. Do you need more?

How so? Most land like the type of unique lands in the preserve are being sucked up by the State nowadays. Most of the time the land gets sold to the State for a low cost by the prior owners (or donated as part of an estate/foundation) to be 'protected'. I have a half dozen such places 30 minutes from my home east of Albany, and they're not nearly as unique as the Shawangunks. I said this elsewhere before - the State would jump at the opportunity to take over management of the lands the preserve currently owns. I choose not to live in fear of an invisible specter of development that exists only in theory. The preserve would be doing intentional harm should they ever let the land fall into developer's hands. There's several other public avenues that can be taken.

Latro wrote:...the state was under a good bit of pressure from neighbors and from their 'internal standards' to close it.

That was my impression as well. The State has long had issues managing those camping areas. They would either need to expand the existing areas, or Plan B - have someone else deal with it. They seem to be opting for Plan B. The MUA isn't large enough to accomodate all possible overnight camping without sacrificing many of the standards they have for protecting/managing the environment. I'm definitely not against them finding a better solutuion, but I'm against the manner in which they're executing it.

Solution is simple: don't think you should contribute, don't climb. There's plenty of free stone w/in a few hours of the Gunks, north or south. Have at it.

Steve Knowlton wrote:Solution is simple: don't think you should contribute, don't climb. There's plenty of free stone w/in a few hours of the Gunks, north or south. Have at it.

That is the approach I have opted for...

Kevin Heckeler wrote: How so? Most land like the type of unique lands in the preserve are being sucked up by the State nowadays. Most of the time the land gets sold to the State for a low cost by the prior owners (or donated as part of an estate/foundation) to be 'protected'. I have a half dozen such places 30 minutes from my home east of Albany, and they're not nearly as unique as the Shawangunks. I said this elsewhere before - the State would jump at the opportunity to take over management of the lands the preserve currently owns. I choose not to live in fear of an invisible specter of development that exists only in theory. The preserve would be doing intentional harm should they ever let the land fall into developer's hands. There's several other public avenues that can be taken.

Can you climb at the state park next door to the Preserve? Oh, yes, at one limited area (Peterskill), for $15 a day. In the rest of the park it is illegal.

State ownership is not something I would want at the Gunks-- this isn't based on some theory. It is based on the reality at the park just up the road.

And all this hate directed at the Smileys, I don't get it. We all get to climb at the Gunks because of the Smileys. Get a clue people. They deserve our thanks. They preserved a treasure for us and let us keep it.

The fees are high at the Gunks. I get that. It is totally legitimate to think so. It is kind of a bummer, though, that every thread about the Gunks gets destroyed by the same few people complaining about the fees. Give it a rest already.

Matt Davis wrote: Most non-profit land entities have all volunteer staff.

source?

SethG wrote:It is kind of a bummer, though, that every thread about the Gunks gets destroyed by the same few people complaining about the fees. Give it a rest already.

I've engaged in one thread on Gunks.com and this one here. If I am of the few, then there are several "few" voicing the same concerns since one person posting in two threads would hardly be cause to label something as epidemic.

I also don't think discussing these issues DESTROYS anything. That statement only indicates how intolerant you are of differing opinions. Last I checked - forums are for discussing. If you're informing me of a rule that discussing this is off limits, please enlighten me.

SethG wrote: Can you climb at the state park next door to the Preserve?

Not familiar with the neighboring State land use limitations/history. I was thinking more along the lines of the 6 million acres call the Adirondacks, or the million (?) or so called the Catskills (great ice when there is). I suspect the neighboring lands near Peterskill are not wilderness, or somehow intertwined with other agencies (not simply the DEC managing them). Also, each area has its own land management plan. This essentially means the decisions made regarding those plans go through several filters before they are codified, and have rules for modifying them later (but they can be, and often are modified... though it takes a few years for those changes to be made). This is to say - how one parcel of land, even directly adjacent, is managed does not guarantee the other parcel will be managed in the same way. Case by case.

Whomever would end up managing the Gunks as we know it would likely still have some type of permit system, but the overhead would be significantly lighter. Let's not live in denial like so many others who don't climb but who are involved with the MP. Rock climbing is a majority reason the preserve still exists. The new managing entity would fully understand this, and restricting access to the land for that purpose would be shooting themselves in the foot in every possible way. The DEC is even seriously considering paid permits for High Peaks hiking/access in the Adirondacks. I don't think anyone expects free (it's nice when it is), the objections are over the reasonableness of the current fees and justifications used in defense of the past couple fee increases. Even at half the current fee schedule, this can/would be a cash cow. Additionally, at a lower rate you will likely see more people going and fewer people trying to 'sneak in', and likely more season passes since the cost of them would also be lower. A big part of the costs of the preserve is because they have to be an island. With State agencies, a lot of the infrastructure for managing the lands is in place. It's a bigger fish eating a little fish, so to speak. Banks and other companies do this every day.

RE: volunteers, I find it bitterly ironic the Mohonk Preserve has volunteers doing hard labor work. Although I'm not an expert at how other private preserves operate regarding their staffing, it would seem that the hardest labor would be reserved for people being paid versus having volunteers do it. Trash pickup, painting, and other menial forms of labor would IMO seem more appropriate to ask of the free help.

It's easy to maintain your opinion when you just ignore evidence that goes against your argument.

What evidence?

You talk on and on and on about how a hypothetical state entity would operate but you are "not familiar" with and thus dismiss the existing state park that directly abuts the Preserve.

I have no intention of arguing with you further, too much work to do. Go ahead, have at it.

GMBurns wrote: source?

My comment was based on my personal limited experience with other land preserves. So it's of course fair to say my anecdotal experience may not be representative.

It would be interesting to see some kind of report on what other land preserves do, including how big their staffs are, how many are volunteers, how many get paid, and how much. If such a report exists I can't find it. In searching though I found The Wildlands Conservancy. At 93,000 acres it's more than ten times the size of the Mohonk Preserve. They appear to have a professional executive director, and a board, and other professional management staff. Interestingly, access is free, as are all educational programs.

Land preserves don't need to squeeze every dime out of every visitor and member to be successful. When they do it changes the character of the place, and not for the better.

"Rock climbing is a majority reason the preserve still exists."

You really - really - don't know what you are talking about.

"Although I'm not an expert at how other private preserves operate regarding their staffing, it would seem that the hardest labor would be reserved for people being paid versus having volunteers do it."

And now you are suggesting that people who step up to the plate and freely offer their services be told "Thanks, but we'd rather pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for the work you are donating."

Labor is a STANDARD In-Kind donation for organizations to accept. Experts in various fields OFTEN donate in-kind labor and other services. Yosemite National Park (not a non-porofit, of course) relies HEAVILY on Facelift volunteers to do work they simply can't afford or manage. Work like hauling TONNAGE of concrete slap, defunct electric and phone cables, and other extremely heavy materials.

I know that on the MP, there is some heavy labor involved in the trailwork crew I am on. I also know some people take on a section of a trail to maintain(though they would not be expected to do heavy work). We do this because we WANT to, not because the preserve has put out some call about "without you doing this for free..." It may also surprise some that the tools needed to do this work are paid of - gasp - from a portion of member fees.

The carriage roads which are being rehabbed and which involves heavy manual labor - preserve workers doing the job.

You are not an expert, Kevin. In any way, shape or form. As I have said before, your opinion is your right, but you have continuously spouted utter crap in this thread which is off the mark.

At this point you are making yourself look like a Caped Crusader wannabe. That person firmly believe the manure they have stunk places up with too. But it doesn't make their conclusions forgone.
"What evidence?" ....well one I can think of off the bat is "jaw-dropping, sticker shock inducing" salary which (if accurately stated) turns out to have been completely within the middle range of the standard....

Also, there is one point I would like to include, about how preserve uses funds. When you see many of the community events, newspapers and magazines in the region, you will notice that the preserve is a sponsor. The conspiracy-theorist would suggest this is done to enrich their coffers, of course. They would ignore the fact that the preserve plays a very important part in supporting entities like the Shawangunk Mountains Scenic Byway, local newspapers, magazines and events.

Does one think the preserve need take out ads in the quarterly local arts paper - that there may be people living in New Paltz which are unaware they exist? That they expect people to run, not walk, to the Visitor Center and sign on the day after attending the New Paltz Climbing Film Festival? Of course - one could insist that, yes, this is the case. But the truth is that the preserve supports it's local communities(it does have lands in 5 separate municipalities) - including the "other side of the ridge" ones which struggle mightily.

Just let it go, Happie. You are wasting your time arguing with someone who does not know what they are talking about and just wants to argue. You have done a great job presenting your position and your work here is done.

Kevin, if you are so concerned about this issue, do something about it. Do some research and get your facts straight. Spewing incorrect information on the internet and arguing with Happie just makes you look like an ignorant and rude individual.

Hey Emmett, how's that ticket going.

SethG wrote: State ownership is not something I would want at the Gunks-- this isn't based on some theory. It is based on the reality at the park just up the road. And all this hate directed at the Smileys, I don't get it. We all get to climb at the Gunks because of the Smileys. Get a clue people. They deserve our thanks. They preserved a treasure for us and let us keep it.

As Kevin pointed out, other areas have been preserved with out turning them into cash cows. The Adirondack State Park and The Catskill State Park. Climbing access is free in both areas. Minnewaska, although a State Park, is managed by the PIPC, (for those not local The Palisades Interstate Park Commission). The PIPC is the reason there is no climbing in Minnewaska. The PIPC is the reason there is no climbing in the Palisades Park to the south.

It's very curious that the Mohonk Preserve is collaborating with this organization now. I mean, the PIPC hasn't given a damn about climbers in the past, and now all of a sudden they are building a climber's campground. Clearly, the Mohonk Preserve is very close to the PIPC. Also, it's obvious the Mohonk Preserve has a financial incentive to discourage climbing elsewhere along the ridge, including at Minnewaska, especially at Minnewaska. When the Minnewaska Master Plan was updated a few years ago, what input did the Mohonk Preserve have? Did they discourage climbing at Minnewaska in order to protect their revenue stream at the preserve? If not, why not?

Really, it's very possible that if the Smiley's hadn't acquired land on the ridge, that the Mohonk Preserve wouldn't exist, and that what is now the Mohonk Preserve would be state land. If this were so no one would have a financial incentive to discourage climbing elsewhere on the ridge, and we might be able to climb at Minnewaska, and the Palisades in addition to the Trapps, Nears, and other cliffs on the Mohonk Preserve.

Happie - does the majority of money that the reserve makes come from memberships and fees for entry? What percentage breaks down to hikers, bikers, and climbers?