AAC and Gunks Camping
|
lucander wrote:I'm with ya on the $ per day equation, but many of my best trips were $75-$150/day. Just about any weeklong trip will tally to that amount once airfare and rental car is factored in...and totally worth it.which you can obviously afford. I am about to go back to school for 2 years and be unemployed for that time.. even a weekend trip is too much gas and fees to justify going. I will probably not do a lot of climbing until i graduate since gym fees are also an expense i can do without. just look at the amount they charge for guided trips to skytop. shows you that their focus on making the most money where they can. i know i'm not the only one who is in a similar situation. |
|
If you come for just the weekend a 2 day pass is a little expensive but a $90 yearly pass is not. |
|
Jake D. wrote: which you can obviously afford.I afforded that in grad school because I taught college as an adjunct, substitute taught elementary school, staffed an after school program, worked as a part-time firefighter, rangered all summer, bike commuted to work, ate cheaply, did laundry once a semester, and hardly indulged in anything other than decent coffee. Good thing I lived in a town with only dialup internet back then, I never would have had time to do all that if I were on Mproj. |
|
rocknice2 wrote:Those of us who would pay for certain amenities welcome such a facility with much anticipation.It would be a welcome option, but it sucks that MUA and Slime will be removed as options. |
|
Jake D. wrote: The Mohonk is making it nearly impossible for unwealthy people from outside the local area to climb there anyway. having free camping was the only thing keeping the fees to a level that i could afford. Now that i'd have to pay for camping also makes the cost per day absurd.Sorry Jake, but there is no such thing as "free" camping. Areas where people crash without paying ALWAYS need some sort of maintenance, and cost land managers and/or the public money. Whenever campers at the NRG complain about having to pay the $7/night fee, I look at their six pack of microbrewed IPA, I look at their $400 tent, I look at their late-model Tacoma, and then look around at the lush, landscaped, chill campground that has had over $300k poured into it by the AAC, which they will not be making back any time in the next few decades. Then I tell them that there is always the Walmart parking lot if they REALLY don't want to pay. I'm sorry, but I just get sick of climbers, nearly all of whom are solidly middle class, have never been on welfare or medicaid, and who are already out paying gas and food money for the ridiculousness of CLIMBING on fucking ROCKS, complaining about a single digit per night camping fee. |
|
which is why for the next 2 years i won't be climbing very much if at all. |
|
News article: Image of CG supervisor house with story about proposed speed reduction signage near CG
Also, there was a DEC Meeting late last year about the future of some DEC parcels on the Shawangunks Ridge(including the MUA). I did not attend the meeting and do not have any information about anything resulting from it. Campground Fees: The last I heard, they were still undecided, but that was several months ago. At that time, some numbers were mentioned(I cannot recall exactly what they were), and they seemed to be very reasonable in comparison to other campgrounds. |
|
There is an interesting and on point comment posted at the end of the article linked above by HG. |
|
WoodwardnBernstein wrote:I buy a Mohonk Preserve membership because I want to climb there, but like many, I now despise the organization...I can get behind that. |
|
Happiegrrrl wrote: News article: Image of CG supervisor house with story about proposed speed reduction signage near CG Also, there was a DEC Meeting late last year about the future of some DEC parcels on the Shawangunks Ridge(including the MUA). I did not attend the meeting and do not have any information about anything resulting from it. Campground Fees: The last I heard, they were still undecided, but that was several months ago. At that time, some numbers were mentioned(I cannot recall exactly what they were), and they seemed to be very reasonable in comparison to other campgrounds.Thanks a lot for the information and link HappyGirl ! |
|
WoodwardnBernstein wrote: They seem to be non-profit only in that they don't pay taxes. They keep adding more and more infrastructure: buildings, driveways, campgrounds, parking lots, etc. And the management staff gets bigger, more bloated, and better paid every year. I buy a Mohonk Preserve membership because I want to climb there, but like many, I now despise the organization I once loved.Couldn't have said it better myself. . . except that I don't buy a pass anymore. |
|
WoodwardnBernstein - I am guessing, from the style of writing, that this profile is the latest from Kent. If not, I apologize for my error. |
|
Does everyone who has a similar writing style have to be the same person? |
|
WoodwardnBernstein wrote:Does everyone who has a similar writing style have to be the same person?So are you or not? |
|
WoodwardnBernstein wrote:Does everyone who has a similar writing style have to be the same person? And, respectfully, I believe your saccharine sweet perspective of the Preserve is biased and colored, at least in part, by your preserve employment and your desire to be the new campground manager.How dare you point out the hypocrisy in people! :p |
|
Its no secret there are certain locals that believe they have received the short end of the stick by virtue of the Mohonk Preserves support of stricter zoning regulations regarding development on the ridge and their history of litigating land disputes. Its clear that WoodwardnBerstein is not a member of MountainProject for any other purpose than to propagate the views of that small group of people here in these forums. I have very little sympathy for their arguments which either want to limit access to other private property on the ridge (their interest in the new campground) or reverse the zoning regulations so that there would be an increase in the value of their land by allowing them to sell out for McMansion development. |
|
I agree with your sentiments, Jeffrey. It baffles me that so many people either aren't really aware of what the mission of the MP is and the underlying efforts required to maintain that mission, or just don't care beyond it's usefulness as a climbing area. |
|
I don't know why you engage with the trolls. Their ruination of every Gunks thread was foretold pages ago. I'm sorry I made that ka-ching joke. |
|
Just chiming in as someone who has actually worked on the conservation side of both Minnewaska and Mohonk. |
|
Happiegrrrl wrote: Kevin - I really do not get why you continue to act like an ass to me, and don't know how I am going to be able to look at your face and be cordial next time I run into you. You are really one of the very few people I actually know that I feel that way about. I don't even feel that way about Kent!You expect this whining to change what exactly? Your issues are all yours. I really just don't care enough about you personally to look at or away from you. Drink deeply of that resentment poison. Jeffrey/WilliamR - I think you're missing the points/objections made about the preserve in general (of which mine are posted elsewhere, so no need to clutter this thread). Let's just say we're not having the same conversation about the same thing. If you're curious, the search feature is your friend. There's a long history between land owners, the preserve, and other agencies that operate in that area. No one is void of problems. There's a lot of competing interests and everyone involved is making their fair share of mistakes. This isn't gunks.com so expect the unexpected. To put the preserve on a pedestal is... well, as wrong as putting any of the other interests/organizations on one. |