Everyone wants to hold the ridge up to some high mythical level of purity. That land (especially Minnewaka) has been pissed on by so many previous generations its ridiculous. What do you think the impact has and continues to be with all those miles of carriageways? Those idiotic bikers should be banned.

Based on your comments RG, we should then close off the entire ridge to any use whatsoever.

Screw the bolts, not needed anyway and they silly (so I agree with all on that) but cry me a river that one chunk of metal is more degrading to the environment then another.....

Anyway..... keep Minnewaka closed to climbing so as not to interfere with current climbing activities in those same area's.

Hahah... top-ropers can barely make it out past the spring in the trapps, you expect them to hump their crap all the way to Gertrudes nose?

Graham, you're right, there are other areas that wouldn't suffer the way Gertrude's Nose would. I just doubt, in this forum, that there will be many voices for restraint. And note that Phlan, representing the GCC, says

at this point we were looking at high peterskill, ham. point, gert. nose, and stony kill falls, that's not necessarily all. possibly more if they make sense. might make sense to include all we can in case some are shot down.

so the Palmaghett regions are certainly in play.

And I too have no objection in principle to a sport-climbing area somewhere removed from the scenic core of the Park.

And Smike, yeah, I do expect, given the total size of the climbing population, that a fraction will drag their stuff out to Gertrudes nose, for a number of reasons having to do with the attractiveness of the locale and the relative ease of reaching it by combining walking and biking. And that fraction of a large overall number will represent a significant and ongoing self-increasing impact.

I would not support opening in the Palmaghett regions.

Based on your comments RG, we should then close off the entire ridge to any use whatsoever.

I said nothing even close to that. My comments were about the Palmaghett.

cry me a river that one chunk of metal is more degrading to the environment then another.....

Said nothing about that either.

I would not support opening in the Palmaghett regions.

Well then.

Anyway..... keep Minnewaka closed to climbing so as not to interfere with current climbing activities in those same area's.

This is the central contradiction of my position, and one of the reasons I do not intend to express any opinions at the DEC meetings.

well I feel just the opposite. I hate bolts! if you want spurt go to Kingston quarry.

"that mtn house was built in 1869 by the Smiley family. the same family of the Mohonk mtn house. before it was even a state park.

it only takes 1 bolt to f it all up! " - Talus

-- one chunk of metal is more degrading to the environment then another.....?


I said nothing even close to that. My comments were about the Palmaghett.

...........................
It seems unlikely to me that the "leave no trace," "lead every climb," and "minimize all aspects of your presence" ethics that have governed these areas for decades and have left them in absolutely pristine condition stand a chance against the attitude of convenience entitlement that has swept the climbing world in general. ---RG

If the above is in reference only to Palmaghett only, then we agree. I read those comments as your blanket statement as the reason not to open climbing at all in Minnewaka, as any legal climbing impact on the environment can not be tolerated.


This is the central contradiction of my position, and one of the reasons I do not intend to express any opinions at the DEC meetings. --RG

Understood, just don't be the least bit suprised of any reaction to your comments in a public online forum....

Smike, I promise not to be surprised at anything anyone says. As a general rule, by the way. And as I said, I think it appropriate to have a voice for restraint here, even if my position is a compromised one.

To deepen the contradiction, I'm one of those who have joined and committed time to training for the Hudson Valley SAR group, whose existence serves primarily to remove a central objection to climbing at Minnewaska. So I'm sacrificing time and effort in order to help make climbing possible there, while arguing that significant restrictions ought to apply.

I see it as fairly simple.
if other users have a right to practice their sport on these public lands in a reasonable manner- why not climbers as well?
we did a fair amount of work on the p'kill ecological impact studies. while no official report has been issued to date, it was fairly clear that not much significant impact has occurred and can be mitigated.
problems from invasive plant species a huge issue with Minnewaska, for example, and puts the climbing in an almost insignificant background from what I can tell.

the case has to be presented intelligently. we have considered a lot of things in past meetings beforehand.
even in the case of the H.P. and G.N. a proposal would have to ensure that no climber traffic passes across the ravine proper, climbing only on one side or the other.
after all these plans are subject to revision, and even revocation, if things don't work out. but it is seen as a positive, by most folks we know, to at least give it a try. P'kill, after all, has been and continues to be a success...

there will always be the secret local sport areas no one knows about. there is such an incredible amount of rock out there. but these places we're talking about here are, in general, well known. it would be appropriate to do things like a no guidebook policy, and restriction / control of bolting anchors, perhaps by a permit system. personally I don't see these places turning into hugely popular areas, granted there might be a slight increase in traffic based on the long approaches... but this would take some of the pressure off the other established areas, no?

looking forward to a fair and balanced debate on this in the near future. establishment of a composite vision for the future of Minnewaska climbing is something that will not be easily achieved and we need to bring all points out in the open for discussion.

I think the only restrictions that could make any sense to expansion to the climbing in the park are the following:

1. Overall limit to the number of climbing passes per day (to mitigate human impact)
2. No bolts or fixed anchors. (sure some will spring up, as some I’ve seen in those area’s have now)
3. No clearing of vegetation
4. Outright off limits of certain sensitive ecological area’s.
5. No guidebooks

I just don’t see with those limitations in place that the outcome and experience could be much different then the Adirondack area’s away from the road.

The SAR initiative is a great initiative for the area as a whole (whether or not climbing is allowed further at Minnewaka) If I was full time in the area, I would commit my time as well.