Forums: Climbing Information: Access Issues & Closures:
Gunks
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Access Issues & Closures

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page Last page  View All


CapedCrusader


Apr 8, 2009, 5:27 AM
Post #1 of 217 (10645 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 7, 2009
Posts: 58

Gunks
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (7 ratings)  
Can't Post

In Gardiner, New York, five pieces of land abutting the Mohonk Preserve are now closed. Accordingly, roughly 1700 feet of the Millbrook Ridge Trail has been rerouted off private land. Also, approximately 900 feet of cliff face in the Bayards and the Near Trapps is closed, including today’s closure of land south of the route Eenie Meenie in the middle of the Near Trapps.

For all those who have been, and continue to be, respectful of private property, on behalf of the owners of the above land, I thank you and apologize for this inconvenience.

For those who act as if they have a “fundamental right to climb”, support the Town of Gardiner’s punitive and coercive Ridge Zoning Law, and the Mohonk Preserve’s predatory land acquisition practices, these closures are a consequence of your flagrant disrespect for private property. The Gunks Climbers Coalition (GCC), the local Access Fund affiliate, deserves special mention. The GCC Chairman and Co-Chairman have both expressed support for the ridge zoning law, which unfairly takes so much from so few. In defending his support of the zoning law, when speaking of a specific property the GCC was trying to buy, the GCC Chair said “if the new zoning goes through, the property may become less valuable to the landowner and he may become much more willing to do the deal. This is one example of how these things are approached”. In addition, for years the GCC has steadfastly refused to establish any relationship with individual private landowners at three Gunks crags in Gardiner: the Near Trapps, the Bayards, and Millbrook. More than any other single party, today’s Near Trapps cliff closure is for the GCC.

Protecting Little Old Ladies on The Shawangunk Ridge from bullies and marauders…

The Caped Crusader


mojomonkey


Apr 8, 2009, 6:31 AM
Post #2 of 217 (10558 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 13, 2006
Posts: 854

Re: [CapedCrusader] Gunks [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

CapedCrusader wrote:
In Gardiner, New York, five pieces of land abutting the Mohonk Preserve are now closed. Accordingly, roughly 1700 feet of the Millbrook Ridge Trail has been rerouted off private land. Also, approximately 900 feet of cliff face in the Bayards and the Near Trapps is closed, including today’s closure of land south of the route Eenie Meenie in the middle of the Near Trapps.

For all those who have been, and continue to be, respectful of private property, on behalf of the owners of the above land, I thank you and apologize for this inconvenience.

For those who act as if they have a “fundamental right to climb”, support the Town of Gardiner’s punitive and coercive Ridge Zoning Law, and the Mohonk Preserve’s predatory land acquisition practices, these closures are a consequence of your flagrant disrespect for private property. The Gunks Climbers Coalition (GCC), the local Access Fund affiliate, deserves special mention. The GCC Chairman and Co-Chairman have both expressed support for the ridge zoning law, which unfairly takes so much from so few. In defending his support of the zoning law, when speaking of a specific property the GCC was trying to buy, the GCC Chair said “if the new zoning goes through, the property may become less valuable to the landowner and he may become much more willing to do the deal. This is one example of how these things are approached”. In addition, for years the GCC has steadfastly refused to establish any relationship with individual private landowners at three Gunks crags in Gardiner: the Near Trapps, the Bayards, and Millbrook. More than any other single party, today’s Near Trapps cliff closure is for the GCC.

Protecting Little Old Ladies on The Shawangunk Ridge from bullies and marauders…

The Caped Crusader

You would likely gather more support for your opinions if you were less clearly manipulative. Casting yourself as a hero and using loaded words like predatory makes it hard for me to read this without rolling my eyes.


Gmburns2000


Apr 8, 2009, 6:33 AM
Post #3 of 217 (10552 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15176

Re: [CapedCrusader] Gunks [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

CapedCrusader wrote:
In Gardiner, New York, five pieces of land abutting the Mohonk Preserve are now closed. Accordingly, roughly 1700 feet of the Millbrook Ridge Trail has been rerouted off private land. Also, approximately 900 feet of cliff face in the Bayards and the Near Trapps is closed, including today’s closure of land south of the route Eenie Meenie in the middle of the Near Trapps.

For all those who have been, and continue to be, respectful of private property, on behalf of the owners of the above land, I thank you and apologize for this inconvenience.

For those who act as if they have a “fundamental right to climb”, support the Town of Gardiner’s punitive and coercive Ridge Zoning Law, and the Mohonk Preserve’s predatory land acquisition practices, these closures are a consequence of your flagrant disrespect for private property. The Gunks Climbers Coalition (GCC), the local Access Fund affiliate, deserves special mention. The GCC Chairman and Co-Chairman have both expressed support for the ridge zoning law, which unfairly takes so much from so few. In defending his support of the zoning law, when speaking of a specific property the GCC was trying to buy, the GCC Chair said “if the new zoning goes through, the property may become less valuable to the landowner and he may become much more willing to do the deal. This is one example of how these things are approached”. In addition, for years the GCC has steadfastly refused to establish any relationship with individual private landowners at three Gunks crags in Gardiner: the Near Trapps, the Bayards, and Millbrook. More than any other single party, today’s Near Trapps cliff closure is for the GCC.

Protecting Little Old Ladies on The Shawangunk Ridge from bullies and marauders…

The Caped Crusader

Did I read this correctly, that the Nears just got cut in half?

If so, then that totally blows. There's a lot of good climbs down there.


debaser655321


Apr 8, 2009, 6:39 AM
Post #4 of 217 (10537 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 20, 2004
Posts: 60

Re: [CapedCrusader] Gunks [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Is this even for real. Is there a link to an actual news article. I will continue to climb in those areas unless I hear otherwise from the preserve or GCC. The RC.com board is full of trolls.


CapedCrusader


Apr 8, 2009, 6:42 AM
Post #5 of 217 (10522 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 7, 2009
Posts: 58

Re: [debaser655321] Gunks [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

Debaser, neither the Preserve nor the GCC own the land which has been closed. The closure is for real.


(This post was edited by CapedCrusader on Apr 8, 2009, 6:45 AM)


gblauer
Moderator

Apr 8, 2009, 6:44 AM
Post #6 of 217 (10519 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 3, 2002
Posts: 2818

Re: [debaser655321] Gunks [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I could not find anything on the web about this. I went to the GCC site and there is nothing mentioned. Gunks.com points back to RC.com


mrdeadpt


Apr 8, 2009, 6:45 AM
Post #7 of 217 (10514 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Nov 22, 2006
Posts: 85

Re: [debaser655321] Gunks [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

There are homemade "private property" signs below the Nears cliff as of last Sunday.

This sounds like recreationists vs. landowners with $$$$$$ on their minds.

I wish the Preserve would just buy the disputed lands.

Mr. D


a-e-jones


Apr 8, 2009, 6:46 AM
Post #8 of 217 (10509 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 4, 2008
Posts: 295

Re: [debaser655321] Gunks [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

ya i wouldn't trust someone with the screenname CapedCrusader and has 2 post eather


mojomonkey


Apr 8, 2009, 6:49 AM
Post #9 of 217 (10499 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 13, 2006
Posts: 854

Re: [Gmburns2000] Gunks [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I checked with the preserve, who were not yet aware of it but were going to go out to see if it had been posted. They didn't sound surprised though.

The private land was already indicated with signs, so I am guessing that is what is closed. There is still available climbing on preserve land after that section though right? Since the trail along that section of cliff would then be closed, either climbers would need to hike along the top to rappel in after the private section or hike all the way to where the Nears breaks down if avoiding a rappel.


Gmburns2000


Apr 8, 2009, 6:50 AM
Post #10 of 217 (10497 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15176

Re: [CapedCrusader] Gunks [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

CapedCrusader wrote:
Debaser, neither the Preserve nor the GCC own the land which has been closed. The closure is for real.

Link to an official story?


mojomonkey


Apr 8, 2009, 6:53 AM
Post #11 of 217 (10483 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 13, 2006
Posts: 854

Re: [Gmburns2000] Gunks [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I'll guess the "anonymous" poster is Kent from gunks.com, based on how often similar discussion pops up over there. And the land is privately owned and able to be closed. It would be more helpful if the poster dropped the superhero bit and gave a name so this would be taken as less of a troll.

It is within the owner's rights to close it and they or their friends can/should announce it, so I don't see the need for anonymity.


CapedCrusader


Apr 8, 2009, 6:56 AM
Post #12 of 217 (10475 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 7, 2009
Posts: 58

Re: [mojomonkey] Gunks [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

Mojo,

I'm just having a bit of fun with the Caped Crusader thing. It's not hard to figure out who I am.

K


mojomonkey


Apr 8, 2009, 7:01 AM
Post #13 of 217 (10463 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 13, 2006
Posts: 854

Re: [CapedCrusader] Gunks [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

No worries, just didn't want this sidetracked by people yelling "troll".

And I see you posted some clarification on gunks.com (it was dead for me earlier) noting:

In reply to:
It's a relatively short piece of cliff from Eenie Meenie extending down the cliff for about 150'. The best way to get to the end of the Nears now is to walk out the Millbrook Ridge Trail to the descent route at the end of the Nears. The rest of the climbing currently closed is in the Bayards where few venture anyway.


Gmburns2000


Apr 8, 2009, 7:18 AM
Post #14 of 217 (10423 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15176

Re: [mojomonkey] Gunks [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

mojomonkey wrote:
I checked with the preserve, who were not yet aware of it but were going to go out to see if it had been posted. They didn't sound surprised though.

The private land was already indicated with signs, so I am guessing that is what is closed. There is still available climbing on preserve land after that section though right? Since the trail along that section of cliff would then be closed, either climbers would need to hike along the top to rappel in after the private section or hike all the way to where the Nears breaks down if avoiding a rappel.

Well, that sounds a bit better then. Still kind of sucks, but I'm glad to hear that half the climbs weren't closed.

I'm aware of the walkoff at the end where the cliff ends, and there are certainly signs there noting private property. I've never seen it is a problem to respect that. There's plenty of clearance on the walkoff to stay on Mohonk land.

I wonder if Kent can provide some clarification on if the routes themselves are closed or if the path at the bottom is closed. In other words, can people still rap down and climb the routes that are above the closed path, or is that section of the cliff closed entirely?

Also, it would be helpful to know which routes are closed. Saying "everything right of Eenie Meanie for 150 feet" doesn't really help, although I'm sure any unfortunate signs would be more clear.

I'm looking for clarification because the end of the The Nears is where I tend to go when things get crowded.


CapedCrusader


Apr 8, 2009, 7:22 AM
Post #15 of 217 (10418 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 7, 2009
Posts: 58

Re: [Gmburns2000] Gunks [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (3 ratings)  
Can't Post

Burnsy,

I have to decamp cyberspace for a bit. See the gunks.com thread on the same topic for answers to your questions. And yes, the closed land which begins at Eenie Meenie extends to the top of the cliff.

CC


Partner wormly81


Apr 8, 2009, 7:24 AM
Post #16 of 217 (10415 views)
Shortcut

Registered: May 9, 2004
Posts: 280

Re: [CapedCrusader] Gunks [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Does the deed for that parcel of land specifically state "to the height of land" or is it silent on the actual property border?


Tipton


Apr 8, 2009, 7:28 AM
Post #17 of 217 (10402 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 12, 2007
Posts: 272

Re: [CapedCrusader] Gunks [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I've never been to the Gunks, but I can definitely see how the land owners could be aggravated by this. Think about it this way, Let's say you own a chunk of land and you've had it in the family for years. All of a sudden the local planning/zoning office drops a bunch of restrictions on what you can do with your land and it makes the value of the property drop.

This type of ordinance exists near any natural feature that the town decides is worth protecting. It sounds great up front, you are protecting a resource from being abused or destroyed. Unfortunately for the land owner, the moment their land falls into the category of whatever the ordinance is protecting their property value drops significantly and the number of potential buyers for the land depletes. The main issue is that the original landowner gets hacked and will not receive compensation for the drastic change in property value. The landowner can't sell for the price it was worth before being rezoned and in many instances can't build on the land without violating the ordinance.

Ridge lines, shorelands, beaches, lakefronts, even sinkholes; basically any natural feature that the local government decides to protect can be covered by ordinances which will drastically affect the original landowner.

Unfortunately, money talks and I've never heard of a local office telling a Quarry "No, you can't blast here anymore it falls under the Ridgeline Protection Plan".

Honestly, I don't really have an opinion on the issue at the Gunks. I just want to make sure that we all recognize that there are two sides to the coin and someone loses every flip.


CapedCrusader


Apr 8, 2009, 7:32 AM
Post #18 of 217 (10396 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 7, 2009
Posts: 58

Re: [wormly81] Gunks [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

One last response before I go. The boundary falls along the old Birch line at the top of the cliff. The abutter, the Mohonk Preserve, has conceded this, and so the boundary is not in dispute.


Gmburns2000


Apr 8, 2009, 7:52 AM
Post #19 of 217 (10373 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15176

Gunks [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

gunks thread could reach caramel popcorn levels soon.

I still say this sucks.


dudemanbu


Apr 8, 2009, 8:44 AM
Post #20 of 217 (10278 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jun 2, 2005
Posts: 941

Re: [CapedCrusader] Gunks [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Anybody want to go to the nears this weekend?


shoo


Apr 8, 2009, 8:55 AM
Post #21 of 217 (10249 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501

Re: [CapedCrusader] Gunks [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Just to clarify. You are a landowner at the Gunks, right? Were you one of the people who closed your land?


montgomerywick


Apr 8, 2009, 9:41 AM
Post #22 of 217 (10186 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 31, 2002
Posts: 60

Re: [shoo] Gunks [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

shoo wrote:
Just to clarify. You are a landowner at the Gunks, right? Were you one of the people who closed your land?

my question too, with the additional question of whether you profess to be a climber.


Gmburns2000


Apr 8, 2009, 11:56 AM
Post #23 of 217 (10060 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15176

Re: [CapedCrusader] Gunks [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

CapedCrusader wrote:
Burnsy,

I have to decamp cyberspace for a bit. See the gunks.com thread on the same topic for answers to your questions. And yes, the closed land which begins at Eenie Meenie extends to the top of the cliff.

CC

So in doing a bit of reading, it seems that if you were concerned about liability you'd just close access to climbing. However, you're closing access to hiking as well, which is protected under the NY recreational statute. Thus, you're making climbers hike the top trail to the end (considerably less convenient) or rap off (more dangerous).

Now, maybe the Mohonk Preserve has been very discreet with using climbers as pawns in this game (i.e. - I haven't heard about it) and maybe the Town of Gardiner is being a big jerk (i.e. - I grew up in a national park town and am relatively immune to such grumblings), but you seem to be directly targeting climbers when climbers are likely not to blame. I haven't seen or heard of instances where the two bad guys have used us as pawns. If I'm wrong, please provide evidence otherwise. I'm honestly sympathetic with you if you're being squeezed, but right now I don't see how your method is helping you in the public arena.

I know first hand that towns can be tough to deal with. I understand completely that zoning laws sometimes suck and are prohibitive. I also understand how organizations such as the Preserve can be difficult to work with, but I've always figured that the best way to win an unfair fight is to get more people on your side. Preventing access to those folks who probably care about the land (note: not the money) more than even you do seems a bit daft.

From where I stand right now, I'm thinking you're a bit of a cry baby who has to intentionally hurt others in order to get attention. Sorry dude, but until I see more evidence that you're doing something more than trying to win a zoning battle, I'm rooting for the other team.

For disclosure's sake, yeah, I paid for my annual pass already.


sources:

- http://faculty.vassar.edu/...Papers/liability.htm

- http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I94_0207.htm


nkane


Apr 8, 2009, 12:42 PM
Post #24 of 217 (10019 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 12, 2006
Posts: 143

Re: [Gmburns2000] Gunks [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (4 ratings)  
Can't Post

Good post, Gmburns. I just wrote my state representatives asking to add climbing to the protected activities under the recreational use statute in New York.


bubo


Apr 8, 2009, 1:17 PM
Post #25 of 217 (9980 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 28, 2005
Posts: 16

Re: [Gmburns2000] Gunks [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Gmburns2000 wrote:
From where I stand right now, I'm thinking you're a bit of a cry baby who has to intentionally hurt others in order to get attention. Sorry dude, but until I see more evidence that you're doing something more than trying to win a zoning battle, I'm rooting for the other team.

OMG!!!! that hits the nail right on the head!!!!

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Climbing Information : Access Issues & Closures

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook