Shout Box

Who's Online
0 registered (), 13 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 4 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Topic Options
#45092 - 05/28/09 03:55 PM Re: Days Since GCC Board Members Terms Expired [Re: Dizzy]
Diomedias46 Offline
stranger

Registered: 12/12/06
Posts: 7
This little essay does not specifically respond to any particular individual in this thread, but I hope to clarify some points.

About 3 years ago, I offered to assist GCC in several areas:

-Access to climbing, including privately held land

-Input on efforts to acquire land adjoining the Mohonk Preserve

-Access to potential climbing on public land, i.e. Minnewaska State Park

This took quite a long time. It has involved some research of case law and with title search. Please note that I am often out of the area when tasked for other projects. I did this as a volunteer, and there has been no renumeration of any sort, not even for expenses. Note that I have only been peripherally involved with GCC, seldom attend their meetings, and have only limited contact through our favorite restaurant.

Following some time, I got to know some private landowners issues. Although seeming to be unrelated, landowners with property abutting the Mohonk Preserve have some pending boundary issues. They are posting property with "No Trespassing" signs, and will hostilely defend that land in accordance with legal precedence to establish and maintaining title and claim to it. This includes all activities, be it hiking, climbing, hunting, bird watching, or any other activity.

With respect to climbing access on privately held rock cliffs or outcrops, perhaps the GCC was overly enthusiastic with pursuing the opening of any and all rock to climbing. Perhaps it was not in the best interests the climbing community as a whole to espouse such a view. It is perhaps their only mistake, and I think they can be persuaded to assist private landowners by making it clear that trespass for any reason is seriously frowned upon.

As I have come to know some of the landowners, I no longer agree with the position that every cliff should be climbed. Although I am climber, and have been to many areas around the country, I have come to agree that if the landowner does not want climbers on the cliffs, or indeed to enter the property for any reason, you had better respect that. If you own the land, you make the rules!

I think it unfair and mistaken to be so critical of Phlan and Cliffmama, though. They have provided a platform to raise money for the purchase of rescue gear, and have established groundwork to open more climbing areas in Minnewaska State park, which is public (not private) land. I will offer that their only mistake has been to pursue the opening of private areas with a little too much enthusiasm.

At the same time I will defend the landowners, some of whom have continually contended with trespass by climbers who want to bag an "illegal" route. Stay off private property; be more respectful of these people. Calling them names on the web does nothing to endear the entire "climbing community" to residents. I will not get into specifics of why they are barring access, but will state unequivocally that they are very good custodians of their lands.

For all climbers, respect private landowners. The fact that a section of rock is closed does not make that landowner a bogeyman. He or she simply wants to enjoy their land without intrusion. (How would like if strangers kept showing up to use your swimming pool or tennis court?)

-Diomedias46

Top
#45101 - 05/28/09 08:28 PM Re: Days Since GCC Board Members Terms Expired [Re: Diomedias46]
Jannette Offline

Cliffmama
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 10/03/00
Posts: 2225
Loc: Gardiner, NY
Please note that I personally have never made any statements pushing to pursue opening private areas. It would be unfair to assume that anyone associated with the GCC feels that way. In circumstances where there are climbing opportunities and public or private landowners are interested in sharing their land, then I can see where access could be pursued. But a landowner has the final say in whether they want to permit climbing on their land. The GCC has always asked climbers to respect closures and has never advocated tresspassing. I myself own a small cliff in Tillson.

Jannette

Top
#45103 - 05/28/09 10:35 PM Re: Days Since GCC Board Members Terms Expired [Re: Jannette]
Fraser Offline
old hand

Registered: 08/15/02
Posts: 701
Loc: New Canaan, CT
Diomedia46,

Thanks for your note.

I think you make some excellent points. None of us are perfect, but I think as a community we can be proud of the money we have raised for the rescue funds for the Gardiner FD, the Mohonk Preserve, the frequent talks and slide shows, and the Adopt a Crags.

Top
#45107 - 05/29/09 12:24 AM Re: Days Since GCC Board Members Terms Expired [Re: Jannette]
Mike Rawdon Offline

Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 11/29/99
Posts: 4276
Loc: Poughkeepsie
Originally Posted By: Jannette
Please note that I personally have never made any statements pushing to pursue opening private areas. It would be unfair to assume that anyone associated with the GCC feels that way. In circumstances where there are climbing opportunities and public or private landowners are interested in sharing their land, then I can see where access could be pursued. But a landowner has the final say in whether they want to permit climbing on their land. The GCC has always asked climbers to respect closures and has never advocated tresspassing. I myself own a small cliff in Tillson.

Jannette


I don't think it's about what you personally have said. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there doesn't seem to be a clear statement anywhere of the GCC's position re. private land, let alone "pursuing the opening of any and all rock to climbing" as alleged above. The Vision and Mission statements are there (on the GCC website), but are so vague that the site visitor learns nothing about the GCC's position on any of a number of contentious issues.

Top
#45109 - 05/29/09 12:43 AM Re: Days Since GCC Board Members Terms Expired [Re: Jannette]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
Quote:
Please note that I personally have never made any statements pushing to pursue opening private areas. It would be unfair to assume that anyone associated with the GCC feels that way.

Janette, your statement directly contradicts what's on the GCC Facebook site.

Gunks Climbers Coalition "Message of the Day: Access All Areas!"
followed by
MD "Do we have GCC permission to climb at all of the closed areas now? :)"
followed by
MD "All areas? What about the closed areas? AI Wall? Skytop? The rest of Minnewaska?
followed by
Gunks Climbers' Coalition "That is our long term goal after all,...;-)"

Top
#45114 - 05/29/09 02:25 AM Re: Days Since GCC Board Members Terms Expired [Re: Kent]
Jannette Offline

Cliffmama
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 10/03/00
Posts: 2225
Loc: Gardiner, NY
Originally Posted By: Kent
Quote:
Please note that I personally have never made any statements pushing to pursue opening private areas. It would be unfair to assume that anyone associated with the GCC feels that way.

Janette, your statement directly contradicts what's on the GCC Facebook site.

Gunks Climbers Coalition "Message of the Day: Access All Areas!"


I think it is fairly obvious that Chris was goofing around when he posted that message on the wall as well as some silly pictures. I didn't post that message. If it is confusing, I can remove it. I created the GCC Facebook page, but all GCC board members have administrative privileges for it.

Jannette

Top
#45115 - 05/29/09 02:27 AM Re: Days Since GCC Board Members Terms Expired [Re: Mike Rawdon]
Jannette Offline

Cliffmama
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 10/03/00
Posts: 2225
Loc: Gardiner, NY
Originally Posted By: Mike Rawdon

I don't think it's about what you personally have said. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there doesn't seem to be a clear statement anywhere of the GCC's position re. private land, let alone "pursuing the opening of any and all rock to climbing" as alleged above. The Vision and Mission statements are there (on the GCC website), but are so vague that the site visitor learns nothing about the GCC's position on any of a number of contentious issues.


Each access issue requires different approaches. I don't think it's realistic to make a statement that covers all cases.

Jannette

Top
#45120 - 05/29/09 06:18 AM Re: Days Since GCC Board Members Terms Expired [Re: Jannette]
Jgreene Offline
member

Registered: 07/17/08
Posts: 171
Jannette,

Way to back peddle. Yeah, Chris was joking....Sure....Totally lame response to an offensive act by the chairman of the GCC.

Top
#45122 - 05/29/09 11:41 AM Re: Days Since GCC Board Members Terms Expired [Re: Jannette]
talus Offline
veteran

Registered: 08/23/04
Posts: 1259
Jannette please don't succumb yourself by replying to the GCC bashing, just ignore them until they show up at a meeting. you have amazing energy between work, family and dealing w/GCC issues.
_________________________
John Okner Photography

Top
#45125 - 05/29/09 01:30 PM Re: Days Since GCC Board Members Terms Expired [Re: Jannette]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
As I've mentioned before, Chris Moratz's words, more than those of any other, have led to tensions between landowners and climbers. The primary reasons for the closure of land in The Nears have been the actions of the Town of Gardiner and the Mohonk Preserve. Chris's public gaffes, however, and the GCC's refusal to follow Access Fund guidelines on how to interact with private landowners, have been the straws that broke the camel's back.

Look at the dates Janette. March 30th, Chris puts up, on the GCC Facebook page, "Message of The Day: Access All Areas". Ten days later, on April 8th, notice of the Near Trapps cliff closure is announced.


Edited by Kent (05/29/09 02:38 PM)

Top
Page 4 of 5 < 1 2 3 4 5 >


Moderator:  Jannette, phlan, webmaster 
Sponsored