Ranger Presence

Posted by: tallgirlnyc

Ranger Presence - 09/02/13 12:02 PM

I have already posted on Mountain Project a rant about the Nears becoming an outdoor climbing gym so I won't repeat my frustration here, however walking out of the Nears on Saturday, we passed a mountain Laurel bush at the base of Birdland and it had been ripped right out of the ground. How can this be?!

Donald and I attempted to right the bush and stabilize the root system with rocks, but having no shovel our efforts probably won't do anything to save the mountain laurel.

I am not saying a bunch of careless, smoking, micro trash generating gym rats annihilated the Laurel. I don't know what happened.

But, I would say, that if there was a consistent ranger presence walking the base of high traffic areas and with that a gentle reminder of trail etiquette, leave no trace principals and general consciousness of our beautiful climbing area it would go a long way to containing some of the devastation.
Posted by: SethG

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/02/13 12:42 PM

Please post a link to your rant, I'd like to read it!
Posted by: tallgirlnyc

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/02/13 01:36 PM


http://www.mountainproject.com/v/rant-toproping-bolted-rappel-routes/108298994__3


Link to the thread. Below, my part in it!

I have to say, that I was in the Nears on Saturday last and it felt like an outdoor gym. Obviously, going past Grease Gun Groove helps this problem considerably, but still-in terms of impact, noise, barking dogs, cigarette smoke, gear, shoes, (purses!?) packs EVERY WHERE, hearing at full volume, 'there's a total crimper for your left hand-three feet up dude-that's how I send this bitch', etc. etc. ad infinitum

makes me invariably sad.

If people like the gym atmosphere, why don't they just climb in a gym? Oh, I guess you can't smoke in a gym. My bad.
Posted by: yorick

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/02/13 01:36 PM

Take a look at pics from the base of the Nears, or Frog's Head or the Mac Wall in the 70s, or Peterskill before climbing was permitted, and compare them to now.

The illusion of leave-no-trace, climbers' policing their own impact, was lost in practice decades ago.
Posted by: SethG

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/02/13 02:57 PM

I think your rant is correct Dana but I think that horse left the barn long ago. Not much we can do. Still if I caught those jerks pulling out the bush I would have punched them. They might have been some local vagrants and not climbers at all...
Posted by: TerrieM

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/02/13 04:31 PM

Well...... we COULD create something like the GUMBA bike patrol and have volunteers who provide the service Julie wishes the rangers might be able to do.

From my experience, the rangers simply cannot be in all the *right* places at the right time(to catch perverts at Split Rock, taggers probably acting at might, and non-conservation-minded climbers who yard-sale their belongings and blast beta while their friend thrutches on TR.

May be some would suggest differently, but I think the rangers ALL do a hell of a good job. If a person commits to accepting as part of their job that at some point they may be picking up the pieces of a dead body, I think they deserve our respect and an understanding that asking them to be a consistent presence at high activity spots(to use OP's words, but not intended to be insulting) is off. The rangers DO do foot patrol - I see them around, but there is only so much that can be done, when the preserve has the acreage it does, easily accessed land, and only six rangers.

I think a volunteer patrol is actually a pretty good idea, if I say so myself! We could have a few handouts which are written in an educational way covering topics such as Wilderness Etiquette, Leave No Trace, Erosion Reduction, and the like.

The volunteers could make it part of their plan to stop and visit with ALL climbers along the way, not in a "got my eye on you" attitude but as a social, friendly, presence. Maybe they could even bring their harnesses and shoes and catch a TR once in a while.

MOST climbers in are decent people, and know how to act, and the last thing needed would be to have people feel they are being monitored just because they are part of a group in which a few cause problems. Most of the time, the patrol wouldn't be doing anything but out enjoying the day, seeing friends and getting to know new people. But when they DO come across a problem area or issue, they could do something like say "Hey, I notice that... and explain how it impacts the land and others. Give them the appropriate hand-out, if it seems the right thing to do and continue on.

While at it, include mention of volunteerism opportunity on the hand-outs - for both the preserve and this new-founded patrol. (Do people know that volunteers who give more than 40 hours(or is it 45?) service a year can be provided with a Volunteers Membership card for the preserve?)
Posted by: TerrieM

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/02/13 04:34 PM

^AND we could have some night-timer patrols too, to *politely* educate those taggers... heh heh
Posted by: crimpy

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/02/13 09:39 PM

stand your ground terrie smile
Posted by: BrianRI

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/03/13 02:26 PM

Perhaps this is an unrealistic suggestion but it would be a big help to eliminate the gym atmosphere. Chop all the first pitch bolted belays and slings used to top-rope. For example, Son of Easy O has become almost solely a top-rope climb since that convenience anchor was put there. Parties hang their ropes on this climb and many others and leave them there all day trampling the ground below the climb while picnicking. Bring trad-only back to the Gunks.
Posted by: Kent

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/03/13 03:02 PM

Originally Posted By: TerrieM
I think a volunteer patrol is actually a pretty good idea, if I say so myself! We could have a few handouts which are written in an educational way covering topics such as Wilderness Etiquette, Leave No Trace, Erosion Reduction, and the like.


Don't forget to educate climbers about not trespassing. :-)
Posted by: tallgirlnyc

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/04/13 12:26 AM

Terrie-Thank you for your response and I was in NO way criticizing the Preserve rangers. I just used to see them more in the 'Nears than I have of late, and if they had passed the encampment we did, complete with a hammock across the trail, and at least three ropes strewn about, and bags of food and general detritus, they would have done something about it.

I think a volunteer coalition with hand outs is a great idea and I am in. Maybe we can collectively draft a document that outlines suggested etiquette and respect.

perhaps we could also include a little humor...like "yes, your dunkin donuts cup, wedged into a tree, is still trash, even if it's not on the ground."

Posted by: Mike Rawdon

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/04/13 02:01 AM

I believe the GCC is working on a "This is good crag behavior" type pamphlet targeted at folks "moving out of the gym". Funded by an Access Fund grant IIRC.
Posted by: talus

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/04/13 11:44 AM

besides the bush who cares it's always been a outdoor gym. just as long everyone is having fun and no one gets hurt. i was involved in a accident not to long ago and I would take screaming kids, barking dogs peeing on my rope and people shouting beta then having to go through an accident. Especially since I feel in love with the person who fell and feel i was not being a good trad mentor by not shouting up gear beta.
Posted by: talus

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/04/13 01:23 PM

I have no more edit option feel = fell
Posted by: TrappDyke

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/04/13 02:03 PM

Paper hand-outs. Really? You want to give the people who litter paper handouts?
Posted by: SethG

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/04/13 02:07 PM

Well of course safety is paramount (and talus I am sorry to hear about this incident you speak of) but we don't have to choose between safety and good crag manners. We can promote both, can't we? I'm not sure fliers are a great idea. Maybe posted signs with tips would be better, we could put them up at the crag and at the area gyms.
Posted by: TerrieM

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/04/13 04:43 PM

It was just an idea... and one which the first step would be someone asking the Preserve if it was something they would want. They may not, for any number of reasons. Also, to be clear, this is not something I have any time or inclination to be part of at this point. My volunteer hours are spoken for and though I do have one area I would like to provide more in, it's not attempting to instill common sense into people at the cliffs.

I did hear about the GCC gym-to-crag thing, which is great. I think that is going to focus from inside of the gyms, which will probably be helpful in the long run.

As for the No Trespassing thing Kent - You have posted the signs. Personally, I think most people see those signs and know what they mean. It seems to me you think the masses ignore them, and from what I hear, MOST people do not ignore them. It tires me to imagine hat you might think the GCC should be posting a sentry at either end of the zone for the person who may come along and ignore the signs. Besides doing that - How would you expect a "Gumby-like" person to know someone is in the No TP Zone without entering that area themselves?

The No TP thing is your baby, whether you like that or not. The GCC HAS asked people to respect the boundary. Perhaps YOU can coordinate a few like-minded people to stand at the boundaries and educate?
Posted by: Kent

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/04/13 05:41 PM

The No Tresspassing signs at the base of Nears have been repeatedly torn down as have signs along the top of the Bayards and at Millbrook. Many climbers ignore the fact that the land is posted and the landowners don't want climbers or anyone else there.

Both the Preserve and the GCC would be wise to educate their members about climbing on private property and use Access Fund guidelines as an example. Meaning, find out who owns the land you want to climb on. Ask for permission to use the land. If you don't get permission, don't go there and let everyone else know it's closed. And certainly if the land is posted, don't even think about going there.

So the land in the Nears has been closed to legal access for years now, and it will likely be that way for many years to come. It will be posted again soon.

Edited to add:

Just to be clear Terrie, if climbers want to be good neighbors and get along with landowners and have access to private land, then it falls on them to be respectful and inquire about who owns the land they want to climb on, and about the closure status. It isn't the responsibility of landowners to educate climbers about how to behave in a respectful manner.
Posted by: TerrieM

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/04/13 06:28 PM

Kent - People rip down the signs along Clove Road pretty frequently too. But to repeatedly group every Clove Road Driver into a group and suggest they are liable would be absurd, don't you agree?

It is the same with your situation. It's NOT all climbers who walk the Nears, and even so, both the Preserve AND the GCC have asked people to respect the boundaries of not only that space but others.

Unless you specifically know that the majority of people who climb in the Nears are ignoring the signs, and ripping them down to boot, it's just as absurd as pointing to people who drive down Clove Road and assuming they are stopping to pull signs down.

The Nears is frequently visited by people pulling over at the scenic overlook. I have had some time to observe this in the last few years when I hitch rides into town, as I stand there, and also I used to sit in the overlook in the evenings to get a cel signal and work online a few times a week.

I've seen numbers of people - not climbers nor boulderers - stop at the Overlook and head into either the Nears or walk towards the bridge and group the driveway there.

The graffiti that has recently been found on preserve happens to be on rocks, but most of us agree it is probably not climbers doing it. And if it turned out that they WERE climbers, we surely wouldn't think ALL climbers are tagging the rocks.

Unless you specifically know who it is who is ripping down those signs, it's inappropriate, in my opinion, to lump all climbers into that category. It's likely one or two people, who may or may not be climbers, who rip down the signs.
Posted by: Kent

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/04/13 06:47 PM

Originally Posted By: TerrieM

Unless you specifically know who it is who is ripping down those signs, it's inappropriate, in my opinion, to lump all climbers into that category. It's likely one or two people, who may or may not be climbers, who rip down the signs.


Over the years, statements have been made here on gunks.com by climbers about their willingness to trespass in the Nears. As well, in recent years a number of climbers have been arrested for trespassing, not in the Nears but elsewhere along the ridge. In my experience climbers, as a user group, have been notorious for trespassing. Overheard at the deli one morning "hey, let's go poach a few climbs at Skytop". Sheesh.

Do you really think people, non-climbers, are going to park at the Overlook and stroll as far as the middle of the Nears and tear down No Trespassing signs? Really? In my experience, most of the tourists who park at the Overlook don't look as though they want to get more than 50' from their cars. What compelling reason do tourists have to walk to the end of the Nears? None.

If one goes and checks out Network Solutions or some other domain name provider they will discover tresspassfund.org, .com, and .net, have all been taken. At some point, trespassfund.org will be a convenient place for private property owners to post up pics of people who are trespassing. Then those here and elsewhere can draw their own conclusions about whether or not those photographed are climbers. Usually packs and ropes and helmets are a pretty good tipoff.

Posted by: TerrieM

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/04/13 06:58 PM

Again, you are lumping SOME in with the masses.... sheesh!
Posted by: tallgirlnyc

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/04/13 06:59 PM

Kent-you high jacked this thread. Stop.
Posted by: Kent

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/04/13 07:03 PM

The discussion seems to validly include topics climbers might need a little education on. How is that hijacking the thread?

Edited to add:

And Terrie, I am no more lumping than you are. Or are you suggesting that all climbers need education about wilderness etiquette, leave no trace, trail erosion, littering, etc.?
Posted by: tallgirlnyc

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/04/13 07:22 PM

You have beaten the trespassing in the nears into the proverbial ground.
Posted by: Kent

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/04/13 07:23 PM

And when climbers stop trespassing I will stop beating that proverbial horse.
Posted by: retroscree

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/04/13 08:59 PM

Originally Posted By: Kent
Over the years, statements have been made here on gunks.com by climbers about their willingness to trespass in the Nears.

It's easy to have courage and bravado from behind an anonymous keyboard.
Posted by: TerrieM

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/04/13 09:36 PM

"...Or are you suggesting that all climbers need education about wilderness etiquette, leave no trace, trail erosion, littering, etc.?"


Ummm, no? My suggestion was that the Gumby's would in most cases find decent, respectful climbers who they would wave hello and maybe stop and chat conversationally; that when they came across the occasional one who didn't get the littering, erosion, etc. thing, that was the one they'd talk to about that topic.

I laid that out in my original post, as you can easily see if you take the time to review.
Posted by: Kent

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/04/13 10:14 PM

Originally Posted By: retroscree

It's easy to have courage and bravado from behind an anonymous keyboard.


True. Some of the blusterers here online have not been anonymous though. And offline I still stay in touch with a fair number of climbers and the feedback I get is the closure is widely ignored. Terrie is the only climber who seems to be of the opinion that all but a few respect the Nears closure.
Posted by: Kent

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/04/13 10:17 PM

Originally Posted By: TerrieM
My suggestion was that the Gumby's would in most cases find decent, respectful climbers who they would wave hello and maybe stop and chat conversationally; that when they came across the occasional one who didn't get the littering, erosion, etc. thing, that was the one they'd talk to about that topic.


You seem to be saying Gumby's would be educating climbers about etiquette. Perhaps you'd like to revise your post.
Posted by: Mike Rawdon

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/05/13 12:48 AM

Originally Posted By: Kent

Both the Preserve and the GCC would be wise to educate their members about climbing on private property and use Access Fund guidelines as an example. Meaning, find out who owns the land you want to climb on. Ask for permission to use the land.


OK, I'll bite. Please tell me who owns the land at the Nears that is posted. I want their name(s). If I wish to ask for permission to cross their land, I'd certainly want to talk to them directly (as opposed to through a proxy or representative).

Mike
Posted by: Rickster

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/05/13 01:13 AM

Mike, I am no lawyer but the DEC website points out clearly that "posted" or "no trespassing" property signs must have the name of the land owner on the sign. Of course that helps no one if the sign has been torn down. (BTW, the land is still "posted" for one year from the date of the original posting, even in the absence of the sign.) The website does recommend however, that in the absence of a sign or in seeking permission, one should start knocking on doors seeking out owners.

In the case of climbing along the Nears or any of the other posted areas, one might mention to the home owner that on the advice of their advocate you are seeking them out to discern which properties are posted and/or to ask permission to climb. It would be best I'm sure, if everyone did just that, as Kent has repeatedly suggested these past seasons.

General guidelines for posting of property can be found here among general hunting and fishing guidelines: http://www.dec.ny.gov/regulations/2442.html
Posted by: Kent

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/05/13 12:38 PM

Mike, you forgot (intentionally eliminated) the last two sentences of my paraphrasing of Access Fund guidelines for climbing on private property.

Originally Posted By: Kent
If you don't get permission, don't go there and let everyone else know it's closed. And certainly if the land is posted, don't even think about going there.

The landowner in the Nears has already said no. The land has been posted. No means no. If climbers want any chance of that closure being lifted then they would be wise to respect the closure. No respect, no access. It's simple.

As for other private properties, I have said for many years that the GCC, or some other representative of the climbing community, should approach landowners and politely tell them climbers have been climbing on their land for many years, and ask for permission to continue to do so. If the GCC had done that years ago, when I suggested it over and over again for at least a year, it's very possible the Nears closure never would have happened. That they never did so is a glaring failure.
Posted by: tallgirlnyc

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/05/13 12:52 PM

Kent-

You consistently complain about disregard/disrespect yet in terms of Internet decorum you chronically disrespect other posters by making your issue central to all your posts regardless of thread topic. Perhaps people would take you more seriously if you practiced a little of what you preach. just sayin'
Posted by: Kent

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/05/13 12:59 PM

I haven't been disrepsectufl at all Dana. You started a thread about educating climbers. Trespassing is perhaps the number one thing they need to be educated about, in my opinion. It's a bit over reaching for you to say you get to decide what climbers should and shouldn't be educated about.

My position is perhaps controversial and so it has elicited some responses and a discussion has ensued and this seems appropriate in that this is the discussion part of this web site.
Posted by: tallgirlnyc

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/05/13 01:09 PM

I was hoping this discussion was about impact at the preserve and trail etiquette. Your no trespassing section of the nears is clearly at an impasse-until there is some sort of resolution, I think you could let it be for now, don't you? There isn't anything left to be said.
Posted by: Kent

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/05/13 01:22 PM

The Nears closure is at an impasse no doubt, but adherence to AF guidelines re interacting with private landowners is something climbers, especially climbers at the gunks, should embrace.

Some of the impacts you mentioned in your post on MP are quality of life issues: "noise, barking dogs, hearing at full volume,'there's a total crimper for your left hand-three feet up dude-that's how I send this bitch', etc. etc. ad infinitum". Trespassing is a quality of life issue for private landowners. But in another climberism double standard, educating climbers about that quality of life issue doesn't merit inclusion. Only the quality of life issues most climbers don't like merit inclusion.

This reminds me of the thread about how "environmentally conscientious" some climbers think a climbing lifestyle is, even though climbers, on average, have very large carbon and ecological footprints.
Posted by: LoganSchiff

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/05/13 09:34 PM

Completely agree with tallgirlnyc.

Kent - you have valid points but hijacking a thread (yes you are and you know it) and calling climbers hypocrites is not likely to convert anyone to your position, especially those who are currently trespassing.

On the other hand, creating a new thread every once in a while (once a year?) reiterating the basis of the landowner's continued concern and citing examples of newly observed violations might actually educate people.
Posted by: Kent

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/05/13 09:54 PM

It's not up to me to educate people.
Posted by: TerrieM

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/05/13 10:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Kent
You seem to be saying Gumby's would be educating climbers about etiquette. Perhaps you'd like to revise your post.


Are you being intentionally obtuse?

In the original post, I wrote "we COULD create something like the GUMBA bike patrol." It would be fairly clear to most people. This forum isn't a legal arena where we try to wear others down with redundancy and inanity. It's annoying as hell, this BS, and one of the reasons you encounter resistance to people interacting with you, Kent.

I am done with the conversation as it regards to you. Good day.
Posted by: TrappDyke

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/05/13 11:25 PM

Kent, ignore the nay sayers. You and Don are bizarrely amusing. I think the webmaster should be paying you for keeping this ship afloat.
Posted by: Lucander

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/06/13 12:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Kent
It's not up to me to educate people.


Then why do you keep posting about this issue?
Posted by: DavidLewis

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/06/13 02:32 PM

Kent
I wonder if prescriptive easement applies to the land owners that you talk about as climbers have been using the land openly for years and no I'm not talking about the Mohonk Preserve but the climbers themselves??????
Posted by: Kent

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/09/13 03:48 PM

Terrie, first you say this:
Originally Posted By: TerrieM
Well...... we COULD create something like the GUMBA bike patrol and have volunteers who provide the service Julie wishes the rangers might be able to do.

Then you say this:
Originally Posted By: TerrieM
Besides doing that - How would you expect a "Gumby-like" person to know someone is in the No TP Zone without entering that area themselves?

And then when you say this:
Originally Posted By: TerrieM
My suggestion was that the Gumby's would in most cases find decent, respectful climbers who they would wave hello and maybe stop and chat conversationally; that when they came across the occasional one who didn't get the littering, erosion, etc. thing, that was the one they'd talk to about that topic.

And then when I suggest you might want to edit that last, because you say Gumby, when you mean to say GUMBA, you ask if I'm being intentionaly obtude and storm off in a huff.

I'm not being obtuse. You're just not writing clearly.

Similarly, in my opinion you are not thinking clearly when you say:

Originally Posted By: TerrieM
Unless you specifically know who it is who is ripping down those signs, it's inappropriate, in my opinion, to lump all climbers into that category. It's likely one or two people, who may or may not be climbers, who rip down the signs.

One has to be either naive or in willful denial if they think anyone other than climbers has been pulling down the no trespassing signs in the nears.
Posted by: Kent

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/09/13 03:50 PM

Originally Posted By: Lucander
Then why do you keep posting about this issue?


I'm trying to provoke other people, those interested in gaining or maintaining access to private land, to educate climbers about how to interact with private landowners.
Posted by: Kent

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/09/13 04:01 PM

Originally Posted By: DavidLewis
Kent
I wonder if prescriptive easement applies to the land owners that you talk about as climbers have been using the land openly for years and no I'm not talking about the Mohonk Preserve but the climbers themselves??????

This idea floats around every once in a while. In my view, nothing could be more foolish. The left half of Millbrook is on private land, as are all of the Bayards, the middle of the Nears, and all of Skytop, and many other less prominent crags throughout the region.

What do you think the impact of a climber's prescriptive easement claim anywhere nearby will have on access to private land?

Private landowners that do allow climbing on their land do so as a neighborly accommodation. They are being gracious in allowing you to use their land. Any climber claiming a right to climb on private land because they have been graciously allowed to climb their before would be a poster child for the selfish, ungrateful, entitled, and woefully disrespectful climbers out there.

Nothing would have a more deleterious effect on climbing access in the Gunks, and perhaps well beyond the Gunks too.

Brilliant idea. (Heavy sarcasm intended.)
Posted by: Kent

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/09/13 04:14 PM

To bring it back to education of climbers here at the Gunks, from time to time I've been corresponding with the Access Fund about educating climbers at the Gunks vis a vis respecting private property.

In contrast to the responses here, their responses have been universally positive and constructive.
Posted by: gunkie

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/09/13 05:48 PM

Originally Posted By: tallgirlnyc
I have already posted on Mountain Project a rant about the Nears becoming an outdoor climbing gym...


I haven't even climbed in the close part of the Nears in a few years because of the overcrowding (but then I haven't been to the Gunks on a non-weekend day for quite a while). The topropes everywhere, people spraying about everything, loud conversations about their latest conquests, people trying to red-point the first pitch of Broken Sling and spending a whole day on that one pitch. I can't even imagine it getting any worse.

Quote:
I am not saying a bunch of careless, smoking, micro trash generating gym rats annihilated the Laurel. I don't know what happened.


Smoking needs to be banned in the Preserve. And the Mtn Laurel didn't pull itself out of the ground.

Quote:
But, I would say, that if there was a consistent ranger presence walking the base of high traffic areas and with that a gentle reminder of trail etiquette, leave no trace principals and general consciousness of our beautiful climbing area it would go a long way to containing some of the devastation.


Fully agree. I also think that there should be an edict in the high traffic areas that limit toproping on popular climbs with decent protection on crowded days. Enforcement would be a simple request by the ranger based on subjective elements. That's it. Maybe eventually this theme would become more of a local tradition. How many pins were driven into Gunks rock after John Stannard's clean climbing push in the early 70's? Not many and this was back in the day when EVERYONE banged pins at every other rock climbing venue on the planet.

I think your idea of educating the newly birthed gym climbers about the ways of the Gunks is appropriate and possibly game changing.
Posted by: Ralph

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/09/13 09:12 PM

gunkie,

The midwife is going to get busy any day now. New Gym in Queens
Posted by: tallgirlnyc

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/09/13 09:23 PM

Gunkie-thanks for your post and keeping this thread on track-greatly appreciated!
Posted by: TrappDyke

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/09/13 10:00 PM

Gunkie, could you suggest some top rope climbs that qualify as having decent protection along with some that don't?
Posted by: gunkie

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/10/13 11:59 AM

Originally Posted By: TrappDyke
Gunkie, could you suggest some top rope climbs that qualify as having decent protection along with some that don't?


You have to put some sort of emoticon after that question to let me know that you're joking.
Posted by: retroscree

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/10/13 02:33 PM

Originally Posted By: gunkie
Originally Posted By: TrappDyke
Gunkie, could you suggest some top rope climbs that qualify as having decent protection along with some that don't?


You have to put some sort of emoticon after that question to let me know that you're joking.

I think TrappDyke is missing the point.
Posted by: TrappDyke

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/11/13 12:18 AM

Gunkie, you said rangers could prevent climbers from top roping climbs with "decent" protection. I was just wondering how you planned on giving Gunks rangers, half of who know little about climbing, the authority to dictate which climbs are "allowed" to be top roped and which ones aren't.
So, if you were a ranger in the position you proposed, what climbs wouldn't you allow to be top roped do to what you'd consider "adequate" protection?
Posted by: crimpy

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/11/13 01:06 PM

Originally Posted By: Kent
[quote=retroscree]
Terrie is the only climber who seems to be of the opinion that all but a few respect the Nears closure.


you should be stoked terrie, he called you a climber!
Posted by: Gail

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/11/13 01:57 PM

Wow, I have read through all of this and I have a couple of comments. (Ignoring Kent's posts for the moment)

1) Let's police ourselves. Are we trying to go back to the rigid days when AMC dictated the "who/what/where/when" of gunks climbing? It's a slippery slope when you start getting an "authority" involved

2) If you don't like something....say something. It's a simple as that.

3) Why are we trying to "outsource" issue resolution when we are right there witnessing the offenses in real time?
Posted by: TerrieM

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/11/13 02:41 PM

"...Gunks rangers, half of who know little about climbing,..."

Actually, ALL the rangers know quite a bit about climbing. Many of them climb regularly, and some of them have made some hefty climbing accomplishments.
Posted by: Kent

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/11/13 02:54 PM

Good post Gail. (Except for the bit about ignoring trespassing of course). :-)
Posted by: retroscree

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/11/13 03:07 PM

Originally Posted By: crimpy
Originally Posted By: Kent
[quote=retroscree]
Terrie is the only climber who seems to be of the opinion that all but a few respect the Nears closure.


you should be stoked terrie, he called you a climber!

Hey! Don't drag me into this! Just for the record, crimpy cheese-titted the quote. I never wrote that.
Posted by: crimpy

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/11/13 04:27 PM

sorry i cheese-titted teasing terrie.
Posted by: Kent

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/11/13 11:58 PM

You better stay on topic Crimpy lest ye incur neo-Appie wrath.
Posted by: crimpy

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/12/13 01:21 AM

i dont even have a smart phone and i still get you.
Posted by: gunkie

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/12/13 03:01 PM

Originally Posted By: TrappDyke
Gunkie, you said rangers could prevent climbers from top roping climbs with "decent" protection.


If you are going to paraphrase my comment, at least get it right.

Originally Posted By: gunkie
I also think that there should be an edict in the high traffic areas that limit toproping on popular climbs with decent protection on crowded days. Enforcement would be a simple request by the ranger based on subjective elements. That's it.
Posted by: talus

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/17/13 11:07 AM

It's funny how a womanizer can't respect women but gets all high and mighty about climbers on private property.
Posted by: Kent

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/17/13 11:32 PM

An ad hominem attack. How original.
Posted by: Lynn

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/24/13 03:08 AM


I think Gail posted up the best suggestion yet. There are a few problems however - like if there were a pair of climbers that were top roping something I'd like to climb, I'd be fine with informing them I was hoping to lead and letting that pregnant pause to hang for them to realize I'm really asking them to pull or move their TR to the side so I can climb. However I would not feel comfortable walking up to a party of five, let's say, and doing the same.

If a group or pair of climbers are shouting beta and it was really annoying, such that I couldn't hear if my partner was off belay or not.... I'd probably still not say anything.

That being said, we have not hesitated to tell parties to not put their TR set up through the rap anchor. That error seems to happen often.

As far as someone taking too long to lead something.. well, with a comment like that you just come across as elitist froth spewing that the Gunks are only for people that lead 5.12 or harder. so bleh!

Pamphlets - or signs - do seem like they are needed but it would be awful if they became litter material. Might I suggest that the next time a group or individual is displaying poor etiquette that you carefully observe if they have a wrist band day pass? It seems to me that if any education about proper etiquette is going to get done, the prime time to do so is when said Gumby is purchasing their climbing pass.
Posted by: Rickster

Re: Ranger Presence - 09/24/13 02:10 PM

Day visitors are not the only ones to commit the abuses listed above.

A paper pamphlet could be included with the season's pass when it is purchased or mailed to the member. Rather than give a copy to each climber, offer one to each rope team or group leader on significant busy weekends through out the season.

Possibly the contents of such a pamphlet could be prominently on display at the trail end of the West Trapps PA, just over the guard rail to the Nears, or at the foot of the Stairmaster? Titled such as "First Time in the Gunks?" or "Here to Climb?", and goes on to introduce some climber's etiquette, highlight some local practices and expectations. Simple, and not quite in their face.