Shout Box

Who's Online
0 registered (), 14 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 4 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Topic Options
#16888 - 11/14/05 10:10 PM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: Mike Rawdon]
yorick Offline
old hand

Registered: 11/15/02
Posts: 1040
Loc: hamlet's hand
Why couldn't the GCC "administer" the climbing park?? Now THAT would get folks' attention.





We've floated the idea for other projects. We're just not sure we've got the time, legal werewithal, and bodies to do it, yet.
_________________________
Shongum ain't Indian,
it's Sha-WAN-gunk.

Top
#16889 - 11/14/05 10:49 PM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: yorick]
ScottR Offline
journeyman

Registered: 05/27/05
Posts: 99
You must be kidding me. The Southeast Climbers Coalition administers the climbing at Little Rock City, TN, purchased Boat Rock in Atlanta, GA, Jamestown, AL, and is about to lease Castle Rock, TN, and you are trying to say that the climbing community in the the most populated part of the country can't summon up the financial, legal and human resources to adminster a climbing area. That is a sad commentary.

Top
#16890 - 11/14/05 11:23 PM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: ScottR]
yorick Offline
old hand

Registered: 11/15/02
Posts: 1040
Loc: hamlet's hand
Yep, they're our heroes.

You want to volunteer to open and close the gate every day?
_________________________
Shongum ain't Indian,
it's Sha-WAN-gunk.

Top
#16891 - 11/15/05 01:29 AM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: yorick]
Mike Rawdon Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/29/99
Posts: 4269
Loc: Poughkeepsie
Why do climbing parks need gates?

Or Kiosks, permits, tickets, hours of operation, trails, fixed anchors, committees, websites, membership cards, signs, lawyers, by-laws, mission statements etc etc.

Top
#16892 - 11/15/05 10:48 AM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: pedestrian]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1036
Loc: The Bayards
Kent, have you stopped to consider whether your idea is actually practical? It's likely such a climbing park would have to be administered by someone other than the Preserve. The Preserve, as an organization, was founded for a specific purpose and must adhere to its bylaws. That purpose, it should be obvious, is to preserve land first, and to allow consistent recreational opportunities second. You are asking the Preserve to violate its own bylaws and acquire a thin strip of land based only upon its recreational value, and not its preservation value.

Can you really fault the GCC for not taking action on an impractical proposal? Do you have a serious proposal waiting in the wings that we're still waiting to hear?

I've posted a response to this in the GCC Issue thread.

Top
#16893 - 11/15/05 01:28 PM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: Mike Rawdon]
yorick Offline
old hand

Registered: 11/15/02
Posts: 1040
Loc: hamlet's hand
Quote:

Why do climbing parks need gates?





To keep out the ATVs...and the lawyers.
_________________________
Shongum ain't Indian,
it's Sha-WAN-gunk.

Top
#16894 - 06/06/06 11:18 PM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: yorick]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1036
Loc: The Bayards
From Yorick

Quote:

Should Awosting be turned over to PIPC and Minnewaska, I am trusting that the rhetoric I've heard from state officials - which so far is nothing if not about minimizing ridge fragmentation - will be their highest priority. And I know whom to speak to and where to write emails/letters, should this prove not to be the case.




Chris S- You might want to ready a draft letter to the state officials you speak of above. Parking is becoming a real problem on Gardiner town roads in the vicinity of Awosting. Reportedly, many complaints have been made to town hall and many parking tickets have been issued. From the Gardiner Town Board''s Agenda for tonight's town meeting:
Quote:

Item 3.1.1 PIPC/Minnewaska State Preserve Representatives Discuss Awosting Reserve access and plans




They are going to have to do something eventually as thousands, if not tens of thousands, of outdoor enthusiasts now know Awosting has become state land. Rather than entering Minnewaska through Sam's Point or the 44/55 entrance, they will keep flowing to Awosting through Gardiner, as the path of least resistance, like the incoming tide.

Top
#16895 - 06/06/06 11:47 PM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: Kent]
Kevin Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 11/17/99
Posts: 201
Kent, do you have actual numbers? From what I have seen there has been very few people actually in the new Awosting Reserve area... Granted I have not been there everyday, but a few times that parking was never a problem when I was going ot leaving.

How many complaints?
How many tickets?

Why only selective enforcement? If Gardiner wanted to rake in some serious money, they should have whoever is enforcing this 'problem' go enforce other problem areas like the overlooks... Or is it that the overlooks are not in 'their' backyards so less of a real concern?

Top
#16896 - 06/07/06 12:05 AM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: Kevin]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1036
Loc: The Bayards
Kevin, I don't have actual numbers, just reports from a few friends who live down there, so this is all second hand. Though there have been enough complaints for the town board to ask for a presentation from PIPC on how they are going to manage access. The problem seems to be there is simply no funding or plan for access to or rangering at Awosting yet. So people are just wanting to get out and enjoy the land. But there aren't any parking lots or entrances of maps or anything, so people are parking wherever and exploring.

The idea that the state will be able to funnel access through Sam's Point and the Main 44/55 entrance seems very unrealistic. People want to see Awosting Reserve, and both of the aforementioned access points require long walks and descents into AR. People are going to skip what the state wants them to do and find ways to get in where they don't have to walk very far.

No matter how you slice it or dice it, a few town roads and a few residents are going to bear the brunt of traffic, legal or otherwise, into Awosting.

I don't think the selective enforcement is about revenue generation but rather is a result of complaints from affected people. The overlook isn't really in anyone's backyard so no one has complained. Personally though, I think use of the overlook for all day parking, by people of various recreational stripes, is pretty obnoxious.


Edited by Kent (06/07/06 12:59 PM)

Top
#16897 - 06/07/06 12:06 AM Re: The Fragmenting of Gardiner [Re: Kevin]
smokejumper1 Offline
journeyman

Registered: 04/06/06
Posts: 75
Loc: NY, CA, Deutschland
Quote:

Kent, do you have actual numbers? From what I have seen there has been very few people actually in the new Awosting Reserve area... Granted I have not been there everyday, but a few times that parking was never a problem when I was going ot leaving.

How many complaints?
How many tickets?

Why only selective enforcement? If Gardiner wanted to rake in some serious money, they should have whoever is enforcing this 'problem' go enforce other problem areas like the overlooks... Or is it that the overlooks are not in 'their' backyards so less of a real concern?





I have some friends in that area who have complained about the traffic and the people crossing their property from Awosting. The season is early though, and it will likely get worse as the days heat up. This will be a new problem and will probably take a season or two to iron out the problems. Selective enforcement comes from minimal resources. How much revenue do you think Gardiner would make from enforcing the overlook?

Top
Page 4 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >


Moderator:  webmaster 
Sponsored