569

570

This is shaping up to be an awesome thread. I can't wait for tomorrow's installment.

Tomorrow's installment or day 978 or 1163 or whenever they finally hold an election.....

You're railing against...

• a more or mostly less quiescent organization
• that has basically no members, or at least no real membership
• that has basically done away with by-laws, elections, BofD terms...
• ...mostly because of the first point...
• although they probably seemed like a good idea at the time of organization

Seems rather Quixotic, no?

I feel a somewhat more important point is that the GCC is ostensibly the official local representative organization of the Access Fund. As others have pointed out, I agree that the GCC should either (once again) become a real organization that is truly representative or allow some other group to step into the void and be the voice of the climbers.

But the major impediments will remain:
there are only a few willing to do so, they will continue to be major players in whatever transpires, and the historic difficulty of being able to create, organize, and effectively operate such an advocacy group that is indeed able to work with local landowners. Yes, people have pointed to the SCC as a shining example of such a group. Unfortunately, despite the existence of numerous climbers coalitions/groups nationwide, there are damned few that have been as effective - a testament to how difficult this is. So in the Gunks, instead of constructive discussion, we get these snarky pissing contests, like this thread. At least you guys are dealing with relatively more esoteric issues, like zoning laws and land acquisition practices, instead of more visceral and permanent things like the elimination of a climbing area in my neck of the woods:
http://nn.byu.edu/story.cfm/72157
http://preserverockcanyon.com/

And one issue from a few years ago that came to successful compromise. In the early part of the decade, access to Castleton Tower was destined to be lost forever due to developemt:
http://www.castlerockcollaboration.org/

and we also get... quixotic

Caught up in the romance of noble deeds and the pursuit of unreachable goals; idealistic without regard to practicality.

"extravagantly chivalrous," 1791, from Don Quixote, romantic, impractical hero of Cervantes' satirical novel "Don Quixote de la Mancha" (1605).


This is one of the best posts I've read in Years!!!

I bow to you sir... well done!

571

Kent,

It's pretty sad that since the day I called on the GCC to have new elections Chris Moratz has been mute, Janette has been mute, WTF?

Hey Chris M and Janette P et al. if you are reading this, it is my opinion that your days are up. Time for new elections people. Failing to address this forum is just more proof that you guys are unable to communicate with your constituancy.

So, if you force the GCC to hold elections and the current officers are unopposed and re-elected, how can you complain about the job they do?

If the GCC is really defunct, who will step up and form a new organization that will replace it?

Just curious.

Ta,
Dizz

Anybody that receives a Thom Scheuer award is OK in my book. Keep up the good work Jannette and Chris

Taking this one logical step further...since the GCC has done away with membership (as stated here several times in the past), exactly who is going to vote in a new election?

Heya Dizz,

What's new?

A sham election won't improve matters. An open and well pubilicized election would at least give those elected some credibility. So while one might still be critical of a new board's conduct, depending on what their future conduct is, at least the board would be credible. Of course, there is the problem of having no members and therefore no one to vote. A good time to have dealt with all this would have been at the end of their terms.

Scaring people away for years, which it seems they've done a good job of, and then bemoaning the fact that no one else wants to contribute, so they get to represent the climbing community as they please, for as long as they please, without explanation or any semblance of accountability, seems a bit self serving.

Many people, landowners and climbers alike, take exception with the conduct of the former GCC board, and believe there should be a new start. Personally I think the current GCC operators, for lack of a better term, should formally step down and allow a vacuum for now if need be, and then see who steps forward to fill the vacuum so new people can organize new elections.

An old start might work too. Will you come back to the GCC Dizz? Please?

I hope all is well with you.

K

I'm a bit surprised that Kent or anyone else would feel scared away by Jannette. Yeah, she's a tough Mamma, but I've not seen any behavior to indicate malice or intimidation to be a part of her demeanor. Is someone frightening because they choose to take responsibilty and act on issues of interest and value to themselves or others? I could kiss her on both cheeks for the many hours of work and effort, to say nothing of the mental and emotional energy directed at climber relations at the gunks. I don't have to agree or disagree with someone to appreciate that kind of outpouring. Are you just pissed because you don't like an outcome? If so, the personal attacks are childish and petulant, as we can/should not control anyone else's desires nor the results of their effort. I don't know anyone else on the current GCC and can't speak about them.

Perhaps scared is the wrong word. A better word is alienated. I'm not talking about them alienating me, but rather much of the rest of the climbing community.

As for personal attacks, I've been critical of the GCC for their conduct regarding access issues, not their personal conduct.

572

I love technology. I am sitting in the dooryard of my 200 year old farmhouse in the Berkshires, I have a fire in my chiminea and I'm online. But this isn't why I'm writing.

There is a lot of chatter here and some valid points. I have written, deleted, rewritten and deleted again several responses and I come down to the same thing: If you have a complaint with the leadership of the GCC GO TO THE MEETING and air your grievances. Hiding behind some online group and taunting the GCC into responding is really a chicken$hit way to go. I have logged onto the website and the invitation is clearly there. Here's the linky for you: http://gunksclimbers.org/events.shtml There's another link to ask for directions to Ajax's house. Go! If you're really good, Ajax might even show you the museum.

I know the response already: It won't do any good. Well, the whole point of founding the GCC was to fight against that apathy and try to do what all the naysayers said couldn't be done. Eventually it will happen, but not overnight.

If you don't get the satisfaction that you think you want, then by all means, start another group. However it will soon be obvious that you will need to build some kind of structure: get 501c(3) status, for which you'll need bylaws. You will then need to build alliances with the land use managers of the local organizations like the Preserve, DEC, Towns of Rosendale and Gardiner, etc. and convince them you're the real deal and not the GCC. It will be a tough row to hoe. The structure of the GCC is key to the success of any negotiations to open climbing on these public/semipublic lands.

I know this is not what any of the antagonists wish to hear, but if you don't have the nads to step up and at least confront the GCC with you concerns, then stop whining. Be constructive and get involved in some other way.

OK, the fire is turning to embers and I'm getting tired.

Ta,
Dizz

Nice post Dizzy!

GO

Dizz,

Calling people chicken shit isn't going to help matters either. And, after the history of the last few years, to say that I don't have the nads to confront the GCC "leadership" is a bit ridiculous, don't you think? Years ago, I made repeated attempts to air my views directly to the board, and like others, was rebuffed. So they get what they get. A public debate about their conduct.

Also, it could just as easily be said that the GCC "Board" members are chicken shit for not responding to legitimate criticism, for not talking to landowners until land closed, for not holding elections, for eliminating members, etc.. That wouldn't be very constructive either though.

You mention bylaws, among other things. The GCC has failed to follow them. Now, having failed to follow their own bylaws, and lacking members, or current elections, they can make no credible or legitimate claim to representing the climbing community. They have become a fiefdom.

575

So, maybe instead of crying on Gunks.com, why don't all of you who dislike the GCC figure out a way to have their 501c(3) non-profit status revoked for failure to hold elections according to the bylaws. You could also get the often scorned affiliation with the Access Fund revoked for the same reason.

Also, the "Well, they have no memebrs so elections aren't possible cuz who'll vote?" argument is also crap. The Western Mass Climbers Coalition also have no members per se, but they just successfully held an online election of a new board of directors.

There are lots of ways to get what you want, but it will probably require that other people get off their butts and go do it instead of just complaining about the job others are doing. It's real easy to just sit there.

Ta,
Dizz

Who cares about their 501 c(3) status? No one. Still, the GCC bylaws might as well have been written in sand.

As for the Access Fund affiliation, in my opinion the GCC has tarnished the Access Fund's otherwise good reputation.

You can cry all you want about the GCC somehow being credible still, but it's not. They have no cred with the bulk of the climbing community and no cred whatsoever with some of the important landowners in the Nears and at Millbrook. None.

576

In light of the recent post in the other thread, I guess the correct figure is something more like (-200).

Hey Ped,

Posting pics of your woman online is always a bad idea.

577, beat ya Kent......

Is there any reason there can't be two or more climbing advocacy groups representing the needs of quite a diverse group of climbers? If ya'll want better, or different representation, than make it yourself!! competition will surely polish otherwise complacent groups, not that I am calling anyone complacent. Just shut the hell up and form your own damned advocacy group!!!!! Might I suggest the WCNP (The Whining Climbers of New Paltz), or the GCTCC (The Gunks Carpal Tunnel Climbers Coalition), or the AGCc (The Anonymous Griping Climbers Club). The acronyms are fairly unlimited! I for one am going to start the ICLHT5.9C (The I can't Lead Harder Than 5.9 Club) I did have the enormous burden of the UCPLF (United Cell Phone Liberation Front), but now that I actually have a cell phone I have a slight conflict of interest, so I turned my post over to Yorick.

RR

RR

Based on Fraser/Dana's answers to questions about elections, I'm ending my participation in this thread. Hopefully, if more people do volunteer to work on access issues, then someone will have time to keep the GCC website current.

dont forget your other post on the board of the USHFFSR

union of socialist hardmen from former soviet republics

Dude I totally forgot about that one! I've been occupying a seat on that council until Slopur Lokov returns from Climbikstan.

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

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

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.

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.

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,...;-)"

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

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

Jannette

Jannette,

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

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.

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.

Let's not be too hard on Phlan & Janette. They have accomplished much positive for conservation, climbing, and safety. I think they are deserving much praise.

As evidenced, GCC has espoused opening opening just about all rock to climbing. In the case of climbable outcrops on private landholdings, this stance has caused some difficulties with the landowners. I see and understand the issues raised by landowners when considering open access to their land for any recreational activity. As an example, I sometimes host climbing friends at my home when they visit the 'Gunks. They sleep on the couch, the guest room, or in a tent in the back yard. It is by invitation, and usually for long time friends who I know are not going to be nuisance. They also reciprocate if I travel to their home areas.

I certainly do not want to come home to find half a dozen tents full of strangers in my yard, stating they "heard it's ok to camp here because we came to climb...."

A larger, and more unfortunate issue is the approach Mohonk Preserve managers has taken to acquire adjoining lands. From what I have determined, a form of Adverse Possession claim is utilized in a legal context. In recent years, this has become an increasingly contentious process. Most unfortunately, there are indications one or two such cases are headed for litigation.

Though this seemingly has no link to climbing access, the land owners see climbers as part of the process of opening private property for expanding recreational activities generally conducted on MP lands. And they get defensive of their lands. Other than stating this specific issue here, I will not comment further, as there is the strong possibility land boundary disputes will be settled in court.

So far as climbing access, I am going to encourage GCC to take an official stance of respecting private landowners rights. (The days of rebellious and irreverent climbers bushwhacking into private property are over; although somewhat a tradition, today it going to lead to a significant increase in trespass charges.)

All it would take is a concise policy statement from GCC, and the understanding of the climbing community. If you trespass, it reflects on all the rest of us, and has a direct bearing on future access negotiations. That there were some previous statements by GCC to climb everywhere (or similar wording) is perhaps the only mistake they have made, and can be cleanly re-stated to regain the trust of adjoining landowners. Otherwise, I have high praise for the many things they have done.

I hope this is a reasoned and mature approach. It might be nice to hear or see some good things said by other contributors about the positive accomplishments GCC, which so far as can be determined is largely the work of Phlan & Janette.

Diomedias is following the tradewinds, but will watch the responses.....

I think most folk would agree with that statement as reasonable and representative.

Some call it "adverse possession", others call it "motion to quiet title."

It is reasonable and we do support the principles laid out by the Access Fund, of which this is one.


A more formal clarification will be drafted at this months meeting June 14. See you there!