So I was just curious... does anyone know if there is a place in the Gunks to set up a massive rope swing... a lot of climbing areas I've been to have such a thing, but I've never seen or heard of one in the Gunks...

We're still working on a zip line from the top of Mainline down to the Brau, but there is no swing set up anywhere that I know of.

How about a zipline to traverse the closed section of Near Trapps without technically setting foot on it? Now THAT would be neat.

pretty pathetic Mike. As a guide you would think you would want to maintain good reations with Mohonk Neighbors and have access continued. I'm sure when Cliff owning neighbors read this it will not help in keeping the areas that you want to climb on open. In the future when more access is denied you can bet your comments will be brought up. MPNA

Why would a guide want to maintain any relations with a landowner who didn't even allow unobtrusive passage across the back of their property?

really?

Mark, the Access Fund website has helpful insights on how to interact with private landowners including those who don't allow access to their land. The basic idea is by respecting the landowner's wishes climbers are building a constructive relationship that may lead to access in the future or the sale of the land to a climber friendly organization. By disrespecting landowners climbers assure no legal access and jeopardize any future sale to a climber friendly organization.

This seems like common sense and common courtesy but apparently not here in New York.

Air rights will be protected under UN Resolution S/RES/1983 (2011) allowing the use of surface to air missiles against an aggressor to protect sovereignty.

SAM's are pretty hard to come by in the US. It would be easier and cheaper to have a spike board awaiting at the landing or someplace in the middle. Cheap, effective and the vultures will clean up said air trespasser in a jiffy. Of course all of this is purely hypothetical as violence is just plain wrong.

Kent, I have to admit that I feel the vast majority of climbers have alwyas been very respectful to the land owners whose land they have crossed, knowingly or unknowingly, and yet the access to continue doing so was removed by the landowner. The reaction to close this land continues to be directed at those who are unlikely to generate any change to the initial beef and generally did not cause the conflict. This is why climbers continue to have difficulty understanding why they should then react with respect to the closure. I don't want to stir this up again and certainly agree that someone should always have the right to prevent others from crossing property they own. I have respected this closure from the start. I just wanted to express my perception of why this situation is not percieved as appropriate to the climbers.