Fer pete's sake, Kent, this is just common sense.

If you want a meeting for everyone to express the appropriate amount of respect to you, without offering anything in return - well, you might be waiting a while for those RSVPs.

I really doubt the AF, or anyone at all, sets up or attends meetings where there is nothing to negotiate.

Julie, again, read the Access Fund website.

I'm sure if you have a better idea of how to interact with landowners they'd love to hear about it.

Kent, that webpage (http://www.accessfund.org/resources/resprivate.php#S2) is merely a general outline, a recipe of sorts, which says nothing about the specific situation in the Gunks or any specific landowners' concerns. And unfortunately we've reached the point with that recipe where some ingredients are going to have to be substituted. Recipe (webpage) helpfully says: "address landowners' concerns." Unfortunately, their CONCERN seems to be that they HATE US, and there's nothing we can DO about it. Now are you done making your point?

That may be your interpretation of the website but I don't think it's very accurate.

As I said with Julie, if you think you have a better bread box than the access fund, when it comes to interacting with landowners, I'm sure they'd love to hear about it.

Ok Kent. Enlighten us.

Unless a more substantive line of inquiry comes up, I'm going to let it rest...... for now.

One last thing, again from The Access Fund website;

In response to the question of "why have a meeting if access isn't on the table"?

"You may not get the result you want in the first meeting, but you have taken the first step to building a relationship with that person."

I'm out of ideas of how to please you, Kent. As is anyone else, I'd think.

I've tried hard to ask you on what grounds we as climbers could negotiate, but you've repeatedly said there are no grounds. As with any situation in life, there comes a time at which futile efforts are clearly not worth repeating.

So I'm not sure what your whole point has been, publicly, besides taunting Chris (which, as I've said, I'm just not interested in).

Again, I'd love to hear what climbers can do to gain access - but that HAS to come from you. If all you can say is "respect ... but no access" - then why are you posting endlessly?

Julie, I keep hoping, against all odds, that Chris will embrace and articulate, in his own words, the ideas on the Access Fund website. I seem to be hoping in vain.

There seem to be two camps here.

Camp One
Respect for property rights, period. Then you might have access. This is the position of landowners, seemingly The Access Fund, and many climbers.

Camp Two
No access then no respect. This is my interpretation of the position of many climbers, including Chris M.

I'm not trying to torture Chris M. but as the elected Chairman of the only organization advocating for recreationists, his words carry weight, good or bad. If he is in Camp Two, that's bad.

I'm sure the GCC no longer has chairpersons or elected officers, either... since they no longer have members.

Kent, I feel i have respected those landowners along the ridge by staying off any private land that was posted as such, as I would not otherwise know what is off limits. I expect that is true for at least 99% of the gunks climbers and have no knowledge of any trespass in the area of the Bayards. I'm not sure what else you would expect from the typical climber, since most of us have no idea who you are or where your property is.

There is an obvious personal conflict that has taken place and so I would suggest that Chris (whom I have not met) should not be personally involved in any future communications with you about this topic. I hope that you would be more forthcoming about requests from several of us for plain talk about your current beef, but you do not seem inclined to do so. There is not a single one of us who do not cherish the gunks and our experiences there. You are fortunate enough to live there and I hope you continue to do so happily.