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.