It seems to me that this forum might be a good place/means for the greater Gunks climbing community to vet the GCC's input on the Master Plan. (see thread in General forum)

I vote for a very clear request for the prompt opening of additional terrain for rock and ice climbing. Our years of Chalk Cleanups-R-Us should buy us an ear in Albany.

But how does Albany dictate to the PIPC?

I don't think Albany dictates anything to PIPC which is an interstate agency.
It works by inter-agency cooperation in addition to recreational user input, municipality input, the ridge coalition etc. we have developed a very good relationship with park management and that helps too. p'kill is a good model for success in other areas.
we will be drafting our input for inclusion and your comments are welcome. keep in mind the deadline of August 11. send your own comments in or we will draft a letter that you can copy and send.
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.

Various members of the GRIP coalition in Gardiner have commented in the past that Gardiner gets all the downside of climbers' presence and none of the economic upside. On the other hand, expect Gardiner people to stand up and say "we don't want another parking lot here, it'll create a traffic problem." Someone maybe should attend a town meeting or two, when the timing is right, and point out that although traffic is a problem, it could bring more money to town businesses.

I think the town of Gardiner does not want either. If they wanted torisum dollars, then you would think they would take some actions towards giving outsiders a reason to spend money in the town. Outside of the really good Market deli on Rt 55/44 in the center of town, there is hardly any reason for any visting climber / receactionist to spend money.

There's a nice steak house on the corner of 32 (or is it 208? I forget) and 44/55, and the Red Rooster Cafe is quite nice. The Brauhaus is in Gardiner. I haven't eaten at the other couple of restaurants, like Pasquale's...

"The Brauhaus is in Gardiner"

doh... forgot, that is a great reason to spend coin.

I would recommend ice climbing access be addressed. Perhaps Smike would have some good input on that, as he is now a local Gardiner type. There are a number of climbers living in Gardiner now who could make a nice presence at the town meetings. I don't believe they are looking for outsider input or one of the meetings would have been on a weekend.

"now a local Gardiner type"

Nope….. I'm on the other side the ridge. I try to stay outta of that messy Gardiner stuff, and the high taxes too…

Sorry Smike, I was trying to be a bit tonque-in-cheek, since I knew it was unlikely you could get up there for a meeting. I quess I was thinking more in terms of your knowledge of ice in the gunks and access in other areas. Most initiatives involving any group or bureaucracy are accomplished by a champion for the cause and I think of you as the potential champion for ice in the gunks.

the primary thing that would increase Gardiner's touron dollar return would be an exit 17.5, which i would hate to see. its just far easier for the bulk of people to come through NP when coming from pretty much anywhere not here.

would love better ice access but would actually love to have some ice even more. need to reverse this whole global warming thingy though, which is a little beyond scope for this thread.

There is no ice in the gunks, who ever gave you that idea?

...other than the kind we can skate ski on, or use in martinis.

Yeah... But Smike makes a MEAN martini!

Having been involved in the first go around with this I would say at this stage in the master planning process, I believe there are two issues that need to be address.

First, the revised master plan should allow for the expansion of rock and ice climbing to all other appropriate area in the park. There are maybe a dozen cliffs in the park with historic climbing. I don't believe that the master plan itself needs to be explicit, as a separate climbing management plan is in place and can be used once the master plan is written. Climbing management plan will allow for more flexibility. It in the best long term interest of climbers to ask for the maximum, as there will be other asking for none. My comments will reflect on the success of the Peterskill and the good relationship and stewardship with the park that climbers have shown.

Second, that the climber community be represented on any master plan advisory board. I suggest it be a representative of the GCC, as it is really the only local organized voice of the climbing community out there, that represents main stream climbers.

You have to remember that the default for the park is going to be no change. I am guessing that is why they done the press release on this just before a holiday weekend. The less comments they need to address the less changes they will need to make.

Any in-fighting in the climbing community will result in that. The minutia of this place has aesthetic value and should not be climbed on, will be lost on the park and result in no change. Again, I strongly suggest asking for climbing be allowed at all appropriate areas in the park. We should be at the 30,000 foot level at this point.

template for sending letters has been drafted. we might come up with a revised copy after tomorrow night's meeting. but I figured the sooner I post the better. pass the word!

From: ...


To: 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

Re.: Public Comment on revised Master Plan for Minnewaska State Park

Dear Sir,

I am an individual climber who has climbed and enjoyed the Shawangunk Ridge as a conscientious recreationalist would like to make following points concerning the revised Master Plan for Minnewaska State Park (henceforth referred to as the Park.)

1. A complete inventory of potentially climbable escarpments should be reviewed as part of the revised Master Plan. A default of all areas open to access should be considered, and on a case by case basis reviewed to determine otherwise.
2. A baseline concerning the operation of Peters’ kill area should be a model for successful cooperation between climbers and the Park. The Adopt a Crag event held at Peters’ kill for several years is a part of this cooperation.
3. Ice climbing, a separate sport from rock climbing, should also be considered for certain areas within the Park.
4. The GCC be included in any Master Plan committees and included in decision making to the greatest extent possible.

Rock climbing not only represents a recreational opportunity but also enhances positive economic growth for the surrounding areas as well as income for the Park itself. Climbers have proven themselves good stewards of the land by the activities of the Gunks Climbers Coalition (www.gunksclimbers.org) where the GCC’s Mission, Vision, and Values statements can be seen. The GCC have sponsored numerous work days (as part of the Adopt a Crag Program of the National Advocacy group the Access Fund (www.accessfund.org) as well as at the Mohonk Preserve and at the Skytop area of the Mohonk Mountain house. The GCC are also participating in a highway cleanup program on a portion of Route 44/55. In aggregate the GCC programs represent a significant contribution to the community and to the land managers along the Shawangunk Ridge. The climbing community wishes for our voice to be heard accordingly when decisions are made regarding climbing access to areas along the Shawangunks.

In light of the very considerable further potential for climbing within the Park, I can be certain as a member of the climbing community that we would be pleased to work with Park management to the greatest extent possible.

I thank you very much for your consideration.


Signed



Dated

Signed & sent, thanks Chris!

Eek---this is in need of considerable editing. Where is ryanclan when we need her? Below are my suggestions for making a more coherent (and typo-free) template. I offer them without implicitly suggesting that I agree with all of the content.


I am an individual climber who has climbed and enjoyed the Shawangunk Ridge as a conscientious recreationalist. I would like to make following points concerning the revised Master Plan for Minnewaska State Park (henceforth referred to as the Park.)

1. A complete inventory of potentially climbable escarpments should be reviewed as part of the revised Master Plan. A default policy that makes all areas open to access should be considered, and on a case by case basis reviewed to determine otherwise.
2. The Peters’ Kill area is a model for successful cooperation between climbers and the Park. The Adopt-a-Crag event held at Peters’ Kill for several years has been a part of this cooperation.
3. Ice climbing, a separate sport from rock climbing, should also be considered for certain areas within the Park.
4. The GCC should be be among the Master Plan committees and should be included in decision-making to the greatest extent possible.

Rock climbing is not only a recreational opportunity, but also enhances economic growth for the surrounding areas, as well as providing income for the Park itself. As for concerns about impact, climbers have proven themselves to be good stewards of the land. An example of this stewardship is provided by the activities of the Gunks Climbers Coalition---see http://www.gunksclimbers.org , where the GCC’s Mission, Vision, and Values statements can be read. The GCC has sponsored numerous work days (left paren eliminated) as part of the Adopt-a-Crag Program of the National Advocacy group of the Access Fund (www.accessfund.org). The GCC has worked on projects with the Mohonk Preserve and at the Skytop area of the Mohonk Mountain house. The GCC also participates in a highway cleanup program on a portion of Route 44/55. In aggregate, the GCC programs represent a significant contribution to the community and to the land managers along the Shawangunk Ridge. The climbing community wishes for our voice to be heard accordingly when decisions are made regarding climbing access to areas along the Shawangunks.

In light of the very considerable further potential for climbing within the Park, the climbing community would be pleased to work with Park management to the greatest extent possible.

I thank you very much for your consideration.

Thanks, RG, you beat me to it.

thanks for the editing, at the meeting there were other content changes discussed and we'll have a new version. What is MOST important is that people DO NOT just cut and paste and send the same letter!
So, use parts of it and add your own introductory paragraph. We'll have something with bullet points that will work better for this.
If they all come in as the same, they all get counted as one! That was something we didn't know.

PS. The meeting was well attended and we had a fun party afterward.

letter posted. wish us all luck.

We got a very nice reply from Mr. Hohengasser. Methinks he needs more letters to keep him busy!

also got a nice reply (via email) as did a friend (via snail mail).

get them letters out!