How Rap Slings came to the Gunks

Yes the resulte from Question 5 seem pretty clear.

Anyway if the Preserve wants to have Rock Climbing continue in its historic percentage of recreational (and parking) usage, seems to me they need to deliver more value to justify the high daily use fee -- in the face of competition from other newly opened or newly publicized climbing areas.

Seems to me the Preserve can do pretty well filling the weekend Parking lot with hikers and bikers who are willing to pay a fairly high daily fee to get a quality of outdoor experience of trails and scrambling and views which is difficult to match within driving distance of the NYC metro area -- many with the money available to pay even more for the Parking and hiking+biking access.

I guess for climbers the Preserve must charge additional to cover insurance and ranger support. But climbers care less about the nice trails and views.

Perhaps more important, climbers have still another _cost_ -- acquiring a Trad protection rack.

So I can understand why many young NYC metro climbers choose Rumney NH over the (non-bouldering) Gunks. I am amazed there are some who will choose the bolts + anchors of Birdsboro PA -- even with longer drive and arguably inferior rock to the Gunks.

I've heard a number say they'd like to try Trad leading, but haven't been able to get a reasonable Trad protection rack yet.

I think if the Prserve wants to maintain "brand awareness" among young climbers + families (who want non-bouldering), they have to do something to deliver higher perceived value.

Ken

I don't think a majority of climbers understand the implications of every possible anchor scenerio. While it would be nice to educate them on why this and not that, ultimately what this survey clearly demonstrates is they will always favor what's most convenient for themselves and if that also happens to help stop the erosion at the top of the cliff/cliff's edge, then it simply justifies their preconceived notions of good/bad anchors and hardens that stance. That's at least how I'm seeing this issue, if it can be simplified that much.

One thing is clear - traditional anchor ethics for the Gunks is eroding, if not washed away at this point. This is a good thing for the troubled topout areas along the cliff, not good for other reasons already explained ad nauseam in this and other threads.

James Sweeney wrote:They've also replaced manky bolts on Blackout, Arrow, and Carbs and Caffeine.

Did they patch those old holes on Arrow?

Did they use modern titanium glue-ins? Certainly not on Carbs. If not, why not?

Agreed Julie. (And it is surely one of the jobs of scientists to evaluate the methodology as well as the results of studies.)

The idea, advanced by Question 4, that one could make intelligent policy decisions based simply on the number of anchors (want more anchors, want fewer anchors) is the foundation of a flawed approach. And the fact that questions about anchors didn't consider anything about the context of the anchors (e.g. how far away another rap anchor might be, whether the anchor routes rappellers down on top of people ascending the route) makes the choices inadequate.

But the survey was constructed as an advocacy tool, not a stewardship tool. I don't think the Preserve's decisions were, as Dana put it, "driven" by the survey. There are enough scientists at the Preserve who know how to think about the presentation of data and so understood what they were looking at.

The Gunks had a chance to be unique, a backwater, if that's the way one wants to think about it, where it would be possible to experience the full range of trad climbing challenges (and risks) without journeying to some remote land. That opportunity is slipping away, as pressure from climbers and the lack of Preserve policy slowly edge the region to be more and more like every other venue in the US and Europe.

If the survey is at all representative, and there is no way to know whether or not it is since in addition to its poor construction, voluntary-response sampling isn't even remotely valid, most contemporary climbers don't care about the demise of a unique resource, in fact they welcome it. In Question 4 we see that 71% of the respondents think, in the absence of any kind of qualification, that "there aren't enough bolted anchors."

I think some of the nature of contemporary attitudes can be gauged by kenr's assertion that in order to hold on to its climbing population, the Preserve needs to provide more value to its users, with more bolts = more value as an unexamined standard. My guess is that what kenr characterizes as "competition" from other climbing areas is, from the Preserve perspective, an entirely welcome diversification of climbing opportunities.

I might add that he goes on to recommend the Preserve act to maintain what he calls "brand awareness" by essentially destroying the brand.

Marc801 wrote: Did they patch those old holes on Arrow? Did they use modern titanium glue-ins? Certainly not on Carbs. If not, why not?

Good question. Remember that there are two things going on. One is the Preserve placement of rap anchors, the other is climber replacement of in-situ fixed protection, which is the case with Arrow, Blackout, and Carbs. The Preserve has a total hands-off policy about already existing fixed protection. Climbers can remove fixed pieces and/or replace them, and if they replace them they can use anything they want, whether or not it is optimal.

$90/year seems like a great value if you think about the cost of a lift ticket these days.

Bill Kirby wrote: $90/year seems like a great value if you think about the cost of a lift ticket these days.

Bait.

rgold wrote:he goes on to recommend the Preserve act to maintain what he calls "brand awareness" by essentially destroying the brand.

I made no such recommendation. The Preserve is entirely free to choose to allow the percentage of usage and parking by climbers to drop (and the average age of its climbers to rise). My deepest opinion is that whatever makes the Preserve feel comfortable continuing to allow climbing at all is just great.

My own self-interest is well served by maintaining the status quo (with no new anchors). Because I already own a Trad rack and well know how to use it. Because I can carry extra anchor materials and inspect existing sling/rope anchors. Because I have an annual membership so I don't pay the high daily fee (and I also use my membership for other activities than climbing). Because I live close enough so I don't need to pay for camping.

I know very well how to walk + scramble down off the top from any part of the Trapps cliff. I wrote some of the detailed descriptions on MountainProject of how to do this. I am rather disappointed that the Prserve seems to be discouraging walking off.

So if the Prserve wants to support me as one member of a shrinking aging population of climbers to have more of the great classic routes open for me any time I want, that's just fine with me.
. (but I can understand why some Preserve managers and GCC members might prefer a different future vision).

Anyway, even after they add fify more bolt anchors, that will still leave _hundreds_ of routes on Preserve land with no fixed protection of any kind.

Rumors of "destroying the brand" are premature.

Ken

rgold wrote:The Gunks had a chance to be unique ... experience the full range of trad climbing challenges (and risks) without journeying to some remote land.

Well if you think one of those Trad climbing challenges is to build an anchor with no good stance and four dicy gear placements, then the Gunks do not offer much opportnity for that. Or if you think it's a Trad climbing challenge to build anchors fast because need to get through 23 pitches before sundown.

Most Gunks routes and anchors offer nice stances and easy placements. Most of the time building an anchor in the Gunks is just a matter of carefully following procedures -- so normally it's one of the parts of Trad climbing in the Gunks with the fewest "risks" (other than carelessness or forgetting to follow well-known procedures).

Now getting from one anchor to another in the Gunks often involves a pretty good selection of Trad challenges and risks: hitting a ledge after blowing a move, stopper pulling out when climbing past it, protecting the follower on traverses, etc.

There are other regions where I've climbed multi-pitch recently where I felt like "Wow I'm so glad there's a bolt anchor around here" - because I'd be real scared building anything reliable with these features - and/or not sure how I'd hang on long enough to do the construction.

While in the Gunks when I found a bolt belay or rappel anchor where there didn't used to be one, I felt like while it was nice to save some time, but of course I knew how to handle easily this situation (and successfully once did handle it easily) without the bolt anchor.

So anchor construction does not strike me as a high-priority point for "fighting the battle" to preserve the supposedly unique Gunks Trad challenges and risks.
. (Some of us might have wondered why some of the Stannard pitons were not perceived as more of a threat to the "unique" Gunks challenges + risks).

Anyway if we ever somehow get to the point where there's less than 200 routes in the Gunks without bolt anchors, is it really so far to drive north to the "remote" Adirondacks?

Ken

Kevin Heckeler wrote: Bait.

Why doesn't it surprise me you see it that way. Everything's bait to you Kevin... Even if you agree.

Unfourtunatly the gunks experience these days is about the same as the Rumny experience with the added stress of worrying about getting robbed and costs a bunch more.....

Bill Kirby wrote: Why doesn't it surprise me you see it that way. Everything's bait to you Kevin... Even if you agree.

Really? Out of the blue you post something about fees in a thread that isn't anything to do with them? hmmm...

Stop trolling Kirby.

Looks like Nick took the bait.

gunksclimbers.org/2015-new-…

"Placement of these fixed rappel anchors are not for climber convenience but rather to regenerate the ecosystem, to help avoid rappelling on top of other climbers, to lessen the use of fixed anchors for top-roping, and to maintain the legacy of traditional climbing."

tgsmith wrote:http://gunksclimbers.org/2015-new-bolt-anchors-gunks/ "Placement of these fixed rappel anchors are not for climber convenience but rather to regenerate the ecosystem, to help avoid rappelling on top of other climbers, to lessen the use of fixed anchors for top-roping, and to maintain the legacy of traditional climbing."

If they accomplish those goals then they are a good thing. Currently there are too many bolted anchors that are used on the weekends almost exclusively for gangs of top-ropers, e.g. Snooky's Return, Son of Easy O, Ant's Line.

That's the most comical justification statement for bolted anchors I have ever seen! We are placing more fixed rappel anchors that people routinely abuse as toprope anchors to reduce rappelling, toproping and maintain trad climbing that traditionally did without any fixed anchors in the Gunks!

Kevin Heckeler wrote: Really? Out of the blue you post something about fees in a thread that isn't anything to do with them? hmmm... Stop trolling Kirby. Looks like Nick took the bait.

RGold and Ken were talking about more bolts and anchors adding value to the Mohawk Preserve and how that may deter people from visiting. I feel whether or not more bolts are installed its 90 bones a year, the price of visiting Vail, Whistler Blackcomb or Jackson Hole for a day. Theres plenty value for $90 but I have a trad rack too.

apple to oranges. I can't afford to (and never will be able to afford to) ski, but I can afford to climb because I own everything I need to and most places don't charge entrance. Gunks does and it's a cost that I end up having to put off until the last minute every season (right now I'm floating on a handful of guest passes and a membership that expired at the beginning of july, just waiting until august so I can get that extra month on my card).

Rob D. wrote:apple to oranges. I can't afford to (and never will be able to afford to) ski, but I can afford to climb because I own everything I need to and most places don't charge entrance. Gunks does and it's a cost that I end up having to put off until the last minute every season (right now I'm floating on a handful of guest passes and a membership that expired at the beginning of july, just waiting until august so I can get that extra month on my card).

I'm not trolling but just trying to have a discussion. I compared lift tickets to the pass because they're both things you buy to access some land to play on. One is a toy box of rock the other is covered in snow.

I don't know you so I don't wanna single you out. I've had the same conversation with friends. One may have been the same situation as yourself. He truly had fallen on hard times. The rest complained about $19 after running up over a hundred bar tab.

I figure it's less than $10/month to keep the place on the up and up. The average guy could find a way.

And then ski areas build lifts, groom trails, make snow, have a short season, pay property taxes..., and build their own potties.

Kevin Heckeler wrote:I actually just renewed my Access Fund membership and added a joint membership with GCC to support the work they're doing.

FWIW, as is evident from the icons on the right, I too am an Access Fund and GCC member.

It is interesting that the Access Fund (in combination with Black Diamond) recently came to the Gunks with the ROCK project, whose goal is to educate climbers about behaviors that might negatively impact access. accessfund.org/news-and-eve…. One of the participants, Chris Shulte, remarked that the Access Fund typically prepares areas for climbers, but in this case was attempting to prepare climbers for areas.