Available late this month or next, pre-order now: Near Trapps

Cool.

GO

Yipee!

Pre-Ordered.

JDW

Excellent. I hope a pre-order isn't necessary though. I just planned to stop in the next couple of trips and assumed they would have enough on the shelves.

The description says,

"A new comprehensive edition to the Near Trapps and Millbrook. Bonus material includes: detailed history section, new descriptions, new ratings, new variations, link-ups, rappel stations, and yes even new routes!"

Dick mentioned to me that there are approximately 100 new routes, I think that is in the Near Trapps alone.

new photos also

I forgot all about the Near Trapps since the Grey Guide came out. I can't wait for this.

I suspect you're not the only one. When I've visited the stretch of cliffs past Birdland over the past couple of years, I've seen fewer other climbers than had previously been the case. Sure, the Main Line and Eastertime, Too get a steady flow of traffic, but the rest of the cliff has been pretty empty on weekend days when I know the Trapps were crowded.

Presuming the new guide will lead to increased foot traffic down that way, I wonder of Dick, or anyone, is anticipating the additional half-mile of trail that could use maintenance. Maybe a good target for a future Adopt-a-Crag activity, if all impacted land owners are willing.

"...if all impacted land owners are willing."

Might be a serious issue. Once you get down a ways, you're not in Kansas any more.

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

I spent a bunch of weekend days this summer on the new routes in the Near Trapps. Hardly ever anyone there. Mostly shady. Lots of excellent short one-pitch routes, equipped with rap stations. Old-school grading, natch. "Interesting" pro.

Here's the master himself at work in the hinterlands:

Yeah, we were doing "Far from the maddening crowd" wondering how long it would remain that way after the new guide came out.

Is the new guide purple? I've ordered a couple, but that's totally going to clash with my other guides.

Talking about the trail and property... there were two new cairns on the trail, looks like a new path leading down. Is that all private land below the nears? Are parts of the trail on private land? I seem to recall someone saying something to that effect.

there are 2 easily missed signs about entering and leaving preserve property on the trail at the base of the nears.

Right, and although I haven't noticed a trail myself, at least one owner is himself a climber and has installed at least one totally unecessary bolt on his section of the cliff.

Quant...roughly the middle third of the Nears is privately owned as is the first 900 feet, or so, of the Bayards.

Rich....regarding a bolt on private land each landowner can, of course, follow their own bolting ethic. If the bolt you are referring to is on my land in the Bayards, please let me know and I'll remove it. Based on what you wrote, it sounds like you are referring to someone else and someone else's land, but the rumor mill 'round these parts turns out all sorts of stories, so I thought I'd chime in.

Thanks.

K

Let me make it abundantly clear that the owner in question is not Kent!

And yes, of course, the route is on private land and the landowner has every right to bolt the bezoobies out of it if he or she wishes.

I ain't sayin' anything more about this.

Off topic non-sequitur, riveting post: Was reading one of Chris Bonnington's autobiographies (there are several) with reference to a very young Dick Williams on an aborted attempt with Bonnington and others, to climb, I think, the Eiger North Face (can't remember specifics). Brief words about Williams were somewhat uncomplimentary and condescending.

Come to think of it, I probably already posted this stuff a while back. Maybe twice. Sorry. I was obviously pleased, anyway, to stumble on it.

Hmmm, Calam must be feeling pretty smug. Why would anyone take an out-of-the-blue personal shot at someone else unless to try to feel better about thier own inadaquecies. You got some issues to work through.

I climbed with Bonington in the Gunks. No chance he could have made it up any of Williams harder routes. Everyone has their own strengths.

Who needs a comprehensive, thoroughly researched, and well written new guide when we have all ordered our Chessler Books guide to the Gunks already?

Exactly the point. Climbers need to be aware that they're not on Preserve land and that there will be a variety of attitudes by landowners (by which I mean more than the Preserve's attitude) regarding the impact of increased climbing activity across the Nears. The Access Fund (sponsor of Adopt-a-Crag) advocates access and conservation, and their efforts in the latter regard could go a long way to ensuring the former.

If you don't think it's noteworthy that Williams gets a couple of grafs in a memoir of Bonnington's early career in the Alps, then maybe you're not terribly curious about climbing literature, which is perfectly okay. The stuff mostly rots.

Unfortunately, I am not the author of Bonnington's memoirs. If I were, I'd have definitely included an entire chapter on Williams as a 20-year old or whatever, and be sure to say what a jolly chap he was.

Chris Moratz, chairman of the GCC, the local Access Fund affiliate, has over the years been an outspoken advocate of Gardiner's onerous ridge zoning law. Chris has defended his support of the ridge zoning law as a means to get landowners to sell their land and at a lower price saying "this is one of the ways these things are done". When confronted with the possibility that landowners would close their land to climbers, Chris wrote "we will sue" if necessary to retain access.

Partially as a consequence of the vocal support of the ridge zoning law by promiment members of the recreation community, including the chairman of the GCC, the only organization formally representing recreationists, 800 feet or so of the Millbrook Ridge Trail has been rerouted off private land. About 700 more feet will be rerouted shortly. More closures and rerouting of trails, marked and unmarked, will likely follow.

The Access Fund defers to it's local affiliates and in conjunction with it's more resepectful affiliates around the country has done many good things. In my opinion, in this case, the local affiliate, the GCC, has failed miserably and no amount of trail maintenance will now sway landowners.

That was a stupid thing for Chris to say, and I'm sure he didn't mean it, but frankly I think he was just yanking your chain Kent, for reasons that should be obvious...

As for his statements in support of the zoning law, those are his opinion alone, and he has the right to make them.

Of course Chris has the right to voice his opinion, just as landowners have the right to close their land.

I’ll be honest Kent, I don’t agree with a lot of things said, but in the context of this site and what was said by him (Chris) I do not take as representation of the climbing community, nor do I take what you say as representation of land owners as a whole. I do question why you chose to play off some peoples words and seemingly hold that as reasons why some actions may or may not happen. I know you are smart enough to read between the lines of most of this crap and would think you would be someone that actually would try to get people to see eye to eye. Maybe that is in fact what you are trying to do, but given recent responses this doesn’t seem be the case as they appear to be attempts to stir the pot, and to get tidbits that can be used to support your cause. I do understand that private property doesn’t feel so private when the public is telling you what to do or not to do with it.


I’m still bewildered by the interest in climbers as pawns to be used in the fight against Gardiner’s Zoning laws, but again maybe this is just your interest and opinion as we are all entitled to (as well as private property).

Hi Mike,

I don't have time to write a lot. It's never been my intent to make climbers pawns. I started by trying to inform the GCC. They didn't take the meeting. I later learned why.

The point I was trying to make then, and now, however imperfectly, is that some landowners, myself included, find the zoning law to be so offensive as to make them want to rescind access for everyone, including climbers.

It was live and let live in Gardiner for a long time. Most ridge landowners have been steadfast advocates and practitioners of land preservation and open access. In the zoning process we were told, despite our historical preservation of land, that "live and let live isn't good enough any more".

The rest simply follows. If climbers were being targeted, parts of The Nears would have already closed. Instead, the first closure was that of the Wustrau property which affects those hiking rather than climbing.

Before I go I'll add that I don't know if parts of The Nears will close or not. If they do, while some climbers may express a narcissistic sense of entitlement to climb on private land in The Nears, no one has a right to climb on private land.

... without consent of the land owner ...

Kent,

My reference to the Access Fund and the Adopt-a-Crag events was based on the mission of the national organization and not the opinions of the regional director. Increased climber traffic anywhere along the ridge has its environmental impact and I think you understand that my comments were intended to foster awareness of, and reduction of, that impact, not advocate for the GCC.

Q, consent confers permission rather than a right.

Frank, I didn't mean to respond as if you were advocating for the GCC. As for environmental impacts, from a landowners perspective, the best way to handle that is to revoke public access.

Sorry to continue the thread drift, but this is an interesting topic. I have no doubt we'll be able to get back on topic the moment any new info about DW's book comes out!

>>Frank Florence wrote:
>>Increased climber traffic anywhere along the ridge has its
>>environmental impact and I think you understand that my
>>comments were intended to foster awareness of, and reduction
>>of, that impact, not advocate for the GCC.

>Kent responded:
>As for environmental impacts, from a landowners perspective,
>the best way to handle that is to revoke public access.

No, but your framing of the issue betrays how polarized this has become.

The best way for a landowner to preserve against environmental impact is to sell development rights for a land easement. This protects the property against a range of environmental impacts, including those that might be done by the landowner.

However, if what the landowner is really interested in is the preservation of their own rights - such as the right to determine what, if anything, may be done with/on their property, then and only then is barring other users from their land the absolute best solution.

Not that there's anything wrong with that! The property does belong to the landowner, and preserving that landowner's rights is a valuable end all unto itself. But conflating those rights with the idea of protecting the environment is unfair, even if the particular landowner would protect the environment better. To my mind, it's better to separate the two issues, since the best solution to one may not be the best solution to the other.

Particularly if the landowner would actually like to preserve both climbing access and their own rights, while keeping the level of environmental impact within certain bounds.

GO

What's more important, the condition of the natural landscape or the landowner's rights??

Well Mike, world history for the last 2000 or so years has believed that to be the latter.

Also if you beleive the former then what is preventing it from not being more important then anything else (such as climbing and hiking) You know there is no black and white answer to that statment.

More recent legislation has tended toward the loss of individual landowner rights with "eminent domain", a fancy term for big government doing what it wants with our property. Rightfully so, this is now getting stomped down by public outcry but will always be with us for public projects. I've been fearful that this could be extended to preservation of sensitive or unique environmental areas and pray it does not.

Right, it's a three-way tug-of-war going on between private landowners, recreationists, and conservationists. Conservationists have, increasingly, stood in the way of recreationists in recent years. In John Muir's day, recreationists and conservationists were one and the same, just folks who wanted to take a walk in the woods. That's not the case anymore.

Mike said...

Mike, this is a false dichotomy. The choice isn’t between the condition of the natural landscape and landowners rights but rather between the community sharing the burden of preserving the land and the community imposing that burden on a tiny handful of landowners.

Also, what about the condition of the natural landscape over at the Mohonk Mountain House, or the miles and miles of carriage road on the Mohonk Preserve?
................................................

Gabe said....

Gabe, you say “betray” as if somehow I’m trying to hide the fact that Gardiner’s “live and let die” ridge zoning law is polarizing when in fact I’ve been making the argument, and rather loudly, for years now, that the zoning law is exceptionally unfair and divisive and has deeply polarized the community.


It’s hard to sell rights that have already been confiscated by the town. Additionally, the inferred recreationist impacts in this thread are soil erosion and compaction, the stripping of lichens off the cliff, and littering. These are best addressed by landowners simply keeping recreationists out.


There just isn’t any upside for landowners in allowing climbing access. Climbers present a possible liability problem, they trample trees, shrubs etc., everywhere they go. They compact and erode the soil. They leave garbage. They make noise. When confronted with the possibility that they may no longer have access climbers have variously threatened to sue, threatened violence, proclaimed they will have to be “arrested or assaulted” to keep them off private land. I mean really, under the current circumstances, why would any landowner want to allow access to climbers?

As well, many climbers have participated in a regulatory process deeply harmful to landowners.

............................................

Chip mentioned that eminent domain is increasingly being used and is being rightly stomped down.

Emminent domain would in fact be better than the raw deal we've been dealt because the town would have to pay us at least something. But because the town has used zoning regulations, rather than eminent domain, and left most landowners some “viable use”, they don’t have to pay us a dime. The only exceptions may be the Wustraus and the Majestics. If the Fiends of the Shawangunks (FOS), who are suing the Wustraus to keep them from using their land, prevail in court, then the ridge zoning law will effectively have taken all viable use and the Wustraus will have a pretty good eminent domain claim against the town. The Wustrau’s land, prior to passage of the law, was probably worth something on the order of a million dollars, which, after years and years of litigation, will be what the town will be on the hook for. I might add there are at least two climbers on the board of FOS.
...............................................

Nate said.......

Nate, how is it a three way tug-of-war? It seems to be more like the town colluding with preservationist organizations, and their recreationist members, to gang up on landowners and the poor results are pretty apparent. This need not be the case. In other communities, in other parts of the country, everyone collaborates. Some collaborative methods and innovative funding tools are described in James Levitt’s From Walden to Wall Street: Frontiers of Conservation Finance. As I once mentioned before, when Leavitt was asked why there was no mention of zoning in his book, he responded “communities across the country are deciding they don’t want government in their backyards”. Levitt is the director of The Program on Conservation Innovation. You won’t find mention of the use of zoning anywhere on their website.

if you want to bitch about the preseve and land owners rights start a different thread!

anyway I can't wait to October for the New guide. I might get 2 copies.

Heya John,

I keep seeing your pics around. Nice work. I too can't wait for the new guide. As for a different thread, there are so few active threads here it doesn't seem to matter.

cheers,

K

For once I agree with Talus boy. What the heck does this have to do with a new guidebook?

You can't use a guidebook if the property is closed to us.

Umm... Plenty of people use the old guidebooks with SkyTop in them!

(Yeah... That's right I said SkyTop!)

hell, i have the black dick with skytop!
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooh skytop!

Hey Jean Luc, I prefer the Rezucha guide to the Nears myself. Google that one, ha! Or the Red Gran!

(OT) One thing though Kent, I'm not sure FOS is spelled correctly - freudian slip? Check it out. LOL.

an intentional Feudian slip...or maybe the "R" key has a mind of it's own......;)

This guidebook does not cover the cliff that is in discussion here.

Feudian. Hatfield or McCoy. nice touch

Huh? Can you clarify...

I hope Dick gave Harvest moon 5 stars (on a 1-3 star scale).

I saw Rich (from Rock and Snow)and he said the new book was supposed to arrive today!! (we were at the cliff):)

When I stopped by Rock and Snow at about 4:30 pm yeterday (Tue) Dick Williams was there waiting for the truck from the printer to deliver the books. I think he was going to use R&S as a sort of distribution center. I had heard that the book was about to come out and was hoping to get one before leaving NP for home (Maryland). But I had a long drive ahead, so I had to leave without one. :_(

We got ours in the mail today, they look great! Can't wait to go out and try some of the new routes!

Thanks for all the hard work, for giving the crack by LWM a name, and for upgrading as the cliff turns!

I got my copy at R&S yesterday and read it cover to cover on the subway to work this morning. I had only ever gone as far south as Animal Farm so it is great to learn how much more there is to explore. I really appreciate the labor that went into producing the guide, such as repeating (and refusal to repeat) lichen-covered, shrubbery-filled routes up loose blocks.

Sounds like the Trapps is the place to climb this weekend eh?

RR

Whats up with the cliff photos? Why such low contrast? You need to bring along a swain guide to find some of the new routes.