From the February American Alpine Club E-News:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The AAC is working with the Mohonk Preserve and the state of New York with the hope of creating a badly needed climbers' campground just below the Shawangunk cliffs. Under the proposal, the state would help develop a campground with at least 20 sites on 45 acres of land, and the AAC would run the facility along with the Mohonk Preserve. If all goes well, the new Gunks campground could open by early 2008.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The AAC point man for this effort is Jim McCarthy, who was back East working on the deal a few weeks ago.

http://www.americanalpineclub.org/bod/February_2006/Mohonk_agreement.asp

Thanks Kent and RG. I'm still not sure if this refers to the same property already in use for camping (muti-use) or another area along 299. Anyone know? Kudos to AAC to jump in and get 'er done. Internet and phone connections? Not sure why that is needed except maybe for the administrators, although I wouldn't think many visiting climbers would mind WiFi access.

Chip, it's a 45 acre piece, southwest of the NYDEC Multiple (ab)Use Area, on the same side of the road. You can view it on the Ulster County Parcel Viewer.

The parcel viewer takes a little getting use to. When you get to the above page, click on the disclaimer and agree to it's terms. Once in, click on "Municipality-wide", then, on the map, click on the Town of Gardiner . Then choose "Parcel ID" under search options on the left, and search on section 85.3, block 2, lot 4.110. The search will highlight the proposed campground lot on the parcel viewer in yellow. To blow up the image go to the left hand menu and choose "zoom in". Then click on the highlighted lot as many times as needed to reach the size you want.

There are four lots of 5-6 acres each between the NYDEC MUA and the proposed AAC/MP/PIPC Campground.

Interesting that the AAC will be responsible for the bulk of the expenses and that either party can suspend the deal at any time leaving 180 days for rebuttal.

$20/ night

Internet and phone connections? Not sure why that is needed

Hard to manage an on-line site reservation system without access to the internet.

I have some thoughts and comments on the new campground. I hope those with more detailed information or first hand knowledge can add insight.

1) As I read it, this new campground will require all the same permits from the Town of Gardiner that the formerly proposed CGs did. What makes anyone think they will be more liekly to grant all the required permits this time ? I see where nothing has changed here. It's still a pay for camping area run by a "conservation-like" organization.

2) How will this help the camping situation ? It seems this is merely a replacement for Camp Slime. In that case are we not just swapping 20 free sites w/o facilities for 20 pay sites with facilities ? And if the DEC closes the MUA, we're way down on the available camping sites.
20 sites is not even a drop in the bucket for the amount of camping required at the Gunks on a busy weekend.

The above having been said, I think it is great someone is once again taking the initiative to establish a viable CG at the Gunks. I just see this as the Camp Slime replacement, nothing else.

Please, someone tell me I have it all wrong !

T

Is it really going to be $20/night?!?! Even though I now have a job/salary, that is still ludicrous to me. I can't imagine a student or dirtbag coughing that up.

As I read it, this new campground will require all the same permits from the Town of Gardiner that the formerly proposed CGs did. What makes anyone think they will be more liekly to grant all the required permits this time ? I see where nothing has changed here.

I was wondering about that too. Wasn't one of the issues with the AMC proposal the sight-line for the road? If it's the same piece of property - which it appears to me to be - then won't they run into the same problems? The agreement states:

WHERAS after considering the relationship of the project to its core strategic priorities AMC has decided that it does not intend to pursue the project and wishes to convey the land to the appropriate entity to enable a campground project to be carried forward;

Edited to add... by some extremely odd coincidence I was reading the Winter 2005 American Alpine News at lunch time (my wife made me clean out a bunch of old magazines so I'm trying to catch up on my reading). The Letter from the President included the following bullet point:

* We also would like to expand our hut system and add climber-focused campgrounds, perhaps one in Yosemite.

Oh well, Yosemite's loss is the Gunks' gain, I guess.

A new campground is very fine & dandy, but closing MUA to camping would be a significant loss ----regardless of any other factors.

I don't really see how state could justify shutting the MUA without making some debatable assertions glomed from local real estate broker-types -----and I also don't see how a new facility would change these potential arguments.

This sounds like the same chunk of land the AMC tried to develop into a campground. As I recall, there was significant local opposition. Some of it actually had some merit.

I, for one, have no confidence that the AAC will have any better luck -- or competence -- navigating the thicket of local regs than anyone else.

I hope I'm wrong. We need some sort of decent camping facility and the AAC does a pretty good job running the Climbers Ranch in the Tetons.

Stay tuned.

Joe Antol

The difference being - this time, the Mohonk preserve is a partner. Should it not make some difference?

Question: What will happen to the MUA land once(if) the new campground opens? Would it be possible/feasible for that land parcel to somehow transfer over and become part of this new campground?

And , Camp Slime is on Mohonk Prserve land, isn't it? Id so, then the MP probably has an idea as to what will become of Camp Slime if the new campground opens. I think it is within reason for the public to know the intent....

Terrie,

Yes, I suppose having the Preserve on board will help. They are certainly adept at working the levers of local government. However, it's one thing to take a parcel of land "off the market". Most people are quite happy to have permanently undeveloped land next door. A camp ground is another kettle of carp.

My understanding of Multiple Use Areas is that free camping is one of the approved uses. I suspect (although I am not an authority on this) that it would require the state legislature to change this.

This was one of the hangups when the AMC was trying to develop the land. The MUA would continue to have camping and right along side, more camping. This did not make adjacent property owners very happy.

Joe

It would be really nice if the campground were within walking distance of the trapps. The experience is alot better if you dont have to drive from your tent to go climbing/hiking.

It would be really nice if the campground were within walking distance of the trapps.

IF my memory serves me correctly and IF this is indeed the same parcel of land which the AMC had intended to develop as a campground there was supposed to be a connecting trail up to the Trapps. A lot of IFs, sorry, and also quite a hike.

Yeah...20 minutes is way to long far to expect outdoor enthusiasts to walk.

RR

The vast majority of climbers are hardly "outdoor enthusiasts". The cliffs closest to the car park are the first ones developed, pretty much everywhere. Even way back in the day. What was the first route at the Gunks? Old Route at Millbrook. Why? Millbrook was the first cliff reached when driving north. Where did the next major development take place? Skytop, 'cause it was real easy to get to and you could get a room almost at its base.

20 or 30 minute approach in the Gunks just to get near the cliffs? Are you nuts? It so impinges on the NYC attitude* of squeezing 29 hours into every 24. GottaClimbGottaClimbGottaClimb-don'tgetinmyway,Noob.

*Yeah, even if you're not from NYC and you climb at the Gunks, it's still the prevailing attitude. Contagious almost.

Whatever your high holyness.....

I heard in Utah that the locals hike 10 miles and leave the 3 star roadside classics for us fat and lazy easterners....how nice of them..

Quote:

---

...

I heard in Utah that the locals hike 10 miles and leave the 3 star roadside classics for us fat and lazy easterners....how nice of them..

---

Wheras in New York, the locals 10 miles and don't climb, leaving the 3 star roadside classics for us fat and lazy downstaters?

hee hee hee. How nice of THEM!

In my mind, the loss of the MUA (were it to close with the opening of the AMC camp) would be almost as significant a loss as Skytop. Regardless of how you feel about the place, it still embodies a vestige of the free-spiritedness that has been otherwise almost totally removed from the Gunks climbing experience. I would hope that THIS would be an issue that the GCC would mobilize for.

While I don't use it more than maybe once a year, I agree the end of the MUA would be a sad loss. I had my bachelor party there back in the day. Imagine a time when we were the only people there on a Saturday night! I'm sure the locals are fit to be tied about all the cars there on a busy weekend, and the newer site may be approved simply on the merits of getting cars away from the road.