The Gunks are way worthy!

Kevin Heckeler wrote:Like any other member on any other public forum, I post my opinions. If people agree or not doesn't change what opinion was stated. I offered an opinion about 'another way' the land could be managed, then get railed about how I'm an idiot for even thinking that. Really? And I'm the grandiose individual? haha

Perhaps it is context and location? Does every thread about the Gunks need to turn into complaining about the cost? This thread was about Andy having fun at the Gunks. The recent one you posted most of the same stuff in was about a dude getting a ticket and looking for info. Both turned into pages about this pretty well-hashed topic. The only way it could get any fresher is if someone brought up fixed gear / adding bolts.

It's self fulfilling prophecy. Look at Kevin's last name....

MojoMonkey wrote: Perhaps it is context and location? Does every thread about the Gunks need to turn into complaining about the cost? This thread was about Andy having fun at the Gunks. The recent one you posted most of the same stuff in was about a dude getting a ticket and looking for info. Both turned into pages about this pretty well-hashed topic. The only way it could get any fresher is if someone brought up fixed gear / adding bolts.

I'll give you the first thread, I vented a bit initially.

This thread had posts complaining about the fees before any of mine. Other threads here and at gunks.com have people complaining about the fees, and they're not posts by or initialized by me. I am NOT the only climber on the planet who thnks the fees are too high. Nice try though.

Also worthy to note, aside from my first two posts, I hadn't posted anything else in this thread about fees until the very end (we're talking 4-5 pages of content by everyone else). It wasn't until someone questioned a comment I made about 5.7s that I actually re-engaged this thread at any level, and only then it seems to reply to spillover from the other thread.

And what gives about that anti bolt bullshit? The preserve's gotta get hip to the times! :p

BigA wrote:It's self fulfilling prophecy. Look at Kevin's last name....

Born to do it.

Really, that's rather clever. Never made the connection to my last name being something out of the dictionary (minus an E). Gotta remember that one next time I'm doing standup.

And Terrie wonders why I ignore so many posts. Guess we're all guilty of spreading the love.

While I don't think the Gunks is expensive, I do think the Preserve can do better.
Especially it comes to providing better camping option. Paid shower stall would be nice too.

Was not pointing that out to you. You clearly already know.

It's the Internet...nothing here is worth getting upset over, taking seriously, or losing sleep over....That goes for those on both sides of this discussion, getting all riled up. I miss the days where people asked which cliffs stay dry or what their favorite 5.9s are.

Time for some fresh air...

BigA wrote:It's the Internet...nothing here is worth getting upset over, taking seriously, or losing sleep over...

Absolutely. The circle of sarcasm spins endlessly. ;-D

Kevin Heckeler wrote: I'll give you the first thread, I vented a bit initially. This thread had posts complaining about the fees before any of mine. Other threads here and at gunks.com have people complaining about the fees, and they're not posts by or initialized by me. I am NOT the only climber on the planet who thnks the fees are too high. Nice try though. Also worthy to note, aside from my first two posts, I hadn't posted anything else in this thread about fees until the very end (we're talking 4-5 pages of content by everyone else). It wasn't until someone questioned a comment I made about 5.7s that I actually re-engaged this thread at any level, and only then it seems to reply to spillover from the other thread. And what gives about that anti bolt bullshit? The preserve's gotta get hip to the times! :p

Note that I didn't say you were the responsible party in all cases. I'm just saying that it is tiring to see Gunks threads devolve to it, regardless of who started it. It will be boring and annoying in the next thread when the next person does it, whether you even read or participate in the thread.

MojoMonkey wrote: Note that I didn't say you were the responsible party in all cases. I'm just saying that it is tiring to see Gunks threads devolve to it, regardless of who started it. It will be boring and annoying in the next thread when the next person does it, whether you even read or participate in the thread.

It's still fresh enough for me I suppose, as I've only been climbing 5 years and really committed to just climbing for the last 2-3. Plus, as gas and toll prices rise/stay high, the fees are felt more. Lucky for me I live close enough to justify getting the pass, but I feel bad for those who don't and have to pay that day use rate. One of my climbing buddies doesn't even go to the Gunks anymore due to these factors. Yes, some people's budgets are THAT tight.

I suppose the high climbing fees keep the population low. . . if it was $5 it would be an incredible shit show. So I would bet using fee increases are probably part of the 'conservation' plan. If they dropped the price they could potentially earn just as much money but have many more people (and that's what they are likely trying to limit).

I'd say ask happie but she hasn't been so happy lately.

CaptainMo wrote:I suppose the high climbing fees keep the population low. . . if it was $5 it would be an incredible shit show. So I would bet using fee increases are probably part of the 'conservation' plan. If they dropped the price they could potentially earn just as much money but have many more people (and that's what they are likely trying to limit). I'd say ask happie but she hasn't been so happy lately.

Hmmmm.... Put that way, I now completely understand and support the fees. Anything that limits the amount of societal leeches is fine by me.

A cheaper fee might not dissuade them, but when the parents see that these more frequent demands for money are cutting into the charming additions they had planned on the entertainment deck, why, there will be action! Music to face, by gum! It's time for Junior to start earning his own way by agreeing to work at least part time at Dad's firm, breaking out into hives or no.

CaptainMo wrote:I suppose the high climbing fees keep the population low. . .

I am not privy to the reasons behind why fees are what they are, but I think that there is something to it, when it comes to paying a fee for something as opposed to having it be free or deemed as "cheap." People tend to value that which they make a sacrifice for and place less value on that which they obtain with little or no sacrifice.

During the items I have acted as caretaker at Coxing, I have see firsthand a difference in behaviors between the general public which arrives during a time when there is a trailhead on board and after that person leaves for the day. Now let's be clear - I am not saying "all people" in any category behave a certain way. But the ones who are throwing dirty diapers into the woods when the trash bin is on their way out the parking lot, those who are dumping their Starbucks and McDonalds cups on the ground, those who are ripping the wild lilies out and then leaving the flower on the ground when they tire of carrying it - tend to be the ones who are waiting for the trailhead person to leave for the day, or are parking down the road and walking in from the side woods. (Yes, I am aware of whom comes in and in what manner when I am in the vicinity.)

There is a big difference between the level of trash that gets left on the ground at Minnewaska and the MP, and though I can't say for sure, I have to think that the sacrifice a person makes to visit the MP plays a part in their having more respect for the environment.

I'm NOT saying a person who has more money behaves in a better way that a person who has less. Plenty of those mentioned above are arriving in new vehicles, and plenty of the people who pick up after those around them as part of their regular visit in the area drive beat up junkers.

Kevin Heckeler wrote: There's been a lot of productive conversation between the panty bunching in these threads. If it gets a single person to think objectively about the subject matter then all this dialogue is worth it.

Mission accomplished then. I have thought objectively about it.

And I've decided the Adirondack Mt. Club's $10/day parking fee at the Loj is WAY too F'in high.

So there.

Gunkiemike wrote: Mission accomplished then. I have thought objectively about it. And I've decided the Adirondack Mt. Club's $10/day parking fee at the Loj is WAY too F'in high. So there.

A-fuckin-men!

Gunkiemike wrote:I've decided the Adirondack Mt. Club's $10/day parking fee at the Loj is WAY too F'in high.

Haha, well I agree that it's too high, but comparing what $10 buys you at the loj and $17 at the Gunks isn't a fair comparison (for the simple fact a car full of people get in for that $10 at the loj).

The loj rates have been creeping up like the Gunks for the last several years. It doesn't fall on my radar because I rarely use that trailhead any more (maybe once a year, versus a dozen or more times in years past). But I'm looking to get some skiing in so I'll be back to bitch about it at some point in the coming months.

The "spending money means I care" argument is kinda weak. Do I even need to explain why? Anyone ever volunteer to do trail work in the Catskills or Adirondacks? Pick up litter there?

caughtinside wrote: There was a study done some time ago on free vs. pay campgrounds. The finding was that people picked up the free campgrounds better.

These sorts of studies are pretty pervasive in economics and psychology, and they all point to the same sort of conclusion.

The classic economics-textbook example is NGO-sponsored developments in remote villages in Africa, etc. NGO projects are generally more successful if the villagers have to contribute to the project with labor, resources, or finacially. If an NGO gives a village a new well for free, the well is generally not maintained as well in the future as if the village had to pay for some fraction of the cost of the well. Making people pay for something has been shown to lead them to value it and treat it better.

Within climbing, we can also think about "cost of admission" in non-monetary terms. Generally, people are more respectful toward remote crags that they had to hike a long way to, as opposed to some trashy roadside crag. There are other factors at play, of course, but the basic tenet that we tend to be more respectful to things that we had to "pay" for remains true.

No doubt the study you mention did show that.

I looked very guickly for a link but didn't see anything. Perhaps you would know it?

I wouldn't call my personal observations anything like a study, but the issue was pretty evident. People who are members at the Preserve tend to be very respectful of the resource. Day use visitors less so, and those who come in (intentionally) avoiding fee tended to be the ones who were "trashy."

And in a general, though I haven't a study to cite, it's a well accepted point that people DO have more respect for that which they sacrifice to receive over which comes without effort, and this ranges from the guy or girl one has to work at to get attention to a gift from somebody and pretty much across the board.

CaptainMo wrote:I suppose the high climbing fees keep the population low. . . if it was $5 it would be an incredible shit show. So I would bet using fee increases are probably part of the 'conservation' plan. If they dropped the price they could potentially earn just as much money but have many more people (and that's what they are likely trying to limit).

can this be the official thread killer?

I vote YES!!!

KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL!

Happiegrrrl wrote:It's a well accepted point that people DO have more respect for that which they sacrifice to receive over which comes without effort, and this ranges from the guy or girl one has to work at to get attention to a gift from somebody and pretty much across the board.

THAT is true, but different from the presumption that paying means caring. People pay alot for the vehicles they drive but beat the crap out of them, skip maintenance, etc.