Pizza, if you must know, I voted for Reagan in 1980, as did many other so called "Reagan democrats" because Carter's foreign policy was a disaster, interest rates on mortgages were over 20%, and the economy was in the tank. I don't remember voting in '84 or '88. In '92 I voted for Clinton. I campaigned for Nader in '96, Gore in '00, Kerry in '04, and no one in this last election cycle. My political loyalties are best described as unaffiliated, which is how I'm registered in New York.

You haven't stopped your ad hominems, you're just trying to be cute about it, and in doing so you're making my point. I mean really, what does the fact that I voted for Ronald Reagan nearly thirty years ago have to do with the subjects at hand? Nothing. That's what you want to draw attention to though, because the positions you have put forth are intellectually flaccid.

Hey, sorry again about mentioning Reagan. I swear I didn't know... Honest!!

Look, if you don't mind that local businesses that rely on the MP don't support MP, then fine. And you don't think public access is in the public interest, then that too, is a pretty clear viewpoint to which you're entitled.

Allow me to explain my point about how MP inadvertantly enables Minnewaska climbing ban. Unfortunately this requires an eggregious violation of the priciple of short posts on a message board, and ensurs that few people, if any read this post.

Do understand these thoughts are somewhat apart from whether MP is a good organization. Or for that matter, whether potential climbing outside Trapps and Nears has any real significance or value.

But if hypothetically, the MP didn't exist, the likely alternative administrator would be PIPC. I'd call it a certainty.

Yes there are other other alternatives, but one can at least point to several recent instances where this has happened, I think most obviously SW margins of Minnewaska, as well as the "Save the Ridge" property.

IF MP decided, or needed, to fold the tent (inconceivable in near term), they might include deed restriction requiring that climbing continue on the property.

But even assuming they didn't, the current climbing population is obviously far from politically powerless. (The shame is they are so passive).

The place is absolutely lousy with ivy league lawyers, newspaper-of-record publishers, etc., ad nauseum.... who, if totally screwed to the wall...WOULD seek to influence state politics if there were an inclination by PIPC to shut down Trapps climbing. To say nothing of local chamber of commerce types, etc....

PIPC higher-ups know this perfectly well. They wouldn't pick that fight. They would have no motivation. The top folks would endanger their jobs in doing so.....

So that's as best as I can say why I think it's a given that if MP went away, climbing would continue and PIPC would step in.

Now, let's say MP goes away and PIPC has Trapps & Nears & realizes it's current climbing policy is inapplicable to new territory.

A management policy invariably includes some justification. Politicians and the do-nothing bosses demand it of policy writers.

The justifications are always essentially "makin' stuff up" as Sarah Palin might say. But they need some apparent rationale.

Some do say the current Minnewaska climbing ban is based on "Preservation." But the PIPC does ban climbing everywhere else in its parks, based on what it believes is a mandate to ensure public safety.

If they suddenly permitted thousands of climbers on PIPC lands, the "public safety" rational is weakened --- or one might say instantly destroyed. So it's back to the drawing board...

Okay, still, the new policy is "Climbing permitted at Trapps and Nears but almost no place else" because it's "bad for the environment."


But the "environment" at Trapps and Nears shows degradation from too many climbers. PIPC land managers are charged with "protecting the environment."

If preservation is goal, then some effort to enable dispersal --or at least make it not impossible-- would be rational and responsible.

"Trapps & Nears are Less Worthy of Protection"

But many, perhaps most people would say Trapps & Nears are the "climax" Gunks environment, and therefore most worthy of preservation.....Etc.......

So PIPC policy, of necessity, changes and evolves.....

So Pizza, back to my last query. It sounds fairly obvious that you believe all cliffs should have legal climbing access. Is this accurate? Do you think we as climbers have a fundamental right to climb anything we wish? Do you think any environmental concerns or preservation goals outweigh a climbers "right" to adventure?

The only reason I ask is that before current climbing restrictions on PIPC property could be lifted, this very question needs to be addressed by the broader management types.

Personally, I don't think we have a fundamental right to conquer every cliff we want. I think we all lose when we don't consider environmental factors in determining who climbs where. Sometimes the climbing potential of a cliff isn't worth the impact that will be caused by unregulated climbing access. Just my $0.02

RR

Good question. But I don't entirely accept the premise.

With a few exceptions (birds, bats, whatever) I haven't seen anything to suggest that the environmental impacts of climbing are very significant.

And "preservation," I think is a purely sentimental and unrealistic goal for land managers.

Minnewaska, for example, has vast tracts soon to be completely destroyed by the hemlock adelgids. There is some evidence that acid rain has severely damaged its lakes. Not so long ago, it had lots of chestnut trees -- which are now gone.

All of this is due to human activity that will continue to change the environment.

Attempting to "preserve" land in an eternally unchanged state by banning a few climbers or whatever, is just futility.

The Dix document I've mentioned suggests that rather than "preservation" the practical goal of land managers should be managing "acceptable change."

This isn't defined by science unfortunately, but rather by social consensus.

As for simple "private property rights" and the right to climb, this too is consensus, and I think rules in England and elsewhere amply demonstrate that these values need NOT be in fundamental conflict.

"With a few exceptions (birds, bats, whatever) I haven't seen anything to suggest that the environmental impacts of climbing are very significant. "

Talk about ignorance.........Ya know Pizzadouche, I am handing over my crown as king douche to you, your arguments are lame, your logic blows and I bet you will not exceed 150 posts before you even bore yourself (142 to go) and check off this forum (and hopefully planet).

okay so using preservation goals was a bad choice of words. I guess I'm trying to distill it down to a simple question. Do you think climbers have an INHERENT right to climb on any cliff they want to? Forget about the environmental impacts for a moment and let's just discuss this question.

RR

UIAA says--and it's hard to disagree with this:

"Coupled with respect for natural surroundings, free access to the alpine wilderness areas is a fundamental right. Sufficient possibilities to exercise the sport of rock climbing can only be guaranteed if this right to freedom of movement remains intact
and is restricted only in isolated, well-founded cases when agreed as being absolutely necessary."

http://www.theuiaa.org/upload_area/files/1/to_bolt_or_not_to_be_en.pdf

First, the UIAA represents a very specific user group. Second, note that it says "alpine wilderness area". The areas under discussion are neither alpine nor wilderness.

Private land in a non-wilderness area, like the land Pizza seems to be talking about, is a different matter.

So then why did the UIAA misapply this statement in a document that is primarily about the controversy over bolting sport crags?

The way to melt an iceberg is to have some of the posters on this thread placed on that iceberg and have them discuss this issue.