Again, I completely believe we should respect any property owner's wishes about their own land. In terms of the re-routed blue trail, it was nice that you recognised the effort that was made. I do not know what else the preserve could have done other than posting rangers every 100 feet for the entire year to keep hikers off someone else's land. The trail changes were marked with yellow plastic tape and re-posted for the first year or so as the tape came down. It was hard to miss the many, many yellow signs that were posted in the middle of no where to tell us where we could or could not walk. I personally felt rising anger as to how many signs were posted, especially on top of and on every side of one poor glacial eratic boulder. The Preserve could have sought a different tact to legally presrve an historic pathway/access. It looked like a pretty big olive branch was extended.

Chip, it would be very easy for the Preserve to post a ranger at one point, the beginning of Nears closure, until their members got the message. They haven't.

What this thread needs is some Don Perry action. Only he can out-troll the trolls.

I recall getting an email alert when the Nears closure occurred, both from the GCC, and also from the Mohonk Preserve itself. That email includecd a link to this page(of course, there a re more recent alerts atop that one, which is dated 4/13/09, and viewable about halfway down page.

http://www.mohonkpreserve.org/index.php?news

It might have been "easy" to post a ranger at the start of Nears, but would it have been a reasonably effective use of donors funds to use a paid ranger in such a way?

Now, perhaps it *might* have occurred to the Volunteer Coordinator to ask for people to do that service... but I am not sure expecting someone to get that idea at that time would be reasonable.

However, now that I have thought of it, Kent, perhaps it is something the supporters of MPNA might want to consider doing. If they aren't preserve members, I think they could reasonably stand on the side near road without worry of accessing the land without membership/day pass.

They could simply say something like "Hi there! Just wanted to let you know there is a small section of the trail/cliff face which is closed to use. It's clearly marked, so easy enough to notice as you come upon it. As a representative of the (MPNA, AG or whatever), we hope you will respect that closure."

Terrie, MPNA has nothing whatsoever to do with the closed section of the Nears. That is not their fight. They've never claimed it to be their fight. I just wanted to point that out.

Additionally, what does all of this have to do wuth a rope swing??

Additionally, what does all of this have to do wuth a rope swing??

Isn't it amazing that only the initial post referred to that and most of the rest of the thread is devoted to squabbling?

Squabbling. A new route right next to Welcome To The Gunks.

Terrie, that's not a bad idea but it's really the Mohonk Preserve's responsibility to keep their members and guests off adjoining private land if there is a problem.

And RR is right, the closure in The Nears has never been AG/MPNA's subject.

Well, at least we're squabbling in the right place. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?

Last time I try to get a question answered on this forum.

Ed. to add: And I thought east coast climbers were BETTER in this regard than climbers out west...