Shout Box

Who's Online
0 registered (), 6 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >
Topic Options
#41552 - 11/13/08 05:22 AM Re: Climbing access [Re: Kent]
rg@ofmc Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 12/25/99
Posts: 2468
Loc: Poughkeepsie, NY
 Originally Posted By: "phlan"
communications over the Internet are too easily misconstrued and distorted. that is why we support real, live meetings which can be effective in real terms.


Well real meetings are good. But Kent, isn't it disingenuous to speak of setting up meetings if one of the parties is not amenable to discussion at this point?

As for discusions on the Internet, they are far less capable of being distorted and misconstrued than many meetings, because the text of everyone's comments is there, and claims can be evaluated in the light of what people actually said. When you have a far-flung constituency that will never be able to show up at meetings with any regularity or in any numbers, the Internet offers perhaps the only way to have a genuine conversation.

Top
#41555 - 11/13/08 11:39 AM Re: Climbing access [Re: rg@ofmc]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
RG, I'll be happy to discuss but the best time for meetings with landowners was long ago.

And I couldn't agree more with your comments regarding the merits of internet discussions.

Top
#41584 - 11/13/08 04:15 PM Re: Climbing access [Re: Kent]
chip Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 10/06/01
Posts: 2676
Loc: Sittin' Pretty in Fat City
Kent, as you may assertain from my posts, I am squarely on the side of a private land holder determining what activities are allowed. There are examples of historical activities being grand-fathered when land changes hand, but that is far from the rule. Since NYS passage of law to disallow torts when injured or killed due to recreational activity on private land, as long as the owner did not modify the property to enable that activity, I had anticipated an overall improved atmosphere between land owners and recreationists. Thus far I don't know if that has been the case. Now, you may simply not anyone on your property and that is your call. I am just curious if you can tell me why you no longer allow access on your land.

Top
#41597 - 11/13/08 05:46 PM Re: Climbing access [Re: rg@ofmc]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
 Originally Posted By: rg@ofmc



As for discusions on the Internet, they are far less capable of being distorted and misconstrued than many meetings


I will disagree with that. If the recent wave of threads and post doesn't outline that, I'm not sure what will. I have seen very little in the way of anything constructive or useful from any side on any of the issues being brought up here.

The only resounding theme seems to be is entrenchment.

When I have issues come up with my clients I will chose a face to face meeting over e-mail exchanges any time.

Top
#41601 - 11/13/08 05:53 PM Re: Climbing access [Re: chip]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
Chip, as with Julie, thank you also for your question. I'll be back.

Top
#41673 - 11/14/08 04:29 PM Re: Climbing access [Re: chip]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
Chip, thank you for respecting ridge landowner property rights.

In answer to your question, simply put, because the community has a pervasive and well entrenched sense of entitlement to private land.

This manifests in the form of The Preserve collaborating with other large organizations to influence the political processes of comprehensive planning and zoning to their benefit and with the consequence of great harm to their neighbors on the ridge.

Climbers have been involved every step of the way. Prominent climbers serve on the boards of the Mohonk Preserve, the so called Friends of The Shawangunks (FOS), their mirrored corporation the Shawangunk Conservancy, and of course the Gunks Climbers Coalition. All of these climbers have participated in the development of, or outspokenly supported, a zoning law that brings great harm to a handful of ridge landowners. When the unfairness of that has been illuminated, the best the climbers can offer up is "we don't care".

In turn, climbers, including very prominent and well known climbers, have routinely climbed on private land without permission. Whether its a Mohonk preserve employee climbing on Eddie's property in Rosendale without permission, or climbers repeatedly trespassing at the AI Wall to the point where they get arrested, or pretty much the entire climbing community traversing and/or climbing on private land in The Near Trapps without permisssion.

The craziest example that comes to mind is the two very well known climbers who serve on the board of FOS who engaged in a lawsuit to void one ridge landowners hard earned variances while simultaneously developing new routes on another ridge landowners property whose permisssion they never sought.

Pretty much everyone in the community expresses, in some way, a sense of entitlement to private land on the ridge.

Landowners, including myself, are tired of being the cookie jar.



Top
#41682 - 11/14/08 05:58 PM Re: Climbing access [Re: Kent]
Smike Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/01/01
Posts: 3143
Loc: in your backyard
 Originally Posted By: Kent
Whether its a Mohonk preserve employee climbing on Eddie's property in Rosendale


Kent, we all due respect, I find disapproval in the continual use of unsubstantiated information that involves legal matters that you have no direct involvement with, just as I find complete disapproval of entitlement of the use of private lands or the application of zoning laws without fair and due process.

I have withheld posting information on many occasions on a variety of issues on this board due to the fact that I have no business to be involved with such information for its use other then in some cases a legal standard to let parties directly involved (police , landowners etc…) know of such information.

Now, the Ice season will be here in short order and will be gift I intend to fully enjoy.

Until then I’m done with posting this public board (if anyone wish’s to reach me you may do so by sending me a PM) and will spend the time looking at the issues at hand in the real world, while respecting any current or future property closure’s (which I would suggest others should respect as well)

Best Regards,
Mike

Top
#41683 - 11/14/08 06:14 PM Re: Climbing access [Re: Smike]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
Mike,

I'm shining a bright light on that which some want to keep hidden. Trespassing is not cool.

And if you'll recall, I've produced hard evidence, documents, in the past to back up my claims here. I named a climber the other day in regards to trespass without having documents in hand. Documents are on the way however. If I am wrong I will certainly recant my remarks.

See you on the ice somewhere.

K


Edited by Kent (11/14/08 06:22 PM)

Top
#41723 - 11/14/08 09:08 PM Re: Climbing access [Re: Kent]
chip Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 10/06/01
Posts: 2676
Loc: Sittin' Pretty in Fat City
Just caught this thread. Kent, thanks for a more well formed response.

Top
#41824 - 11/19/08 12:48 AM Re: Climbing access [Re: Kent]
tls Offline
journeyman

Registered: 07/24/00
Posts: 54
 Quote:
or pretty much the entire climbing community traversing and/or climbing on private land in The Near Trapps without permisssion.


Leaving climbing aside, a landowner can't close a preexisting trail just because he wants to -- because you can't magically cause a right of way to disappear.

This is often overlooked in disputes like the (thankfully now old!) one with the Awosting Reserve; yet there, for example, it seems pretty clear that the right of way predated their title to the property in question, and no amount of erasing trail blazes with grey paint nor putting up signs could eliminate it: you buy a property with a road or trail crossing it that's previously been open to the public, it's your lookout. The sort of thing one needs to actually research before buying land -- not the sort of thing to bellow at the -- in many cases -- actually perfectly well entitled trail users about later.

It would be good if we could -- as I asked in another thread just now -- tone down the rhetoric and hostility and actually keep complaints about illegal (or unethical, or unfriendly) behavior within the bounds of what's actually wrong, rather than trying to expand out the definiton of wrong behavior all out of correspondence with the state of affairs in the real world.

Climbing on private property without permission is wrong. If we could leave it at that, and stop trying to find any other paintbrush available to try to tar anyone who some of us suspect might be climbing on private property without asking first, maybe it would be a little easier to get consensus, never mind compliance or good manners.

The question of whether public use of various trails in and around the Near Trapps, trails that have been used for at least decades, in many cases with prior landowners' consent, by people who did not specifically request permission to use them is actually trespassing is a very complex one. Ranting about it does nothing but obscure the much more clear-cut issue of climbing other people's cliffs without asking; which is unfortunate, because it means it just spreads heat when what is wanted is light.

Top
Page 2 of 3 < 1 2 3 >


Moderator:  Jannette, phlan, webmaster 
Sponsored