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.....