NEClimbs.com forum

General => Trip Reports => Topic started by: Admin Al on September 25, 2012, 08:49:32 PM

Title: Gunks trip
Post by: Admin Al on September 25, 2012, 08:49:32 PM
Perfect weather for my trip down to the Gunks with George Hurley. We haven't climbed particularly hard, but we have had a blast. Doing Madame G today was worth the trip! 5.6 my ass! (Grin) City Lights yesterday was also a trip. That start is slippery as snot! Weather is crapping out tomorrow so we will be heading back around noon, but it was well worth the drive, and this from someone who rarely leaves the Valley!
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: sneoh on September 25, 2012, 11:57:44 PM
Sounds like a good trip, Al!

The rap off Madame G was pretty wild BITD.  Not sure people are still rapping of the crooked tree these days or not.  I climbed 30 or 40 feet of P1 then linked P2 and P3 together, pretty good.  Ha, the City Light start was slippery 16 years ago, I imagine it has only gotten worse since. 
My fave 5.6 climbs at The Gunks are the money pitch of High E and all of Strictly From Nowhere.  Step it up to 5.7 and Something Interesting from the base to the GT Ledge in one long pitch is my favorite.  This and the money pitch of High E are the only two climbs I have ever repeated at The Gunks.

Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: Admin Al on September 26, 2012, 08:23:46 AM
There is a bolted rap station right behind the Madame G tree now. It's still quite a rappel! George led p 1 and I did the next 2 as 1. I did it a couple of times in the early 90's and its still as wild as it was then.

It's a brilliant climb. Think about this - Hans Krause led it in 1943!!!!!!!! 69 years ago! Probably in mountain boots. What kind of rope did they have then, nuts weren't invented and probably hexed weren't either. They had pins, what else?
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: Admin Al on September 26, 2012, 08:26:36 AM
FWIW apparently the thing to do now is to do the whole thing as 1 long pitch... I can't believe you don't get a lot of rope drag tho.

Courtesy of IMCS we had a 70 meter rope, which is perfect IMNSHO. No problem getting off anything.
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: David_G48 on September 26, 2012, 08:57:46 AM
Don't forget to stop at the farm stands on the way home as they offer great produce and pies.
When I was climbing at the Gunks I found myself using long slings on a fairly frequent basis to avoid rope drag from combining pitches and some of the wandering routes. Glad you had a good time. I look forward to pictures that I assume you will post with the Thursday report.
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: sneoh on September 26, 2012, 09:13:23 AM
FWIW apparently the thing to do now is to do the whole thing as 1 long pitch... I can't believe you don't get a lot of rope drag tho.
I was told that in '97 or so too.  I think to keep drag at a manageable level, one would probably protect to ~20 feet up and then skip obvious placements until AFTER the traverse to the right, just after the start of what would normally be P2.
Glad to know there are now bolted anchors!
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: Jeff on September 26, 2012, 11:45:33 AM
I first did City Lights in the early 70s right after it first appeared in the Vulgarian Digest new route list, along with CCK, Three Doves and a couple of others-- BTW if I remember correctly, Three Doves was rated 5.7 ? in that report-- not TOO accurate!  :-\ Gunks ratings were STIFF back then! City Lights was as slippery wearing Robbins blue boots then as it is now in TC Pros or the like. The quartzite hasn't changed! Since they were all rated at a grade we were climbing pretty well at the time, Frank Zahar and I went after all of them on the same weekend-- we didn't get spanked, but we did get majorly challenged >:(
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: Admin Al on September 26, 2012, 10:25:29 PM
got in one last climb this morning in spite of rain last night. George led Bunny, at the Uberfall. as always, he managed it in great style.
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: Admin Al on September 28, 2012, 10:09:01 AM
Posted the full Gunks trip report in this week's WM Report. Enjoy...
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: DWT on September 28, 2012, 10:50:16 AM
Nice report Al.  I can't wait to get out there.
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: xcrag_corex on September 28, 2012, 03:14:09 PM
Nice report Al!!!!! Avoiding the Columbus day rush and gunking it up the weekend after!!!! I have some unfinished business with Double Clutch :)
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: Admin Al on September 28, 2012, 04:46:36 PM
Nice report Al!!!!! Avoiding the Columbus day rush and gunking it up the weekend after!!!! I have some unfinished business with Double Clutch :)

Ah yes...Double Clutch! It looks like a beast. Over my head I'm sure...
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: sneoh on September 28, 2012, 08:23:00 PM
Ah yes...Double Clutch! It looks like a beast. Over my head I'm sure...
Never had the pleasure of climbing this one but Son of Easy O is very reasonably graded and protects well.  You will send it Al.  I know you will, especially if you occasionally 'train' on the jug hauls at Rumney.



Great report, Al.  Thanks for sharing.  It brought back a lot of fond memories for me.  I stopped going after '96 or so, for no good reason, I am said to say.  Shoot me a PM the next time you head down and can tolerate a tag-along.
The cabin you stayed at, is that private or a rental?  I would not mind getting some details if it is a rental.

Yeah, I have to say the anchor situation at The Gunks can be improved.  That said, the qlinks and rap rings setup you described make sense if you know, no matter what, people will set up a TR directly through the anchor.  So, links to TR and rap rings for rap.  Links are cheaper and quicker to replace than rings.

So many moderates I still want/have to do; CCK, Arrow, Three Doves, Modern Times, Ant's Line, Bonnie's.  And for some strange reason; 10,000 Restless Virgin (though not a moderate) :)

Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: David_G48 on September 28, 2012, 09:15:58 PM
"Never had the pleasure of climbing this one but Son of Easy O is very reasonably graded and protects well."
Not sure how this relates to Double Clutch, I believe Al climbed Easy O which is not related to Son of Easy O. Red C. at -5.9 would be a good warm up before Double Clutch. I have done Red C. in the past and found it a good warm up.
Please clarify your statement Sneoh as I'm a bit confused which seems to happen with more frequency for me as of late.
Thanks
David
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: sneoh on September 28, 2012, 09:38:31 PM
No, it is my fault.  I had misread it as Double Crack, a 5.8.  My suggestion for Son of Easy O is because a) Al had done Easy O, and b) Son of Easy O is 5.8, and a great one at that.
Nothing wrong with you, David. :)

Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: tinker on September 29, 2012, 08:50:41 AM
Nice trip report.  Headed down in a couple weeks guess I will bring some quick links just in case.  I still go back to our trip last year when that guy set his arms on fire under the modern times roof.  (performance art)?   I have seen some wild stuff over the years and that was in the top five list for sure. :o
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: strandman on September 29, 2012, 01:24:30 PM
Al, is the Skytop situation still the same ??? What a cliff.... I only ever managed maybe half the routes I tried over there
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: Admin Al on September 29, 2012, 05:26:26 PM
Strand - from what I understand Skytop is closed unless you are staying at the Mohonk House and if you are you will need to hire an approved guide to take you there!

Sneoh: it's a private cabin, not for rent...

David: I have climbed Son Of Easy O in the past, but did not this time. when we get down again in the spring I plan on doing it. I know I can do it. I just need to get used to the grades a bit. heck, if I climb 5.10 here...
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: sneoh on September 29, 2012, 08:02:34 PM
John, did you get Foops in before they closed Skytop?  I did not even have the chance to get on it!  So envious of my friends who have sent it.

That's great, Al.  SoEO is very enjoyable.  Give a The Nears a whirl too; Alphonse, Broken Sling, Birdland, Roseland (pumpy!), Farewell To Arms (seconding it is as committing as leading it).

Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: xcrag_corex on September 30, 2012, 12:12:35 AM
Nice report Al!!!!! Avoiding the Columbus day rush and gunking it up the weekend after!!!! I have some unfinished business with Double Clutch :)

Ah yes...Double Clutch! It looks like a beast. Over my head I'm sure...
especially if you are short like me haha the pull through the roof is a long reach maybe this year it will go.... :)
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: strandman on September 30, 2012, 03:25:09 PM
John, did you get Foops in before they closed Skytop?  I did not even have the chance to get on it!  So envious of my friends who have sent it.

That's great, Al.  SoEO is very enjoyable.  Give a The Nears a whirl too; Alphonse, Broken Sling, Birdland, Roseland (pumpy!), Farewell To Arms (seconding it is as committing as leading it).
Yah- a great climb and it must be pretty easy 'cause I suckat roofs.  Open Cockpit, sticky bun,,, great climbs. The only time I MAY have had a shot at Supercrack was right after 2 months in the Valley and by then Skytop was closed.

Lost City  also has some awesome climbs
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: sneoh on September 30, 2012, 09:38:22 PM
Good job, John!  Nice.
Did you lead Sticky Bun Power?  Necky, I gather, but I recall Hugh saying it is his fave down at The Gunks (not sure he meant all routes or just the ones he had FA on).

Thanks again, Al, for the TR.  It has made me excited about The Gunks, again.  Maybe a March/April trip is in store.

Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: strandman on October 02, 2012, 02:12:14 PM
i did Sticky with karl Mallmen  bitd.. a true Gunks effort, we yo-yo'd. The gear is rp's in horizontal.. maybe 5 and most of them hold.
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: eyebolter on October 03, 2012, 09:29:15 AM
John, did you get Foops in before they closed Skytop?  I did not even have the chance to get on it!  So envious of my friends who have sent it.



I'm lucky that I did it as well before it was closed.  That is by far my favorite cliff at the Gunks.  No Exit, Mellow Yellow and and Half Assid are all great 10+ routes.  Sound and Fury is a great 8 as well.
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: strandman on October 04, 2012, 12:10:53 PM
I did No Exit with TC bitd when it was 9+  !  TC got pumped... I hung
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: Jeff on October 04, 2012, 03:19:44 PM
I went to climb Sound & Fury in 1970 or so, having read in Art Gran's old red guide that it was 5.6, which I was leading regularly at the time--got SPANKED bad!! Lowered off and whined my way back to the Uberfall, where I talked to Dick Williams and others and learned that it was generally considered sustained 5.8--went back a year later, more experienced (and stronger) and climbed it in decent style, although it DID keep my interest! Great route, as are so many others at Skytop which are sadly off limits at present ???
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: Admin Al on October 04, 2012, 03:41:18 PM
apparently you can climb at SkyTop, IF you are staying at the house and ONLY IF you are guided by an approved guide.

SHEESH...
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: old_school on October 05, 2012, 11:39:56 AM
apparently you can climb at SkyTop, IF you are staying at the house and ONLY IF you are guided by an approved guide.

SHEESH...

Yah..that's a deal! $600/night for the room and $275 for their guides service....totally worth $900. :-X
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: sneoh on October 05, 2012, 12:10:34 PM
Yah..that's a deal! $600/night for the room and $275 for their guides service....totally worth $900. :-X
Sooooo, if I do not send Foops on the first day, do I get to try again the next day for no addtl charge? :):)
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: tradmanclimbz on October 06, 2012, 08:02:00 AM
I wonder if they get any takers on their $900.00 package?

My biggest spanking BINTD was on P38. I don't know for sure if I was on the right route but it was 5.9 in my book and aparently is 5.10d in the new book?  Took a bad whip too close to the deck. Ripped a #3 Chiounard soldered wire and was saved inches off the deck by a perfect #2 wire. Upside down, head first looking at a pile of rocks about 18 inches from my eyeballs. No lid.  Think I might have started drinking heavily after that one and called it a day :-\
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: Jeff on October 06, 2012, 10:36:33 AM
There were quite a few sandbags over the years with guide book ratings at the Gunks; as I've aged, climbs I've done have moved up on the rating scale, so that I surprise myself with the level I've led-- nice :-*  5.10d sounds about right for P38 to me--that thing is thin, pumpy and hard to hang on to protect! BTW-- yes they do get people who pay the fees to stay and climb at The Mohonk House.
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: OldEric on October 06, 2012, 09:19:13 PM
I wonder if they get any takers on their $900.00 package?

My biggest spanking BINTD was on P38. I don't know for sure if I was on the right route but it was 5.9 in my book and aparently is 5.10d in the new book?  Took a bad whip too close to the deck. Ripped a #3 Chiounard soldered wire and was saved inches off the deck by a perfect #2 wire. Upside down, head first looking at a pile of rocks about 18 inches from my eyeballs. No lid.  Think I might have started drinking heavily after that one and called it a day :-\

Shady Lady is 5.9.  Grade inflation or not.
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: tradmanclimbz on October 07, 2012, 07:15:32 AM
Shady Lady?
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: sneoh on October 07, 2012, 07:29:09 AM
I believe Shady Lady is the original name for the climb now more commonly known as P38.
I am sure Eric can give us a history lesson her if he is so inclined.

Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: tradmanclimbz on October 07, 2012, 11:11:51 AM
It was P38 in my 1981 Williams guide but I was told by locals that it was actually hard 10? anyways it was a long time ago 1986? and i remember I was mayby 18 to 20 ft up and fell ripping a #3 micro and getting stopped inces from the ground on a#2  Micro.
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: eyebolter on October 07, 2012, 03:50:12 PM
It was shady lady in the blue book, but the original name was P38 I think for the number of aid pieces.

No way that thing is 5.9.
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: OldEric on October 07, 2012, 04:12:49 PM
It was shady lady in the blue book, but the original name was P38 I think for the number of aid pieces.

No way that thing is 5.9.
Ward is correct - about the name not the grade.  Originally "P-38" for the gear list.  When it was freed (late 60'S?) It got renamed "Shady Lady" (just like Transcon Nailway->Freeway).  Eventually Williams reverted the name in more recent books.  A hold has broken at the crux and it probably is EASY 10 now.  But it definitely seemed very nineish when I first did it - 1976.  My first three 9's were Never Neverland, Nosedive and Shady Lady (look in the blue Dick - one true book).  Grade inflation has run rampant and the Gunks have not been immune.
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: eyebolter on October 07, 2012, 07:03:32 PM
Sure Eric there has been grade inflation, but part of that was because all routes 5.9 and harder were crammed into the same grade.  Or do you really think that Recompense is a 9 and Recluse is only 9+ as in my first Cote guide?  And then the same thing happened with 5.10, Foops  and Supercrack were rated 10+, lol.

My first 10 was a 9 when I did it as well, Moby Dick center in Yosemite.  I wouldn't have tried it if it had been a 10.
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: tradmanclimbz on October 07, 2012, 07:46:50 PM
I still grade 9+ as harder than 10a.  Book of Solemity for example should be 10a and not 9+ because it is not sustained enough for 9+ it has 2 relativly short tricky  but not physical cruxes=10a  When I think of 9+ i think of Bloody Mary @ Poko, Perrigan Arette on the Eaglet, Retaliation etc.
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: sneoh on October 07, 2012, 08:43:43 PM
All three are .10 in "my book", Eric!  Wow, 5.9/9+. 

I guess it is the same with Vultures; new people to this area almost always say it is .11, not the .10+ grade in the book.  Keep it at .10+ is my opinion, if not for any other reason other than historical.
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: strandman on October 08, 2012, 02:08:01 PM
$698 a night... Supercrack took Wunsch 37 days.. that's ?????? Good thing no hotel at lost City, Persistent took 160 tries.
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: sneoh on October 08, 2012, 04:04:03 PM
Good thing no hotel at lost City, Persistent took 160 tries.
Hence the name is my guess!  Yowzah!!
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: strandman on October 08, 2012, 04:23:34 PM
That's a route for you sneoh.... When, not if you fall off the first move, you fall into the abyss, nice. then a failure on Survival, next to it, is virtually assured.
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: sneoh on October 08, 2012, 10:11:52 PM
I have tried Persistent,  it took me about ten tries (I am not ashamed to say) to just get past the first move, only to totally pump out shortly after that.  Survival?  Forget about it!  One look was enough to convince me that I will never be able to even come close to doing every move on it hanging on a rope, let alone link it.
Funny story - we were at Lost City that day when a number strong Frenchmen and Euros "in town" for the '95 X Games in Newport, RI (when roped climbing and bouldering were included) showed up at Lost City and proceeded to TR several of the hard faces climbs right off Persistent.  Most flashed them or one-hung the routes.  But no one even attempted Survival.  I do not know if they did not know it is there or knew but decided to give it a wide berth. 
We did not at any one time think we were crowding them off Persistent because we figured none of them wanted to have anything to do with a nasty crack.  :)

Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: strandman on October 09, 2012, 01:40:19 PM
YA- my first times at Lost City was with Coach Niland... learned a lot and didn't do anything.. EB's   Later with mallery it was the same thing except harder routes i couldn't do.
On a typical daytrip he would tr persistent,Survival, Clairvoince, then try mantronics.. i would hang
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: Flotsam on October 11, 2012, 01:13:52 PM
The Alpinist has a opinion sort of piece about what a circus and how expensive it is.

I'd have to say I can't believe they stick it to you at 17 bucks a day for access.  At least a climbing gym has bathrooms that they paid for not the ACCESS FUND.
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: JBro on October 11, 2012, 05:05:30 PM
Yeah I can't believe the Access Fund paid for that outhouse on the carriage road when the preserve is raking in the cash.

Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: DLottmann on October 17, 2012, 06:55:25 PM
The Alpinist has a opinion sort of piece about what a circus and how expensive it is.

I'd have to say I can't believe they stick it to you at 17 bucks a day for access.  At least a climbing gym has bathrooms that they paid for not the ACCESS FUND.

I need to find that piece... is it online?

It grinds my gears that they charge more for climber access than all other users... such BS.... glad I live in NH....
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: JakeDatc on October 18, 2012, 02:05:43 PM
to pile on a bit.  apparently a new campground got approved in Gardiner so MUA  and Slime will close once that opens..  aka no more free camping at the gunks..   which i considered part of the fee.. 
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: strandman on October 18, 2012, 06:21:11 PM
A friend of mine once asked me to use beuatiful in a sentence twice.. i think it applies here

"beautiful,,fucking beautiful"
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: Jeff on October 18, 2012, 06:28:10 PM
While I appreciate people complaining about day fee @ the Gunks, it IS a PRIVATE TRUST property of over 5000 acres within 2 hours drive of somewhere north of 15 million people!! I pay my annual membership of around $100 (when I first bought one in 1969 it was probably about $25--the daily fee then was less than $3.00) and consider it money well spent to preserve the land for the use of all. The cost probably keeps the crowds down somewhat--that's a good thing. On good weather weekends in the spring and fall, one often has to take a number (speaking figuratively) to climb many of the 3 star routes up to about 5.10. Since, as a guide, I have certainly contributed to the increased numbers of climbers over the past 4 decades, I  hesitate to complain about the cost or the crowds. I buy my annual pass and climb there during the work week as much as possible-- In 2012 I haven't amortized my pass in numbers of days climbed at the Gunks-- I've spent too more of my available days in NH and farther afield. However I will be renewing it this month as a contribution to help keep one of the best climbing sites on the East Coast available to us all. :-*
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: Admin Al on October 18, 2012, 11:18:50 PM
right on Jeff...
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: eyebolter on October 19, 2012, 01:14:03 PM
I don't disagree Jeff, but it is tough for kids.  Heck, we used to drive there from Rhode Island and sneak in when the fee was like $2.50, because we frankly couldn't afford it.

I remember one weekend trip when I was 17 I called everyone and said that I only had 10 bucks and just enough food for myself, so bring money and food please!  When I picked my brother up he had five dollars he'd begged off our Dad, and no food.  When I picked up Gary P. he got in the back seat and said straight out: "NO Money, and NO food!"  We went anyway, but we didn't have any money for the fee that was sure!   





Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: frik on October 19, 2012, 03:02:37 PM
If i mention the last time i actually paid to climb down there, you guys would probably get all preachy.
In any case i don't think folks are complaining all that much about having to pay, it's the amount that gets people upset.
Climbers pay more than hikers, bike riders, and monkey spankers. Why do they screw the climbers? Because they can.
And that's after climbers, through the access fund, (over)paid for that fancy outhouse.   
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: danf on October 20, 2012, 10:03:17 AM
Climbers pay more than hikers, bike riders, and monkey spankers. Why do they screw the climbers? Because they can.
In terms of public land (state and federal) hunters and fishermen pay the lions share.  Climbers, hikers, bike riders, birders, etc are a mere drop in the bucket.  I realize the discussion is about the Gunks and it is not true public land, but I did want to make the point.
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: xcrag_corex on October 20, 2012, 10:38:24 AM
Climbers pay more than hikers, bike riders, and monkey spankers. Why do they screw the climbers? Because they can.
In terms of public land (state and federal) hunters and fishermen pay the lions share.  Climbers, hikers, bike riders, birders, etc are a mere drop in the bucket.  I realize the discussion is about the Gunks and it is not true public land, but I did want to make the point.
But in regards to public land (state/federal) are hunters and fisherman hopefully walking away with something? Perhaps that is the reasoning for their higher fees? I agree with the fact that it isn't fair that the climbers pay more than people participating in other forms of recreation. I don't have a problem with paying for fee use areas but your recreational preference shouldn't determine price.... unless the price difference is being allocated to anchor replacement and climber related maintenance.
 
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: strandman on October 20, 2012, 12:11:18 PM
Am i correct in assuming that a big chunk of the Gunks fees go to insurance ????

It sure doesn't seem to be for anchors and shitters
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: danf on October 20, 2012, 06:52:55 PM
But in regards to public land (state/federal) are hunters and fisherman hopefully walking away with something?
The bulk of the monies paid by hunters and fishermen are in the form of taxes that are built into the cost of every gun, box of ammo, piece of camo clothing, fishing rod and lure.  Look up the Pittman-Robinson Act (and the sister act a few years later for the fishing gear that I don't remember the name of).  On top of that are license fees and the occasional access fee for state/federal land.  I don't know if climbing gear falls into either of those acts, but I guarantee that even if it does, it's a very small percentage compared to just the gun purchases in the last year (several million guns with what I would assume to be an average price of $200-300 or more)...

Ok, back to the Gunks fee discussion!
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: strandman on October 21, 2012, 11:25:15 AM
Does that mean I can bring my 12to the Gunks ??? THAT could be fun
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: frik on October 22, 2012, 09:43:37 AM
Interesting points danf, unfortunately not particularly applicable to the subject at hand.  As far as i know there is no hunting or fishing in Mohunk.
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: DLottmann on October 24, 2012, 01:52:57 PM
...
Climbers pay more than hikers, bike riders, and monkey spankers. Why do they screw the climbers? Because they can.
And that's after climbers, through the access fund, (over)paid for that fancy outhouse.

^ This.

Jeff, I'd like to hear your opinion as to while climbers pay more than other rec. users there...
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: strandman on October 24, 2012, 05:38:34 PM
it's 'cause the Vulgarians are not around anymore. I always loved the shit about "authorized seconds ' and shit like thaat.. Fuck You

Kinda reminds me of NC in the 80's-  I wasn't local...  F/a's for me and fuck you for you..still pisse's me off  " you don't live here" "your from fucking Scotland !"
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: Flotsam on October 24, 2012, 06:36:39 PM
...
Climbers pay more than hikers, bike riders, and monkey spankers. Why do they screw the climbers? Because they can.
And that's after climbers, through the access fund, (over)paid for that fancy outhouse.

^ This.

Jeff, I'd like to hear your opinion as to while climbers pay more than other rec. users there...

Actually bikes and climbers pay the same.
      $12 for hikers
      $17 for climbers and bikers
http://www.mohonkpreserve.org/hours-and-fees

Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: Jeff on October 24, 2012, 06:40:29 PM
   "Jeff, I'd like to hear your opinion as to while climbers pay more than other rec. users there..."

Dave, Since, as Flotsam said, it's the same price for bikes, I'm guessing it has to do with insurance, but I don't know--just a guess.
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: strandman on October 24, 2012, 07:31:13 PM
$17 a day seems WAY overboard to me... JT is $30 for the week and has 8000+ routes ?    For $17 a day, I need beer. I think the Gunks is great, with fine climbsetc... But I thought $3 was to much,, bitd

So much for bitchin' about WMNF parking fees

Seems to me that the Access Fund could have really hit this one hard..? I guess you fight your fights and then..
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: sneoh on October 24, 2012, 08:24:07 PM
So much for bitchin' about WMNF parking fees
+1.  We have it good in NH.
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: DLottmann on October 24, 2012, 08:53:47 PM
Thanks Jeff, it does make me feel slightly better that bikers are being discriminated against as well... if I thought even 50% of the usage fee was going back into actually preserving the land trust and not padding the pockets of some "board of directors" somewhere I'd feel a lot better about it. AAC paying for the outhouse is evidence to me the money isn't going back to the land, or the users, just to the owners...
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: DLottmann on October 24, 2012, 08:54:54 PM
Plus, the gunks sees an high amount of climber accidents every season, and no lawsuits/insurance claims... so the higher rate is just a form of extortion...
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: sneoh on October 24, 2012, 09:27:46 PM
I just did some reading; The Mohonk Preserve is a 501c(3) non-profit organization, exempt from Federal income tax.  Here are the links to some financial statements -
http://www.mohonkpreserve.org/sites/default/files/files/PDF/FinancialStatements.pdf
http://www.mohonkpreserve.org/sites/default/files/files/PDF/Form990.pdf


On first glance, it looks like wages were about $1.4m on total revenue of $3.6m.  What caught my eye was $10m, in stocks, bonds, and cash.  And, DMan, $63k in total insurance expense, seems kind of low to me.

Perhaps someone more qualified can take a look at the filings and give some highlights/insights.

Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: JBro on October 25, 2012, 08:52:14 AM
The fees really went up after they built that giant visitor center. Well, I'm assuming it's giant but I've never actually been inside and neither has any other climber that I know. I'm assuming we are paying for that thing.

I don't think most people mind paying a fair amount but the current cost is out of control.
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: frik on October 25, 2012, 10:03:21 AM
36 K seems low, because it is low. That number is probably for insurance on structures, employees and equipment. I haven't seen one in 20 years, so i can't say for sure, but i imagine a pass has all kinds of disclaimers on it. Between that and the preserve being a non-profit conservation outfit, would make it extremely hard for them to be sued. So i image they don't need anything out of the ordinary in terms of liability insurance. Ironically, under NY law, if the preserve didn't charge an entrance fee they would have zero liability exposure. 
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: OldEric on October 25, 2012, 10:03:45 AM
The fees really went up after they built that giant visitor center. Well, I'm assuming it's giant but I've never actually been inside and neither has any other climber that I know. I'm assuming we are paying for that thing.

I don't think most people mind paying a fair amount but the current cost is out of control.

I have been refraining from ranting but all this whining is getting ridiculous.  I've been in that center many times (and not just for the lavish bathrooms) .  It would do you good to do so too - you might actually - gasp - learn some thing about the area - it has a fascinating history and flora and fauna.  The Gunks actually have a little more going for them then "match the rail and huck for the bucket".

As Soon points out the Preserve is non profit and the pie chart of their income and expenses is pretty much in line with other non profits.  But more fundamental is the fact that it is PRIVATE land and all these comparisons to public land climbing areas - from JT to N Conway are meaningless.  What's that big private game preserve in west central NH?  Are all the hunters bitching that it costs more (like $10K more) to get in and hunt there vs. the WMNF?  The Preserve can charge whatever it wants.  If you don't like it don't go.

And as far as the actual cost of climbing there - transportation far out trumps anything else.  Even Al's beloved Prius that he delights in boasting and bragging about is costing him $0.30-0.40 a mile.  Fuel is incidental.  You are deluding yourselves if you think otherwise.
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: JBro on October 25, 2012, 11:08:00 AM
Since you're so knowledgeable about history maybe you can explain why the Smiley family set up the preserve in the first place.
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: OldEric on October 25, 2012, 11:29:29 AM
Since you're so knowledgeable about history maybe you can explain why the Smiley family set up the preserve in the first place.

Go to the visitors' center and learn for yourself.
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: sneoh on October 25, 2012, 11:48:01 AM
So, for single Day Pass, $17 for climber and biker, and $12 for everyone else.
For single Annual Pass, $90 for climber, $70 for biker, and $55 for everyone else.

All things considered, I have to admit $55 is not bad, but $35 climbing 'premium' on top of that is pretty steep. 
If only they would make single Annual pass for climber and biker the same at $70 or $75 .....
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: frik on October 25, 2012, 01:41:10 PM
OldEic; I think you are agreeing with my original point. RE: Why do they screw us..... because they can.
Hikers, bird watchers, trail runners, peeping toms, and riders have lots of options. Lots of free options. Climbers, especially down there do not.
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: OldEric on October 25, 2012, 05:10:41 PM
OldEic; I think you are agreeing with my original point. RE: Why do they screw us..... because they can.
Hikers, bird watchers, trail runners, peeping toms, and riders have lots of options. Lots of free options. Climbers, especially down there do not.

Yes and no.  On the one hand "because they can" = "what the market will bear" - a basic concept of capitalism.  On the other hand going climbing at the Gunks - or anyplace - is pretty much an un-necessary luxury - not in the same vain at supplying food and shelter.  It's your choice to pay for it or not.  I don't think they need to be scrutinized the same way utility companies or health care providers are.  More in tune with restaurants.  Do you go to art museums, how about movies?  the cost of those tickets have typically gone up faster then inflation.  How about lift tickets?  Most ski areas around here ARE on public land and are charging a heck of a lot more then a day pass - some more then an annual pass at the Gunks.

I also don't think - no matter how dig you deep - that you will find any Preserve employee or board member lining his pockets off the $$$ of the little people. 

I do think that the visitor's center is sort of an overboard extravagance.  But if I really cared I would attempt to get more involved - I don't think I have the right to complain in a place like this without having attempted to do something constructive first through the Preserve.
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: strandman on October 25, 2012, 06:40:16 PM
reading this- i am listening to dead kennedy's  'kill the poor"  ,, nice song. "fuck the landlord is next
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: DLottmann on October 26, 2012, 12:29:09 AM
...
I also don't think - no matter how dig you deep - that you will find any Preserve employee or board member lining his pockets off the $$$ of the little people. 
...

"Wages were about $1.4m on total revenue of $3.6m.  What caught my eye was $10m, in stocks, bonds, and cash.  And, DMan, $63k in total insurance expense, seems kind of low to me."- Sneoh

2.2 million a year in surplus revenue and 10 million in stocks & bonds... and they don't pay any federal income tax as a non-profit... and the AAC pays for an outhouse... and they charge more for climbers, and you want to tell me someone isn't lining their pockets...

OK...
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: sneoh on October 26, 2012, 08:55:41 AM
Actually, I had read the wrong column.  Total revenue for 2010 was $3.8m.  Wages (1.4m) was only a part of total expense which amounted to $2.7m for 2010.  So, the 'excess' is $1.1m.  This amount was added to the accumulated net asset of the Preserve, boosting it from $14 to $15m.
Might the Preserve getting ready for land/property acquisition or a major capital investment project?
Or just a healthy rainy day fund?
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: OldEric on October 26, 2012, 09:07:13 AM
Actually, I had read the wrong column.  Total revenue for 2010 was $3.8m.  Wages (1.4m) was only a part of total expense which amounted to $2.7m for 2010.  So, the 'excess' is $1.1m.  This amount was added to the accumulated net asset of the Preserve, boosting it from $14 to $15m.
Might the Preserve getting ready for land/property acquisition or a major capital investment project?
Or just a healthy rainy day fund?

Land acquisition is always big:


http://www.mohonkpreserve.org/blog/mohonk-preserve-acquire-iconic-new-paltz-lands (http://www.mohonkpreserve.org/blog/mohonk-preserve-acquire-iconic-new-paltz-lands)
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: frik on October 26, 2012, 09:17:42 AM
Excellent detective work sneoh. Now we won't be obliged to feel guilty about sneaking in without paying.
 
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: sneoh on October 26, 2012, 09:38:16 AM
Thanks Eric for the update.  Did I guess it or what? :):).  Looks like the Preserve is on a $5 to $8m buying binge.
Thanks Frik.  Back in the 90's, we used to start off the day at left side of The Nears and only move to The Trapps late in the afternoon to avoid the 'rangers' and fees (might have only been $5 then). 

The article Eric pointed us to also mentions acquisition of a huge parcel from the Mohonk Mtn House in 2011.  Is this going to open up more access to Skytop?  Look, I am being wishful, OK?  I still have not been on The Sound and The Fury, ever ......
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: M_Sprague on October 26, 2012, 04:58:33 PM
Who will lead the charge?

(http://lucies.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/delacroix-liberty1.jpg?w=519&h=407)

The storming of the Mohonk House?
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: sneoh on October 26, 2012, 06:39:11 PM
Not you or I, Mark, we do not have the necessary ASSETS for the job.
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: M_Sprague on October 26, 2012, 08:05:33 PM
I'm not quite sure what the guy going into battle with one sock and no pants was thinking (make the enemy die of laughter?), but it obviously did not work out for him. He must have been a Vulgarian.
Title: Re: Gunks trip
Post by: Flotsam on October 26, 2012, 08:16:24 PM
As Soon points out the Preserve is non profit and the pie chart of their income and expenses is pretty much in line with other non profits.  But more fundamental is the fact that it is PRIVATE land and all these comparisons to public land climbing areas - from JT to N Conway are meaningless.  What's that big private game preserve in west central NH?  Are all the hunters bitching that it costs more (like $10K more) to get in and hunt there vs. the WMNF?  The Preserve can charge whatever it wants.  If you don't like it don't go.

You also make a little bit of an apple / orange comparison.  The hunting preserves are private, maybe (maybe not) profitable but they pay taxes on the land etc.  The Mohonk Preserve is a non profit 501c(3).  The non profit land trusts that I know of do not charge access but they are far lower profile, no employees, no educational classes but they do purchase land give out grants/scholarships similar to the Mohonk.

Any way it is difficult to draw a comparison there.  For us what is important is the Preserve has a business model that works for them and we get access.  They are expanding land purchases which is great for them and maybe climbers.  I just wish if they need the access fee would be the same for everyone.  I hate feeling miked just because that is what they can get.... I'd be equally annoyed if ski area charge me more as snowboarder because I scrape the snow off the slopes faster than a skier!