Why is it a bad idea to disolve the Mohonk Trust and give the Trapps and Nears to the state? It's a purely hypothetical question of course, and as such this post can perhaps be regarded as merely a "troll."

As an old fashioned liberal, I don't see anything wrong with government running parks, or health insurance for that matter..... Conservatives might say all parks ought to be run by organizations like the Trust....Then there is hallowed tradition and the ghost of Smiley, board members egos, etc....

(Headline corrected to read Mohonk Preserve; not Mohonk Trust)

Another good idea. Government takes possession of your property and rents it back to you. Let's you take an active role in paying down debt.

OK, I'll bite on the hook and get reeled in...

If the land would become part of the NYS Forest Preserve, like much of the Catskills and Adirondacks, fine. But given historical precedent and the fact that the adjoining public land is administered by the Palisades Interste Park Commission, if the Preserve's holdings were to go to public management, PIPC would probably be the overseer, and the the crags we love would be administered by the same folks who forbid climbing in Harriman and on the Palisades. Dave Rosenstein jumped through fiery hoops FOR YEARS to get Peterskill opened.

At the risk of being pedantic, the Mohonk TRUST was dissolved decades ago.

At the risk of being pedantic, the Mohonk TRUST was dissolved decades ago.

So that's why it was dissolved; I'd always wondered.
Anyway, out-of-touch oldies can be identified by their Mohonk Trust/Preserve nomenclature. One good reason for not yielding the Preserve to the state is that state parks may be subject to political whims to our detriment. True, a private preserve may also be subject to whims, but a smaller entity would be more amenable to its supporters, us et al.

Have you ever noticed that State and Federal lands can be sold.
The Bush Administration is currnetly looking at selling some federal lands as a way of closing the deficit that they created. Coures the sale of OUR public lands is a mere drop in the bucket of federal debt.

Perhaps the folks who created The Preserve had the smarts and vision to keep it a private enity there by keeping it from the coffiers of uncaring politicians.

Many, many, thanks to The Smiley family, whose vision and forsight was decades ahead of the rest of this country.

As an old fashioned conservative, I don't see anything wrong with government running parks ( the PIPC in this case ) and sneaking in so to avoid being arrested for climbing since it would be banned.

Right now---in its effect---because the Preserve permits climbing at Trapps and Nears, this takes the heat off Palisades Park Commission.

If the state acquired the Trapps & Nears, and sought to ban climbing, they'd have a vastly different political ball game, than what they've faced over climbing bans elsewhere on their lands... They might even be forced to get rational about the big picture...Imagine if climbing was permitted on the Palisades......("Don't you see? We could all be 'Free Range Chickens!!!")

In the simplest terms, having a single land administrator rather than two in the Shawangunks would be a more efficient use of funds, (whether govt., or private permit revenue). Never happen-- impossible. Like the Berlin Wall.

I've never seen the sense to a government taking my money, calling it theirs, and then telling me they do so because I'm too stupid to know how to take care of my own interests. Not saying I haven't shown a few moronic moments, but in general I want to put my money toward those things that interest me. I do not want to give it to someone else and then beg them to put some toward my cause. I will always favor private control because it is more reliable.

Why The Mohonk Preserve?


I think the simple answer is that we have MUCH more ability to influence the Private Preserve then we ever do with PIPC (The government can just tell us (climbers) to go kiss off while they keep sucking off of the coffers of tax payers’ money to keep them afloat.) The PICP is somewhat immune from the biggest influence we as climbers have over the preserve …money.

I oughtn't repeat myself but:

The Preserve takes the heat off Palisades Park Commission so they needn't listen to climbers.... I don't say by design-- but in effect.

To some of these other posts: Ronald ("trees cause pollution") Regan said it best:: "get gobberment off our backs."

Or Margaret Thatcher: "There is no such thing as 'society.' "

Each a brilliant comment and probably way ahead of its time....

So then if the PIPC is the 'problem' why not just turn Minnewaska etc. into Minnewaska Park, like Catskill Park and Adirondack Park?
I have a big blue marker if you have a map...

Or to phrase what you are saying differently:

Subject: Re: Why The Adirondack Park?
The Park takes the heat off Palisades Park Commission so they needn't listen to climbers from Albany.... I don't say by design-- but in effect.

Do you have a problem with Adirondack Park too?

I oughtn't repeat myself but:

The Preserve takes the heat off Palisades Park Commission so they needn't listen to climbers.... I don't say by design-- but in effect..


I get it , like why don't we close all of the homeless shelters in NY city so the Government actually *might* have to give homeless people a job and food.

Smike - As long as there is no climbing in the Palisades, why not let them stay there?

"So then if the PIPC is the 'problem' why not just turn Minnewaska etc. into Minnewaska Park, like Catskill Park and Adirondack Park?
I have a big blue marker if you have a map..."

Ughh! Do I have to get into why The Adirondack and Catskill Parks aren't parks again??? A pox upon that person who attached the word "park" to the Forest Preserve!!!!!

RR

OK, so the Catskills and ADKs aren't really parks but we can climb there. The Mohonk Preserve is a preserve, but we can climb there. Central Park really is a park, but we can climb (boulder) there. So what's the problem with Minnewaska again?

Oh yea, too many little pine trees and big hemlock trees. Except there aren't any of those along Hamilton Point and Gertrudes Nose...

I think it's time for Southern New York to secede from the Garden State.

Thread drift:

I do undertand many of the pin-headed distinctions the state makes among its holdings, but this is from the NYS DEC Web site description of, for example, the Adirondak Park:

"The Adirondack Mountains of northeastern New York are home to the six-million-acre Adirondack Park, a patchwork of public and private lands protected under state law."

No serious refutations, apparently, to my contention that Mohonk Preserve helps to enable the PIPC's bone-headedness. If PIPC had to work with climbers regarding the Trapps, (and obviously they would, if they managed it) they'd be potentially forced into putting the whole ball of wax on the table.

Apparently you discount the weight of tradition (and its its legal implications), as well as tsheer numbers of annual climber days at Trapps/Nears

The community of interest has been inadvertantly co-opted by Mohonk Preserve...The environmental loser from state policy resulting indirectly from MT's existence in recent decades is Trapps/Nears ---- The other losers are obvious.
.

Or at least one could say--- if for the past twenty years the state had an aggressive climbing development policy for Minnewaska and perhaps the Palisades it probably wouldn't make the Trapps/Nears more crowded & might even help sigificantly.

================

Maybe you should get out of the MF subjunctive you self-styled liberal whacko. It you want to climb along the river, do it. Express yourself and claim first amendment.

I have to agree with you Mike, the areas Near Sam's Point would seem to lend themselves to climbing as they are not 'pristine' probably don't support a lot of endangered species, etc. The problem is, if they allow climbing only there would climbers abuse this by climbing on off limits cliffs? A confidential report done for Sam's Point and other cliffs nearby does document several sensitive areas.
This same arguement could be made at Skytop, if the issue is only their guests' experience (and not liabilty, which may also be the case) why couldn't they allow limited climbing only past the staircliff for instance. Again, would climbers respect this rule? I doubt it since I have walked the base of the Skytop cliffs (and done some non-technical scrambling myself) and have seen illegal climbers and chalk on popular climbs. So I don't see the powers changing their minds right off. Boys will be boys.

Things aren't too bad currently and maybe that's all for the best. Certainly the Preserve is actively helpful to climbers --almost the reverse of PIPC--- and Trapps/Nears are the only place worth much anyway. (One hopes I'm at least a tiny bit wrong in saying so....)

But I don't think its an absolute certaintly that things currently are for the best---And do think it's amusing to speculate and ramble insanely about alternatives:

For example; maybe the Climber's Coalition could sponsor a trip by the Chamber of Commerce from that Mexican climbing town near South Texas to provide testimony to the PIPC......

In yet a third scenario, climbing becomes an Olympic sport...... and boys & girls from both SUNY & north Jersey win medals.....The park puts up signs everwhere.

====

double necessary post

seems like ever since Thom Scheuer left; the prevserve started acting like an aggresive business. i wish Thom was still around.

West Point banned hiking on their lands around the time you mention. An interesting story. Why didn't Fritz W climb in Palisades? Or did he?

He did climb in the Palisades Park lands, though I don't think the 'Palisades' proper. In the 1930's, Wiessner and the AMC would regularly go to three or four cliffs in the PIPC lands on weekends. I think people started climbing in the Palisades in the late 1800s. One day he famously spotted the Gunks from the top of Breakneck Ridge and decided his next trip should be to go check it out - 1935, I think?
Once people discovered the nearly endless supply of rock at the Gunks - taller, better quality, and much more extensive than any crag in the Hudson Highlands, the climber traffic moved north. Maybe Arden Cliff had traffic a little longer since it was easy to get to by train (fewer automobiles back then; rail service to Arden was discontinued long ago), but as routes like High E were seeing first ascents, West Point training activities were taking over all the steep rock near West Point -- which was being conveniently abandoned by climbers.
You might be able to find the story in that book "Yankee Rock and Ice" by the Watermans.

Yah, it eez pozzibul.

Vee go climb upundzee der cliff, ya? Ya!


On a clear day, you can see the Gunks, and the lower Cats from on top of Breakneck, or Taurus, Mt Beacon, etc.

And on a really clear day, you can see some towers of Manhattan.

Yea I read Waterman but it was at least ten years ago and I really don't remember anything about Palisades & Hook Mt. etc. except maybe brief mention. I could imagine that they're really a total horror show. But Fritz seems to have tried to climb anything.

All I wanna know is when is Mohonk going to put in a disc golf course. For those days when it's too hot or I'm too scared and I don't want to climb frogshead again.

No Hit right!

I'd gladly pitch in a week of work for a folf course...