|
rangerrob
Feb 1, 2012, 2:18 PM
Post #101 of 102
(2208 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 8, 2003
Posts: 641
|
Funnelator, if you think the Preserve is aggressive and forceful about stripping every last dollar from visitors you have obviously not spent much time at all in the Gunks. I would say, on average, a person or persons could arrive at an access point and see no one collecting money.....about 40% of the days out of the year. That's only one example of how not aggressive they actually are.
Your concerns about inequitable distribution of the Preserves money however, I share with you. On land staff that actually does most of the work has historically been treated been treated very poorly in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
stoopid
Mar 28, 2012, 5:50 PM
Post #102 of 102
(2114 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 21, 2008
Posts: 24
|
rangerrob wrote: Funnelator, if you think the Preserve is aggressive and forceful about stripping every last dollar from visitors you have obviously not spent much time at all in the Gunks. I would say, on average, a person or persons could arrive at an access point and see no one collecting money.....about 40% of the days out of the year. That's only one example of how not aggressive they actually are. Your concerns about inequitable distribution of the Preserves money however, I share with you. On land staff that actually does most of the work has historically been treated been treated very poorly in my opinion.
I'm going to have to disgree with the "40%" estimate during months when there isn't snow on the ground. I know the number was a random point made, but they have become increasingly aggressive in the past 4 years I've been going. The past few weeks they've had someone in the main trapps booth and on the bridge. It's their right to have as many people stationed in whatever locations they want, but it does indicate a desire to 'collect'. There's no "free" signs anywhere, so the intent is to generate revenue.
The other issue I have with many who defend the preserve is their insistence that it's NOT about the money, and that the goal of the preserve is to preserve. If that were really the case they'd eliminate all rock climbing, as the impacts the human traffic has on these cliffs (wildlife) is irreparable. The denial of the primary motivation to make money makes people with brains look at the preserve as a whole as being a little cockeyed. There's a lot of salaries, tourist revenue, and reputations at stake to keep the illusion that the preserve is about Nature, when indeed it's almost entirely about human's generating a profit/paycheck/etc.
The other common counter argument by pro-preservists is that the State (of NY) couldn't do a 'better job' managing these lands, when in fact they manage millions of times more acres of more sensitive and pristine wilderness across the state quite well (not prefectly, but as well or better than the Mohonk preserve). In the highest traffic zones under the DEC's jurisdiction things are managed fine without the need for excessive (or any) fees or sentries at every trailhead. In splitting my time between the Gunks and ADKs, I generally like my ADK experience more. And it usually doesn't cost me anything extra to step outside of my car. So to say the DEC can't manage the lands owned by the Mohonk Preserve is entirely false IMHO. But that's the level of desperate thinking defenders of the preserve go to. They'll sell their own out to keep the image of the preserve from being sullied. The tax payers are already paying for the infrastructure to manage lands like the Mohonk preserve, and with any fees they could/might impliment they could easily turn a small profit for the area. Heck, they might even setup a State campground for climbers to use. I'm not even sure why that other New Jersey group is even involved, when we have everything needed already within the DEC.
(This post was edited by stoopid on Mar 28, 2012, 5:58 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
