A show of force from climbers with articulate comments and interest in getting involved with the master plan rewrite would be important for those intested in the expansion of climbing to other areas in the park:


To: Persons Interested in Minnewaska State Park Preserve



Re: Public Information Meeting for the development of a Draft master plan for Minnewaska State Park Preserve



There will be two Public Information Meetings on the Draft Master Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Minnewaska State Park Preserve on Tuesday July 8 and Thursday July 10, 2008.



At this meeting you will be provided with a brief overview of the planning effort and the resources of the Park. The main purpose of this meeting, however, will be to listen to the Park users, and record the types of issues, impacts and alternatives that you would like addressed in the Draft Plan/DEIS, Park staff will be available at the meeting to answer questions and receive your comments.



The July 8th meeting will be held at SUNY New Paltz Building, Lecture Hall 100 from 6:30 PM to 9:30 PM.

The July 10th meeting will be held at Ellenville High School Auditorium from 6:30 PM to 9:30 PM



If you are not able to attend the meetings, you may provide written comments by August 11, 2008:



Mark Hohengasser
New York State Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Development
Empire State Plaza
Agency Building
Albany, NY 12238
Mark.hohengasser@oprhp.state.ny.us





Larry Wheelock - NY West Hudson Representative
New York - New Jersey Trail Conference
156 Ramapo Valley Road
Mahwah, New Jersey 07430-1199
Tel: 201-512-9348 Ext 16
Fax: 201-512-9012
Mobile: 973-650-3228
Email: wheelock@nynjtc.org

Does the GCC plan on filing a comment???

It took the local swimming community a while, but they finally overcame the MSSP beaurocracy and they can now swim outside the miiscule beach area in lake Minne. The program IIRC is called S.W.I.M. - Swim Without Interference at Minnewaska. Perhaps the park would entertain a similar agreement under which climbers with a certain amount of credibility/credentials would be allowed broader access to the climbing terrain within the Park's boundaries. I suggest we call the initiative C.L.I.M.B. - Climb Lightly In Minnewaska Backcountry.

Brilliant suggestion Mike, and an excellent acronym!

credibility? credentials? This wouldn't lead to an exclusive contract for a certain guide service would it?

No, quite honestly I am thinking of something modeled after the SWIM program. There's a proficiency test or something required. Minne could for example require the climber to have a season's pass, minimal first aid, climb at a certain level. Whatever surrogates equate to "responsible climbing".

I think you're making up regulations they might not even see as necessary since Peterskill doesn't have that kind of crap. I really don't think that swimming program is worth emulating.

I don't know about the swimming program, so have no idea, but I had heard a while back, that the conversation about climbing at the Palmaghatt was planned to be contingent on:
- having a volunteer SAR, since the Gardiner fire and rescue people couldn't be expected to get back there
- a backcountry sign-in log
- another item or two....I can't recall...grrrr, getting old...

Mike is right to ask where the GCC stands on this. No doubt, they will be representing the climbing community at the meeting, but it would be really great to hear from someone involved....

It's the weekend and maybe the people in the know are out on adventures, but if anyone knows the "official" stance," it would be nice to have it posted here.

I saw on the GCC website that they had a steering committee meeting scheduled for June, and I think that the date was like the 18th or something. Now the site lists the date for the July meeting. So, hopefully, they were aware of this issue for the June meeting, and discussed it.

The GCC does seem to have an understanding of how to run the diplomatic channels involved, and that is an important thing, I think.

FYI - I am not in favor of having to climb at a certain level because most likely that will mean I am out of the running, since I am leading only 5.5, following 5.8, and that's if it's not a sustained route. But I have a basic understanding of self-rescue and have some experience in backcountry climbing and hiking. I've backed off a number of climbs safely, never leaving so much as a sling(keep America clean!!!), and, most importantly, would be.....really pissed....if climbing in some of the other areas was closed to me because I ain't no hardman. GRRR!!!! Believe me, I would not stand for it, and you(not You, you. All those other you's) would see me out there.

I think the SAR thing makes sense, though people would have to understand that a rescue out in backcountry ain't a matter of dialing 911 and irritatedly wondering why the hell it was taking so long for help to arrive a half hour later....

One suggestion, maybe to be on the "allowed" list, a person would have to agree to accept responsibilities, such as expecting to get out on their own with a broken ankle. Perhaps a "Safety in Backcountry" sort of book could be suggested for those who might not understand, and the every so often workshop offered.

At any rate - I will write my letter to the address mentioned, and try to be succinct and show intent to be respectful toward the ecosystem. But I think it would be really great to have the community represented at these meetings by someone from the GCC.

Unfortunately, and likely on purpose, the two meetings are on work nights for most of those that would come from out of town. Perhaps we will all write letters, but that is not how it usually goes. This is an opportunity for GCC to regain some momentum.
Th amount of available climbing in Minnewaska is huge, much of it with easy approaches from the state park parking areas, including Millbrook. At the most,I think that a self rescue course is all the requirement we should stand for. The law in NYS now excludes a land owner from liability on recreational injuries as long as there are no land improvements specificly made for that activity. That is all that needs be in place to put the responsibility back on the climber, where it belongs.

Terrie:

Sorry to say that all the climb at Gertrude's Nose are really hard - the 5.6 (with just a few climbs in this grade level) feel like 5.9 because it is so steep...

Moreover, since one has to rappel to access most of the climbs there, having good route finding experience is a must.

Placing bolts should absolutely be out of question.

I agree with Mike with setting up climbing standards - it would help with negotiating with NYS Parks. Moreover, the ecology there is very fragile and setting up standards would limit the amount of climbers that can go there.

I also like the idea of putting self-rescue skills as a pre-requisite...

Mim - I have better route-finding skills than many of the people I have ever climbed with, so that isn't an issue for me. At any rate, as a follower, I can get up anything - I have prussiks and know how to use them....

The thing is - I really enjoy the adventure aspect in climbing, and that is what I have look for in the use of these referenced areas.

But I suppose if one had to become a 5.whatever leader in order to have access.....it might just provide a stubborn Taurus like myself the incentive to get better....

What crap are you referring to? Unjustified restrictions on public use of public land... that sort of crap?

The SWIM program does show what a small group of organized and energetic people can do and with the crags that allow legal access ever more crowded more routes would be good. I think it would be a mistake, though, to come into it with a proposal that includes specific climbing abilities/standards because bureaucrats who likely know very little about actual climbing would be making the rules; look at DEC's climbing guide license requirements - "personal water safety"?!. It would be better to refer to the Peterskill model that I believe the powers that be look at as successful. The less that our activities are defined be people who know nothing about them the better.

There is a viable SAR organization that is in place and has worked with both Preserve and DEC rangers in mock and actual rescue situations; Hudson Valley Search and Rescue. This is a pretty reasonable requirement and has now largely been met. What it is mostly going to take is people showing up or writing coherent letters to move this process in our favor. How cool would that be? to park by the lake, jump on your bike with rope draped over your pack and bust out to Gertrude's Nose to climb; sweet!

I've been involved in some similar situations recreationally and professionally. I see no reason to offer restrictions on ourselves that are not even on the table.

it's all choss, buggy, dank, and just to far out there.

the GCC is aware of the meetings and is certainly planning on attending both meetings. our letter from OPRHC is on hand. personally I do not see the need for adding any qualifications or restrictions, like the swimming program. it is critical at this stage to be involved with the master plan.
at some point a SAR team was brought up for the backcountry and the guide services had volunteered so step up to the plate on that one.
thanks climberdave for posting the letter here.

I've been enjoying perusing Jim Lawyer's and Jeremy Haas's new guidebook, Adirondack Rock, and Don Mellor's foreward has much that is relevant to our current situation. He says that Adirondack climbing means "uncertainty and inconvenience," terms that used to characterise all climbing but which now are in such general retreat that Mellor can imply that these characteristics are now unique to the Adirondacks. He mentions that the climbers who come to the Adirondacks "share an appreciation that the place is far more important than our puny deeds," and that "It's not a place to become a hero. But it's a good place to find adventure." Finally, he observes that "just as every little town doesn't need a Walmart, neither does every belay ledge need two shiny rings...Let us all understand the inexorable and insidious ratchet of so-called progress, and let us all think for a moment before trying to do future passersby a favor by eliminating that inconvenience."

I could make the DEC public meetings, but I won't be going. I am conflicted about the access issues involved here, and find myself pessimistic about the long-term effects of opening the Palmaghett to climbers. 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. The pressure from top-ropers will be immense and ultimately irresistable, and this pressure will lead, not only to a crowding of the Gertrude's Nose trail with parties and all their gear and unruly pets parked at the top, but also to an inevitable demand, ultimately perceived as a need, for bolted anchors at the cliff top, just as has happened at Peterskill. In turn, the presence of fixed anchors will attract more top-ropers, increasing the crowding, and leading to a vicious cycle of perceived needs for even more conveniences, not to mention the necessity of, say, an outhouse to accomodate a significant population that is now in a fixed location for the day rather than just passing through.

I am fully aware that attitudes such as these will be met with responses that substitute loaded slogans for careful thought. There will be plenty of talk about elitism and about old farts wishing to preserve times that are gone forever, sprinkled liberally with both implied and explicit insults and unjustified assumptions about motives. But if the scenario above represents progress, than I for one want no part of it. I won't be standing up at any DEC meetings and making these points, but I won' do anything to support increased access unless and until an effective way of controlling the excesses that have overwhelmed the Trapps emerges.

Yes those times at Minnewaks are gone. And good riddance IMHO

Maybe gone someday is the mass quantity of metal crap driven into the rocks all over Minnewaska that would take 20 generations of idiotic bolts to equal.


Pictures from: http://www.lakeminnewaska.org

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!

And the connection between mountain houses at Lake Minnewaska and top-roping population pressures at Gertrudes nose is...???

Rich, I'm not sure that your focus on the Palmaghatt and Gertrude's Nose is entirely on point. Didn't the Minnewaska preserve expand dramatically over the last couple of years, including miles and miles of cliffs? The Awosting reserve property is a bit different from the Palmaghatt and Gertrude's Nose...

Personally, I'd be fine having a sport climbing area on the same rock as found in the gunks.

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.

who's talking about degrading the environment.............? it's about adventure climbing, going for it in the unknown, and the reward of the lead. fing shiners would just ruin that then. plus you don't need any more holes in the rock. but that is nothing a trapps climber would know about.

"but that is nothing a trapps climber would know about. "

I’ve seen far more waste and metal installed in Adirondack routes then a 100 Trapps,

I'm on the list of those who have climbed at areas that may have been off-limits. I don't have a major ethical problem with doing so as long as I'm leaving no trace. We are talking about something I do maybe 1x/year, so, I'm not creating herd paths by myself...

Bolting is, as always, a contentious discussion which I'd prefer to avoid. I don't think bolts are necessarily bad, but unlike some I don't agree with placing bolts next to cracks on Gunks conglomerate. I'd like to point out, though, that those who already climb these areas in secret may not have any sort of moral high ground in this area; some of these places have already been bolted on the sly. Legitimizing climbing in the outlying areas could add to the bolting problem, but, if done right, it also has the potential to solve the bolting dispute by increasing land manager oversight.

It's indisputable that legitimizing climbing on additional terrain will result in increased traffic to that terrain. That'll be bad for RG and anyone else who's willing to frequently break the law (and I'm not really willing to do so, except on rare occasions) to obtain a remote private playground, as it will no longer be so private. But you know what, even the old timers could get arrested for climbing in these places if PIPC decides to play it that way. Legal access at the end of the day is good for all climbers.

Ped, you have no idea how many times I climb in Minnewaska and so have no justification for characterizing me as someone "who's willing to frequently break the law." And, as a fellow law-breaker who confesses to an absence of ethical qualms, your attempt to create a distinction based on the frequency of transgression is a mighty stretch.

But the worst aspect of your post is the claim that increased traffic at Gertrude's nose will be "bad for RG and anyone else who's willing to frequently break the law," thereby making it sound as if the only group affected by increased traffic is some tiny cadre of career criminals, and so that the environment itself and all that it may or may not have to offer future generations is not even a party to these considerations.

It is unlikely that all that many climbers will visit the cliffs that we are talking about. A visit to Millbrook on any given beautiful Saturday morning makes this clear. Peterskill and the Trapps have ridiculously short and easy approaches and that is the reason so many people visit them. A long walk is as very strong deterrent to all but a handful of climbers and lack of a guide book cuts out almost all the rest. Personally I am not interested in climbing in a place that the land managers clearly state is off limits and so an opportunity to open these areas to legal access is very appealing. Of course these are delicate areas and should be protected as such but to avoid dialogue with PIPC when the door is cracked a bit seems like a mistake.

rg, you're taking this entirely too seriously and personally. You're putting a lot of words into my mouth that I didn't say. Most of your post does not deserve to be dignified with a response, nonetheless, the following points stand:

1) You've in so many words confessed to climbing in off limits locations
2) I'd be back there a hell of a lot more, most likely, if I weren't worried about being arrested.
3) In that sense, legal access is good for me and good for you.
4) the environment back there has nothing to offer future generations if they are not allowed to GO back there; I accept this as axiomatic.

Because I live a fair distance away from New Paltz, I won’t be attending the public meetings coming up next week. I will, however, be submitting a letter stating my enthusiastic support for expanded climbing access to cliffs at Minnewaska beyond those currently open.

I haven’t climbed at Gertrud’s Nose or other cliffs in the park other than Peterskill, surreptitiously, illegally, whatever. But I enjoy exploring climbing at places along the ridge other then at the Trapps where I understand that it's permitted, or at least tolerated. It’s been over forty years since I was a kid scrambling around at Minnewaska, before it was a park, and I know I’d have a ball looking at those cliffs now, with the perspective of a climber.

Climbing is as much a traditional recreation along the Shawangunk Ridge as it is in the Adirondacks. The park and the state should recognize this fact and open additional cliffs. And they should be open is a straightforward way, without undue restrictions; annual pass requirements or qualifying exams are threshold requirements that are more elitist than any old fart’s hands-off attitude. It’s a state park, it’s public land, and it’s an exceptionally beautiful area for recreation that should be made available to climbers.

RG’s position against “the attitude of convenience entitlement,” and the reference from Adirondack Rock he quotes raises a concern I share about perceived rights of some climbers these days. But I don’t agree that this concern is a primary issue here. I’m not asking for bolted anchors on cliff tops at Minnewaska, nor do I see them as a foregone conclusion if the cliffs were to be opened. More simply, they should just be made available to people who would like to test their balance, strength, focus, judgment, or whatever else they investigate by climbing. So I’m writing a letter in support of this idea and advocate that others do, too. If you’re concerned about over-development for the sake of convenience, then add your argument to the state for rules prohibiting intentional fixed anchors. State your desire to prevent or minimize all forms of development that will permanently alter climbers’ opportunities to experience “pristine” routes. But open the cliffs.

Um... what are those things he used in his post.. um .. oh ya quotes..

I find it sadly humorous that the term "backcountry" is used in conjunction with any locale on the Shawangunk ridge. You folks really need to travel a bit and get a broader perspective.

As far as bolts and fixed anchors, um, regs or future regs really won't matter - that stuff will happen no matter what (and, regarding fixed anchors, in fact, already has).

Rich is obviously capable of defending himself, but I don't know why you would say that he is taking your statements too seriously. And he is not putting words into your mouth, quite to the contrary you are doing that to him. Reading through all of the comments nowhere does Rich say even once that he is climbed in closed areas and especially with some kind of frequency. In fact you are the only one that admits to being a "criminal". I don't know about you, but when some calls me a criminal on a public forum, tries to mitigate their own "illegal" behavior by compairng it to someone else without any evidence, an basically makes up things through assumption and fabrication it is not something I would necessarily take lightly.

While I don't necessarily agree with all of Rich's ideas/points of view, he certainly is deserving of respect especially due to his wealth of experience and contributions to the climbing community and certainly should not be labeled by someone who just likes to hear themselves talk on an internet forum. How seriously can we take someone who says that they have broken the law, but it is ok since it is only once or twice a year and not nearly as frequent as the other guy. Would it be ok for you to shoplift once or twice a year because your neighbor does it once a week?

Dave, I do appreciate your support, and upon rereading I agree with you and Smike that my response to Ped's post represents his comments accurately. But just to keep the record straight, I did effectively acknowledge having climbed in verboten areas in response to a knowing comment by Smike, and I understand that with this acknowledgement comes a certain ambiguity about what I am entitled to say about principles.

No Dave/rich, sorry, but before you start making accusations that you're being treated unfairly, you should just give a little bit of benefit of the doubt. You don't have the right to say you're representing my comments accurately. No right at all.

For the record, I've climbed in a closed area ONCE, as part of a Gunks Climbing Coalition "see what's out there that's worth fighting for" trip. (A hypocritical and elitist trip, if you want to see it that way.) My comments about frequency of use of this terrain were intended solely to illustrate that the illegality of these lands is a deterrent for me, and it might be a deterrent to others, and I have a problem with that, I'd prefer if access to these areas are legal. You are twisting my words in a most insulting way.

Dave, as for your comment that I "just like to hear myself talk", shove it.

P.S. Apologies to Rich for stating things in a way that could be so easily misunderstood. I should have known better.

Bzzzz sorry Ped, you can expect to free of any criticism when you are tossing a sh*t load out yourself.

Ped, apologies accepted. It ain't about a pissing match between you and me anyway.

True that, but Pedestrian, I think you may not realize the way your words came off. I interperated them very much in the way others have mentioned. It's tough on the internet, I guess, unless one resorts to emoticons.... But easy enough to see that when you said 'once or twice a year," nobody would guess it was once and only once.... Not that it matters.

Damnit, RG made some good points.....But I still feel in support of opening climbing further.

About the "it ain't backcountry' remark - I guess it's all in perspective. last year when that person broke their leg hitting the ledge on Arrow, the poor Gardiner fire/rescue guys had a hard enough time getting up that (talus slope) appraach in their street shoes. I heard one on the radio to headquarters calling it a "backcountry rescue" and we climbers in attendance all met eyes and stifled snickers.

Probably, he was using the term in a way similar as here. Clearly it ain't backcountry backcountry, but it ain't the 'belay on the carriage road' sort of experience either.

It is definitely backcountry if there is a two hour approach involved. Climbers who are willing to go that far from help are generally more experienced and cautious than your average gumby.

cool then I can park at Sam's point hike to Peterskill to climb then I'm in the Backcountry. That's like a 4 hour approach that way.

Just a word to wise, almost forgot about this one, there are sections of Gertrude’s Nose that are on private property. So any talk of past climbing in that area could be misused and become completely detrimental to any climbing relations with landowners (private or state).

From an ecological standpoint, there is no doubt that climbing impacts.

I was walking at the base of the Trapps after work last night and was trying to reconstruct the area in my mind, what it used to look like, as I've seen photos of the Trapps in the 70s with large ferns, Mt. Laurels, etc, very close to the cliff - now all gone. The amount of erosion is unmistakable. The soil compaction from overuse has killed and is killing adjacent trees.

Rock climbing impacts ecologically - I do not see how one can argue with that.

The top soil at and around Gertrude's Nose is very thin, a mere few inches in some areas, if that. Pitch pines grow there.

There is no doubt in my mind that opening the area to climbing will create the inevitable: subject this ultra sensitive area to abuse.

Would I love to climb there every weekend? Check.
Would I prefer to hike there in 5, 10 years, and see it as I see it now? Double check.

Unfortunately, I do not know if both can co-exist.

I favor some cliffs to be open - but not all - those whose access will not create ecological impact. There are plenty of those out there.

On the other hand... will opening these areas really bring the hordes of people we fear will eventually go?

There is some great climbing at Bonticou Crag - great rock. Very few people venture there because it is a half hour hike. And there is no guidebook.

So I agree with Smike's points:

1. Overall limit to the number of climbing passes per day (to mitigate human impact)
2. No bolts or fixed anchors.
3. No clearing of vegetation
4. Outright off limits of certain sensitive ecological areas.
5. No guidebooks

The word ‘backcountry’ is just as loosely branded as the word ‘extreme’ big deal….

This is an interesting commentary on the values of the GCC.

Kent, I suppose it's predictable that someone would make the point you seem to be making, though, I didn't think it'd be you.

I don't speak for the GCC, but it seems the bottom line is that in order to gain some semblance of landowner trust the GCC needs to be able to give an honest accounting of what's out there: what's climbable, what people are currently already climbing, what areas have already been developed, how much potential an area has in terms of number of routes that might go in. They need to be able to enumerate how significant this land really could be to climbers. We climbed one route, did a visual survey of the rest of the cliff band taking note of some tattered webbing that was, for all we know, left by Stannard years go, and got out. The actual climbing of this one route was really beside the point.

On this trip, I led the route and "discovered" an odd-looking glue-in bolt. (Actually I think it's known who put it in.) The presence of those bolts could complicate matters for the GCC.

Without going into too many details, I found some not-incredibly-enticing climbing at the location we looked into, surrounded by lots of nice blueberry bushes that, although they are not endangered, would be a shame if lots of climbers trampled on. I see that particular parcel in the "not really worth fighting for" category. Oddly, it seems that, since the last time I was there, PIPC and/or NYNJTC has put the herd path through there on the map.

I still do not understand the need for some to publically absolve themselves from some inner guilt by having to explain in some public forum how and why they illegally climbed something. What’s even more odd, is the attempt to turn that action into something noble for the greater good of the climbing community.

All I got to say on that is....One route? In a whole day!? Pussy!!!!!

(hahahahah...joking, of course)

To Smike's excellent list I would add an additional point: an absolute and total ban on any commercial climbing activities.

sigh

...agreed.
I am not in favor of emulating the SWIM program which in my view imposes unnecessary restrictions. however, smike's ideas along with banning commercial activities makes sense in an environment like this.
am not sure if we should, or need to, come out either way about bolting at this point? we discussed this a lot amongst ourselves but it is a thorny issue of course. if any are allowed maybe for certain belay anchors only, by permit, to keep traffic away from trees and the fragile soil surrounding them.
as mentioned we will be bringing out these points at the meeting Tues. the 8th. any other comments please post on...

My objections to a SWIM like program are based on the much greater level of subjectivity in climbing. If you can swim, you can swim. If you can climb 5.8, can you get yourself out of trouble when you go off route onto 5.10? I don't think that level of screening can or should be left to government. The climber has to take that decision themselves with their safety in mind.

I would like to see greater access to the Minn park for climbers. I have not done any "illegal" climbing except for perhaps being too far left on millbrook. and not 5 minutes after getting back to fair territory (and a what are the odds of the PIPC showing up comment) about 10 rangers wandered through. go figure.

i guess i have a problem with it being "illegal" to use a public resource, provided that it is done in a responsible way. There is an inherent conflict in the issue, since ORV users can make the same claims for tearing up the desert on public land. the general guidelines others have proposed seem reasonable for controlling access (permits, restrictions, bolts). How can you stop a guidebook though?

In terms of impact, I am in the school of thought that while it will by definition increase visits, Millbrook is still a wonderfully empty prize for a little walk. I would love to have more of those options open to me.

I cannot attend the meetings, but good luck to the GCC and other attendees. Just remember that many of the subtleties of the debates in here will be completely lost on lawyers and gov't administrators.

Hayduke Lives!

Actually, this may come as a surprise to you Smikey, I know you have trouble with these concepts, but the climbing was done for fun. Hiking around the place to see what's out there, was also mostly done for fun... with the secondary purpose of compiling a bit of an inventory of the place.

I’m pretty sure I’m clear in what I read and understood from what you typed:

First you say:

“For the record, I've climbed in a closed area ONCE, …….."see what's out there that's worth fighting for" trip”

“The actual climbing of this one route was really beside the point.”

You go on to say:

“…..but the climbing was done for fun. Hiking around the place to see what's out there, was also mostly done for fun... with the secondary purpose of compiling a bit of an inventory of the place”

All in all, it doesn’t matter which side of the argument you are trying to play on, as stating these points openly this way or that, is detrimental to any climbing relations with private owners, state agencies, climbers, and the GCC.

Smike, you're entitled to your opinion, but I'd have to question whether RG's admission wasn't far more significant. The point here is that the GCC (at least, not all their individual members) are not some sort of goody-two-shoes who have abided by the law in EVERY SINGLE instance, rather they are humans like anyone else. The incident under discussion occured maybe 3 years ago, so it shouldn't be taken to represent the current attitudes of the GCC.

Let's be clear about one thing: the idea that a group of climbers would hike out to a cliff with the expressed purpose of determining whether it's worth climbing, and worth discussing with the land managers, and then somehow avoid the temptation of climbing it, that idea comes from fantasyland.

The problem with illegal climbing is much larger than the relatively few individual GCC members who might or might not be out there currently. For the most part, climbing something is a harmless act that victimizes nobody; I simply don't agree with this notion that, because somebody is not a goody-two-shoes, he has no right to make his voice heard within the government. I'm really hesitant to bring the notion of civil disobedience into this discussion, because we are not worthy of comparison with the Rosa Parkses of the world. But the history of land management discussions in other areas (Vermont mountain biking land conservation efforts is another area I'm interested in) shows that government is capable of forgiving our past disobediences if we can prove to be good partners.

I haven't heard the GCC recently asking people to stop climbing at Minne, temporarily or otherwise. It might make sense for them to ask people to avoid Minne at some point, so as not to disturb negotiations if negotiations are opening up. If they do make that request, I hope people will consider the message seriously independently of its source, rather than dwelling on negative issues and making shrill accusations of hypocrisy. They're just climbers, who, yes, do want to do something positive for the community, and they're not that different from anyone else.

Wanted: More solipsistic climbers
Place: Minnewaska Park
Contact: GCC

the enemy is us, you know.

for the record:
1. GCC does not have members for some time now, only board of directors. instead of members we do have a mailing list.
2. we completely disavow comments made by the individual above about off limits areas. the individual is not a member (see 1.) no board members involved in any climbing capacity.
3. areas off limits to climbing that we have "looked at" were not on any private property.
4. we have explored,or "looked at" some areas, but NOT climbed. this goes against our policy. again, this was not private land in any case.

resume flaming.

I'm very surprised that no one has mentioned The Access Fund. Could they be of help in this situation?

we are the Access Fund (an affiliate thereof.) their resources are available to us if or when needed.

Assuming access activist Ped is an Access Fund Member, how is it that he is also not a member? Saying local Access Fund members are somehow not members of the local Access Fund affiliate, the GCC, because the GCC no longer has members, seems like disingenuous corpo double speak.

the reason for us not having members is that we decided it takes too much time and resources to manage a membership program. make of that what you will.
we do, of course, encourage local activists to join the Access Fund proper.
for more info on the GCC please see our web site. http://www.gunksclimbers.org
we will be announcing our next meeting open to the climbing public.

You are missing my point Chris. How can you say "we are the Access Fund" and also claim to not have members?

.....oh, fer cryin' out loud....

Ya know - I used to wonder about all those posts about "MP ripping off old ladies" and what the sides to the story were, but if this is the kind of logic those posts spring from, I'll never take a serious consideration of their content again.

Kent - you must have a beautiful view, in your glass house on the ridge.

major tongue biting going on

Eaaaaasy now Terrie & everyone.

we are the borg - resistance is futile.

can the pissing match please be moved to a more suitable location? perhaps the nice access funded outhouse in the trapps.

ehh, all right. I guess that probably read a lot harsher than how I was feeling as I typed it. My apologies.

Just to throw fuel on the fire:

You're right - one guide and a single client are SO much more damaging to the environment than Scout, AMC, and college groups of 10-20 climbers (AKA gang-ropers).

Seriously (if you think I was kidding above), one of the most common ways to mitigate visitor impact in sensitive areas is to BAN GROUPS, regardless of their affiliation.

For the record, I don't really care if commercial access was allowed elsewhere in MSPP or not.

Mike, you are just adding to the list of things one hopes not to see, not giving any reasons for taking anything off. As far as gang-roping, it must be obvious from my previous comments I'm not a fan.

I'm also not a fan of phony arguments that pretend to respond (sarcastically too) to claims I never made, e.g.

You're right - one guide and a single client are SO much more damaging to the environment than Scout, AMC, and college groups of 10-20 climbers (AKA gang-ropers).

Putting "your're right" in there makes it sound as if I actually said something like that, which of course I did not.

I can't say I originally had any objection to guiding, it is just that it seems that nowadays, as soon as guiding begins, the guides start installing fixed anchors that will make their work easier or more efficient. Whatever else one may or may not think about fixed anchors, it really bugs me to see them added to further commercial interests.

Kent, this argument is completely without merit.

Carry on...

GO

Gabe, how so? I don't see how one can simultaneously state "we are the Access Fund" and then claim to not have members.

As you disagree, please help me to see.

Kent,

The GCC is a local climbing organization affiliated with the Access Fund: (from the Access Fund website)

local climbing organizations and access fund affiliated local climbing organizations
A local climbing organization (LCO) is an organization, association, or access committee working primarily or exclusively to keep climbing areas open, conserve the climbing environment, and promote responsible climbing at the local or regional level. LCOs are the liaison between the climbing community and the land managers and owners for the crags within their region.

Affiliates are LCOs who have joined the Access Fund Affiliate Program. Through the Affiliate Program, the Access Fund’s goals are not only to strengthen our relationship with the climbing organizations that perform such great work on the local and regional levels, but to strengthen all of our advocacy efforts as well. If you are an LCO listed below and are not an Access Fund Affiliate, please contact Charlie Boas, Grassroots Coordinator at 303.545.6772 x105, or via email at charlie@accessfund.org.

You can be a member of the Access Fund - the details are on their website.

The GCC itself does not have members, but we are always looking for volunteers!

Does that help?

Okay, the GCC does not have members; the GCC is a "local affiliate" of the Access Fund; the GCC does have Board Members. Who the f*@# elects these Board Members? And exactly who determines their agenda, if they're not accountable to members?

Sounds like a joke to me. Certainly NOTHING like the SCC or some other well-respected (and effective) climber advocacy groups.

GCC meetings are open to all. elections take place at meetings, where candidates are nominated. we actively recruit people to join the board, and have had one recent addition.
BOD members have come and gone as their availability due to situations changes, for the most part we have had a small but very dedicated crew.
there is nothing to get irate about and there is total transparency. we have had climber surveys to determine our agenda (we have kept copies of results) and have abided by the majority of respondents to our surveys.
the focus will be on the immediate and important issue of the Minnewaska plan for now. if you think it's a joke why don't you come and see what it's all about.

Thanks for the clarification, phlan. I was mostly irate because there seemed to be a game of semantics going on in response to Kent's reasonable question. I guess my "joke" comment is mostly directed at what exactly has been accomplished thus far by the GCC. Maybe because I'm not getting up there as much these days (discovered the bounty of the North Country since moving from NYC to Boston), but I haven't heard or seen much in the way of major succes stories from the GCC. Am I missing something? Is it because we simply don't face the access issues that they do in other places? I don't know. And perhaps there's a locals vs. visiting climbers' interests divide, because I see the loss of the MUA as more significant than opening climbing in Minnewaska. The latter may appeal to locals who want to get away from the visiting crowds on weekends, but seriously, I don't think people will be falling all over themselves to hike a couple hours for a few one-pitch climbs. Maybe it's just me. I think the number of people likely to be inclined to stay at the MUA -- AAC camping option notwithstanding -- will be far greater than those who wish to venture out to the netherlands of Minnewaska. Just one man's opinion though. At any rate, we've been hearing for some time now that the DEC will close the MUA once the AAC campground opens, but it doesn't seem like the GCC wants to address it? Seems to me that time is of the essence if something is to be done about the MUA, whereas Minnewaska's been closed for years, so there doesn't seem to be a need for haste there.

I've given plenty to the Access Fund over the years. Perhaps I need to address the issue with them and then make a determination as to whether I wish to continue that financial support in the future.

If I give a donation to National Public Radio, do you think my local NPR station is going to give me a tote bag? No. An umbrella organization has a parent-child relationship with each of its locals. It provides some support, but the two are not synonymous.

GO

see GCC public forum for my comments on what climbers shoud do about the actual issue

anyone take minutes of the meeting last night? post em up

Well I didn't write anything down, but here's my take on it.

There were quite a few climbers there; the state guys running the show definitely got the message that we want more terrain to climb on. Specific climber issues mentioned: More terrain, open up ice climbing as well, have the GCC involved in the climbing plan as it is being developed, start with a default position that climbing is allowed (rather than being banned unless specifically provided for), make a public statement/position as to the "success" of 10 years of rock climbing at Peters Kill. (That was my $0.02. My thought is to get the state on the record as saying climbing is compatible with the park's mission; then they presumably have a tougher time severely restricting it.)

Other tidbits thrown out from the crowd - have more hiker trailheads, improve access and opportunities for horses, standardize trail signage, establish a disk golf course on the big lawn at Lake Minne, let snowmobiles into the Awosting Reserve, manage the deer population, de-criminalize swimming, reduce silting from the beach at Lake Minne so as not to jeopardize the lakebottom which is habitat to a globally rare salamander, make better use of the lower Awosting parking lot, build handicap access into Awosting Falls.

The Mohonk Preserve suggested that more money for the Park Police might allow for better enforcement of parking restrictions at the scenic pull-outs all along the ridge.

"let snowmobiles into the Awosting Reserve,"

Yikes

basically what mike said. there were a fair number of climbers there and 4 spoke out, dawes, climberdave, marty and me. marty was the one mentioned opening ice climbing, since then I have gotten interesting and varied comments about that issue. the park personnel introduced themselves. also, they took copious notes of every comment that was mentioned. out of all the user groups, we were pretty much out front with the possible exception of the swimmers. haven't heard about the ellenville meeting yet I'm sure they got a lot more about ATV's and snowmobiles over there

Thanks for representing.

Thanks for the reporting, Mike and Chris.
Mention of ATV's and snowmobiles makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up too.

Owoo! Sounds like a productive meeting, thanks on behalf of us flatlanders who can't attend on weekdays.

I see them as helping our cause, in a way. If the state wants to ban something, they're an easy target!

phlan is right on, the balance of 50 or so folks at Ellenville were local sportsman. Only a handful of climbers.

I hope they don't allow any bigfoot hunting around Millbrook! It is very hard to imagine they would allow motorized travel in the park but they may also be percieved as a high potential revenue, so you never know. Does anyone know what preservation concerns PIPC is charged with for this property?

we all have our games to play, i think its a little self riteous to think climbing is any better than snowmobiling.
to each his own.

Snowmobiles rarely touch the ground so they don't erode trails. Compare that to horses and mtn bikes. Yes they are noisy but the snowmobile lobby has their own data showing that the noise doesn't bother wildlife.

Besides, they make it so easy to get into all those prohibited Minnewaska ice climbs. And to run away if Johnny Law shows up.

Semi-related question - can someone familiar with the ridge boundaries confirm that Verkeerderkill Falls is NOT in Minne. Park? It looked that way on a map I saw recently. I'll see if I can find a link to that map.

Edit - It's the NY-NJ Trail Conference topo map that I was looking at.

It's part of Sam's Point Preserve... No climbing there either!

I'll scan the map and you'll see that's not true either.

verkeerderkill falls rarely if ever comes in as an ice climb, from what I've been able to find out and from hiking in there when it 'should' be in. pretty sure it's a part of minne. anyone ever climb it or seen it come in?
mtn bikes by the way are coming to be seen as heavy impact.

The map says Ice Caves Mountain but we now know that as Sam's Point, which is part of Minnewaska (they call it the Ellenville Tract).

Gabe, thanks for the attempt at illumination but I still dont see the light. Phlan/Chris Moratz was saying the GCC didn't have any members and that's why the GCC shouldn't be held to account regarding Ped's claims of his exploratory GCC climbing trip, but Chris clearly has knowledge of the trip. Why does Ped/Nate think it was a GCC trip? Why does Chris have knowledge of the trip?

The incident is minor but still emblematic of the GCC's values which seem to embrace doing one thing in private and saying another in public. It's these kinds of shenanigans, on the part of the GCC and other organizations, and the community sense of entitlement to private land, that have started the closures of private land along the eastern escarpment.

Mike, I don't anything about the area you are displaying but one thing I've learned in the last several years is that property lines on maps, even tax maps, are sometimes wrong. Just a thought.

Oh, Kent, give it a rest already. phlan's comments in no way conflict with my own: I said from the start that one route was led, and I led it. The guy who followed me on that climb was, like me, not a GCC guy.

That being said, the climbing community needs to embrace a leave no trace ethic and respect private land and public land managers; there is undeniably quite a bit of hypocrisy out there among climbers in general and the GCC is just one tiny part of that. Personally though I think the Gunks-area issues concerning private land pale in comparison to the issues surrounding public but off-limits land. If you've been out to Peter's Kill and had a look across at what's "out back" you know. There are miles and miles of off limits cliff at Minnewaska that is just crying out to have access.

No resting here. I think it was Woody Guthrie who quipped "The price of liberty is eternal publicity."

Oops...mangled the source of the quip. Twas uttered by Pete Seeger when being interveiwed aboard the sloop, The Woody Guthrie.

It's also been said, 'no rest for the wicked'

Are you calling me wicked Nate? On what basis?

Wicked is in the eye of the beholder.

there is undeniably quite a bit of hypocrisy out there among climbers in general

In order to understand this clearly, I'd like to see a definition of hypocrisy juxtaposed with the specific (and necessarily contradictory) words and actions of climbers that define their hypocrisy in the context of climbing at Minnewaska.

Not singling out any specifics RG, I've had enough of this. As for Kent, it's just a quote.

Nice to see the Access Fund getting behind this (and providing links to write to the powers that be) in the newsletter. Again, we have until August 11 to make our requests known.

we can't emphasize enough how big a deal this is. if you have not already, see

http://www.accessfund.org/pubs/en/e-news93.htm#_Minnewaska_State_Park,

get the word out, get everyone you know to write.

thanks for the reminder. i just wrote a letter and will send it today. can this count towards being productive at work?

that's great! yes you can even get a letter to your boss from the GCC that confirms it. :-)

Ver Keeder Falls is private property. It does not belong to the Park or to Sam's Point. Tax maps clearly show that.

verkeerderkill kind of a moot point. rarely forms up if ever.

Au contraire! The right side of the falls frosts up occasionally with some delicious looking mixed climbing. Of course you can't normally see it from the regular vantage point because it is underneath that overhang you sit on top of. Not that I was ever thinking of that.

RR

You mean THIS?