While walking down the carriage road the other day I was shown the new efforts in keeping people from renegading onto the carriage trail from the overlook pull off. These new efforts includes two new actions; 1) Installing new poles into the ground to make it harder to walk around the fence & 2) Spreading grease all over the fence and poles as a deterrent. That’s right, I said grease! This is a preserve right? So what part of spreading a petroleum based product in nature is preserving the land? Have the local environmental impacts of grease been studied before implementing this plan? What wildlife is now being exposed to grease through either eating it or just rubbing onto it and what effects could it have for those animals. Has this been thought of or is this just some actions of an angry ranger who is tired of seeing people run up the hill from the pull out instead of walking to the steal bridge. I have to say I am shocked that this would happen on preserve land.
Ever since the train by Horseman was closed at least 5 more renegade trails have popped up. Each time a new trail pops up it gets covered by a tremendous amount of cut down trees and tree limbs to deter people from walking on them. As soon as one is covered another pops up.
I see two options as a solution to all of this; 1) Open one trail and maintain it so that the entire hill doesn’t eventually become a trail. By closing one trail 5 or 6 have been made. I am sure no matter what is done to prevent this more and more trails will pop up if a “legal” trail isn’t made. 2) Position more ranges along the carriage trail where people are bushwhacking to catch people in the act.
No matter what actions are taken to prevent people from bushwhacking up the hill, spreading grease in nature should never be considered. In Potrero Chico they have spread oil on the rocks to keep people from going where they don’t want them to go. Is this what we have resorted to? I think we’re better than this. I hope to see the grease removed very soon.

use land mines and let the dead limbless bodies be a warning to all!

I'll be interested to follow this thread, wondering as to whether the preserve has in fact grease the pig, so to speak. It does seem...odd.

But....let's assume it is the case, since I am stuck here in NYC instead of upstate where I'd rather be.... I would bet(only a quarter, though - I'm not rich!) the lube is not petrol-based, but some thing more organic.

Here are reasons I, personally, would really want to deter access from the overlook, if it were my area of responsibility.

First and foremost - because that section of the road is dangerous to pedestrians. Just this spring, some people were killed up at Rumney in a case where people travel a road fast where climbers walk alongside it. I don't know that area personally, but when I read about it, I was like "That could SO easily happen at the Gunks with the Overlook area/traffic."

It isn't the adult climber that I am worried about, but the young kid of the tourist who's pulled over on a busy weekend in peak foliage season. Last year I saw families get out of the car and cross the road to get in the preserve - kids all over the place. I SAW a kid about 6 years old run into the street at the apex of the curve, heading for the other side. SECONDS later, a car came speeding around the curve.

I would, possibly, go so far as to post signs on the edge of the preserve there, that would be visible from the overlook as they thought about crossing - "Mohonk Preserve - No Access. Please use TrailHead Parking Lots."

Secondly, the quick access trail is eroding the slope. Combined with the unsafe passage for those whose parents should know better than to amble with kids across that section, I understand why it is cut off.

Third - it is a preserve with a usage fee. I actually do not believe that the preserves primary reason for closing that trail is this, but I do believe most people assume that to be the case. If it were - it would simply be much easier to move the ranger truck down the road and collect fees there.

Many people have already paid their fee at the front gate anyway. Those who hadn't would still pass the truck and, since they usually aren't looking to evade the fee, stop and pay there. The ranger could then snag the ones with no pass and get that money, if that were the issue.

I don't know the inner workings of the preserve, but I just don't get the feeling that it is all about the dollar, as often is suggested. I'm just finishing up that book about Dan Smiley(available at the Visitor Center) and it has brought tears to my eyes every third page or so. The things I read in that book seem more to mesh with what I have experienced at the preserve than the "all about money and power" that is sometimes implied.

Anyway - like I said, I am interested to see what's the deal with this greasy substance. Interesting topic, and though there is often many a dull moment on this site....it seems lately to be quite the opposite! hahahah

Are we talking about grease on the existing poles and fence, or on new stuff? If it's the latter, it can well be manufacturing grease. Metal fabricators leave a layer of oil, actually, on their stock so it doesn't rust prior to cutting, welding, delivery, etc.

If it's new "grease" on an older set of posts and fence, could it maybe be an anti-rust coating that was recently applied (and will eventually wash off)?

Did you bother to ask any of the rangers about it?

The reason those social trails are blocked off is because the parking area where climbers are accessing the trail is a 30 minute parking spot. As wel all know, the climbers parking there are parked far longer than 30 minutes. There is no access from that overlook for Preserve users, therefore there should be no trail to justify illegal parking. Climbers are by far the laziest and most righteous user group out there, and will intentionally walk around a fence with signs telling them to pleae not climb the slope. They do this to avoid an extra 3 or 4 minute walk. It's absurd, and advocating for a trail to exist from the overlook just because climbers are a lazy ass group of outdoor enthusiasts is just as absurd. Smearing a little grease on a pole versus hundreds of people ascending and descending a terribly loose and eroded scree slope...hmm....no brainer there.

Ever confront somone who has used that scree slope herd path? They come up with the lamest excuses for their lazy behavior. "Everyone else does it", or "there's an obvious trail". Nevermind the multitude of signs and fences telling you not to do it. Amazing how peoples observation skills are inversely proportional to their desire to be lazy sloths. Sorry Zoo dude, it is a lame argument trying to justify even lamer behavior

RR

Rob, I believe you missed my point. I am in NO way advocating people renegading the hillside to get an extra 10 minutes of climbing in. I also don’t want to see a bunch of illegal foot paths from 44/55 to the cliff, but I also don’t want to see grease smeared over a fence on preserve land.
I take offence to you stating I am trying to justify people’s behaviors running up that hillside causing more erosion. This is not my point and I certainly do not support it. I simply offered two alternate solutions to the use of grease. Maybe I should of added ticketing people in the overlook as a third option.

I hope NO one posting in this thread parked in that lot THIS afternoon!

Yeah... You know who you are! Mmmmhmmm!

Lazy eh Rob? Got any room to talk on that one do you ...

Without any direct knowledge of whatever might lead Smike to smirk, I must suppose that an enthusiast of the outdoors must surely flock together with other enthusiasts sharing the same motivations and, erm, personal proclivities.

In other words Smike, doesn't it take one to know one?

Are the Minuitemen available?