Entrance fee for the gunks?

So, 15% comes from day passes and 24% comes from year pass holders ?

40% of the operating expenses are covered by users.

I guess the point is if this was JUST a crag we would expect these expenses. Admin 9% Land protection 13% Membership 4%

So, climbing, biking , hiking makes up 26% of the expenses. Clearly, we are overpaying for climbing.

But that isn't the point I guess. Our climbing pays for stewardship, stewardship, education and etc.

Woodchuck ATC wrote: Agree it's a great price for the local climber and less than a climbing gym or health club membership. Just a bit out of pocket for the guy passing through who plans on 4 or 5 days of climbs once a year.

If you go 5 times it pays for itself.

I remember reading somewhere that the Mohonk Preserve has one of the oldest and most detailed climate-data collections in the world. For several generations now, folks there have been (and continue) measuring daily temperatures, vapor-pressure deficit, wind speed, and who knows what else.

Ice4life wrote: If you go 5 times it pays for itself.

It's a good deal if you can use it to your greatest advantage, like spending 30 or 40 days a year climbing to come out waaay ahead. Just spending that cash and breaking even over a few days still doesn't seem like a good deal at all.

For those who have a problem paying the fee, the simplest solution is to choose not to climb there. Otherwise, dip into your rainy day fund, buy a household family pass, go with your wife/roommate/life partner/whoever four weekends over the course of a year, and every time you travel/climb at the Gunks thereafter can be considered money in your pocket. Impeccable stewardship does not come freely.

The climbers are the ones using the using the rescue boxes more than anyone else at the Gunks. I wonder how often a Gunks employee helps a climber get to the hospital compared to a hiker/biker. I also wonder how many hikers/bikers try to sneak in compared to climbers. Not too many I guess.

My advice is(coming from someone who buys the pass and loses money) is to be happy its still open and you can climb there. I also believe you can write it off as a donation if that means anything.

C Runyan wrote:For several generations now, folks there have been (and continue) measuring daily temperatures, vapor-pressure deficit, wind speed, and who knows what else.

Thats great and all... but cant computers do this? For free...?

Like other people said everyone has a choice whether to go there and pay the high prices or not. My last trip I was trying to decide between NC or NY, the gunks prices made that choice an easy one!

Yes, computers can perform many environmental monitoring functions. They can do so in a completely automated fashion. This does not mean they do it free. Such data collection comes at a [high] cost. Second, once the computer has the data, what to do with it? Computers can't analyze data, form hypotheses and test them on their own...

Folks at the the Preserve are fantastic stewards and conservationists. Read what Cluney has to say about the Preserve in a recent Rock and Ice issue (letter to the editor), check out the Preserve's website and understand their mission statement.

IMO, plenty of people climb at the Gunks; if you prefer to travel to NC, I'm fine with that.

mobley wrote: be happy its still open and you can climb there. I also believe you can write it off as a donation if that means anything.

Keeping land open and free from development is not cheap and we should be happy that they continue to allow us to climb there. I find it funny that people do not squawk at paying to enter a gym, but fail to see the infrastructure required for a location like the Gunks. Do parking lots, trails, and composting toilets just appear???

$17.00 gives you access to 1,000 routes and more than five linear miles of cliff face, located near parking areas and sanitary facilities.

It is a lot cheaper and easier in the long run to pay for the privilege of climbing and not having to fight landowners for access...

Joe Lee wrote: And let's say I climb four times a month which would be 72 times a year

How many months are in your year?

Joe Lee wrote:$17.00 per day per climber is steep. I forked over the cash this year. For those who climb there routinely, your opinions are not relevant to this topic. Because it's a no brainer to get a yearly pass which is "relatively" cheap. You don't pay $17/day. But for the climber who visits once or twice or three times in a year. Ouch. It is a lot of money. Let's say I pay that fee every time I climb outdoors. And let's say I climb four times a month which would be 72 times a year at $17/day that would be $816 a year to climb. That's a lot of kaching. When I bought my annual pass for Smith Rock it was about $20 a year. That seemed pretty reasonable. I paid $51 to climb at the Gunks for three days this year. I paid $80 to climb at Squamish, Tuolumne, Joshua Tree, Red Rock, Mt Lemmon, T Wall, Red River Gorge, Rumney, Cathedral Ledge, Stronghold, and . . . . this year. I guess the cost of climbing is relative. Maybe my views are myopic and $17/day to climb at the Gunks is reasonable. To each their own.

You most likely pay a significant sum more than $80/yr for a national park pass, just not directly. Figure out how much you pay in Federal Income tax for the pleasure of giving the Federal Government another $80.00 for access to land that you already paid for each and every year. The Gunks are on private land, hence, you pay directly for the privilege of access.

Nathan Stokes wrote: You most likely pay a significant sum more than $80/yr for a national park pass, just not directly. Figure out how much you pay in Federal Income tax for the pleasure of giving the Federal Government another $80.00 for access to land that you already paid for each and every year. The Gunks are on private land, hence, you pay directly for the privilege of access.

And yet another great point that will be lost on anyone who can’t see beyond the inside of their wallet. This entire thread is full of valid reasons why there is a fee at the Gunks, but how can you expect a reasonable discussion with people who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

dorseyec wrote: ...My last trip I was trying to decide between NC or NY, the gunks prices made that choice an easy one!

I, for one, applaud your choice.

Anyone think that the reason the fee is so high is because, umm, maybe... New York City is only a hour and a half away? I could be thinking about this all wrong and please do correct me if I am wrong, but logically speaking, city money seems like a good reason to jack any price... Even at the expense of everyone else.

Imagine if the gunks were located in lets say, northern maine, think the price would be so high? :)

Nathan Stokes wrote: You most likely pay a significant sum more than $80/yr for a national park pass, just not directly. Figure out how much you pay in Federal Income tax for the pleasure of giving the Federal Government another $80.00 for access to land that you already paid for each and every year. The Gunks are on private land, hence, you pay directly for the privilege of access.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/newsgraphics/2011/0119-budget/index.html

Looks like the average household is paying $25.45 for the NPS. So probably still a pretty good deal overall. FWIW, I understand the reason for the fee and would gladly pay it to climb there and support the stewardship of the land.

Can't help but feel thankful to be paying 90 bucks a year to know that no asshole in the federal government is going to close my home crag smack in the middle of prime climbing season.

chris_vultaggio wrote:Can't help but feel thankful to be paying 90 bucks a year to know that no asshole in the federal government is going to close my home crag smack in the middle of prime climbing season.

I too complained (internally) about having to pay to use something that the earth created, but this post right here sums up how I feel after taking full advantage of the gunks over the last few months.

I'm all about the ideals of democracy and the government protecting the common interest (read: public land), but the Preserve's efficiency in operations and continued access through this fiscal tumult is a really interesting model of effective private land stewardship.

lucander wrote:I'm all about the ideals of democracy and the government protecting the common interest (read: public land), but the Preserve's efficiency in operations and continued access through this fiscal tumult is a really interesting model of effective private land stewardship.

And if the NPS stays shutdown indefinitely, what are the odds the Preserve (and other private land holders) will lower their prices? Or will they rape us like all other private industries? [it's worth noting I know of no climbing areas in the NE that are shutdown right now due to the financial issues in Washington DC (Acadia is NOT a destination climbing area for most NE residents - too far away for one)]

I don't think offering a service while your competitors are offline makes you the default 'best' option, nor does it automatically justify everything you do and every policy you have. In this case it simply means they are not a public entity.

Same pro-Gunks B.S., different day.

$20 /day for climbing access is almost here! Hurray! [they will also break that magical century mark for the annual pass] At some point it becomes overpriced. You can twist the math anyway you want, but $17 /day is a lot to charge for access to a recreational resource. $12 to walk around? Fucking kidding me, right?

wankel7 wrote:So, 15% comes from day passes and 24% comes from year pass holders ? 40% of the operating expenses are covered by users. I guess the point is if this was JUST a crag we would expect these expenses. Admin 9% Land protection 13% Membership 4% So, climbing, biking , hiking makes up 26% of the expenses. Clearly, we are overpaying for climbing. But that isn't the point I guess. Our climbing pays for stewardship, stewardship, education and etc.

Climbers use Stewardship. It includes trailwork, parking lots, etc.