AAC campground Gunks

David Kerkeslager wrote:

The fact is that if people are camping for free or cheap that just means someone else is paying for it, so if we want those things, we need to find someone to pay for it. Do you have any ideas for who might pay for this sort of thing?

How bout us?

Well Come on mohonk preserve , wt@ does 17 dollars a day really get us then ? 

Whose with me that for 17 dollars a day to climb we should get to camp in the parking lot for free? 

S2k4life wrote:

Well Come on mohonk preserve , wt@ does 17 dollars a day really get us then ? 

Whose with me that for 17 dollars a day to climb we should get to camp in the parking lot for free? 

Access.

You do realize that...

* the Trust, now Preserve, has been charging a land access/use fee since the 60's. 

* the price has gone up below the rate of inflation. When I started climbing there (1973), the day fee was $4. That is $22.72 in today's dollars. The annual pass in 1976 was $35 iirc, which equals $152.25 in today's dollars.

* this has been discussed ad nauseam on MP and RC for years - and you can search for those conversations

* whining about this is pointless and not going to change anything

* you have the option to climb somewhere else for "free"

* the day pass is $20 - annual climbing pass is $95 - meaning you break even on the 5th day - any days after that drives down the per day cost for that year.

S2k4life wrote:

How bout us?

Well Come on mohonk preserve , wt@ does 17 dollars a day really get us then ? 

Whose with me that for 17 dollars a day to climb we should get to camp in the parking lot for free? 

Trail maintenance, trash removal, bathroom maintenance, anchors, SAR, environmental restoration work, maps, educational materials, the very parking lot you're complaining about not being able to sleep in costs money to maintain. There might be some fat in the budget, but I don't believe for a second that you've looked at the budget to even know what that is since  you don't even seem to be aware that there's an annual membership which is much cheaper for most users.

Look, my economic beliefs are all about free stuff. I think every area like the Gunks should be owned by the public and accessible for free. But that's not the system of government we live under. The people to blame for that aren't the preserve, they're the politicians, the corporate interests, and the voters who manage land the way they do. The preserve isn't the problem, they're the best solution we have to the problem right now--without them we'd be paying a lot more than $95/year to climb in the Gunks. This isn't a hypothetical--it has happened in nearby areas. Have you climbed at Skytop lately?

Years ago there was a free  place that we callecd the amc  campsite. The Was a cable across the road,  but it was not locked.  The Was an old building there. They said they were turning it in to a historic site, but they never did.  The real disappointment is that the campsite does not accommodate the amount of people who want to stay there(and only one car per site)

Both are overcrowded on weekends and most weekdays, alas.

Day pass for all of USDA lands in the White Mountains (not all that far from AAC-Rumney) is $5/vehicle (up from $3).  The Preserve sees fit to charge $20 pp because they can.  And close Skytop.  I cannot fault The Preserve for charging whatever  is deemed fit but I have the choice of not visiting.  My loss, I guess.  I have so many fond memories of The Gunks.  

S. Neoh wrote:

Comparisons: They're both operated by the same AAC that you're saying is overcharging for the Gunks campground, which is confusing, because if they're just arbitrarily charging unfair prices then why not do it in both places?

Contrasts: They're in different states with different land prices, different regulations, different insurance costs, different amenities, and different neighbors, all resulting in different price to camp there.

Day pass for all of USDA lands in the White Mountains (not all that far from AAC-Rumney) is $5/vehicle (up from $3).

The same USDA that receives our federal tax dollars? Given how much taxes we pay, you may be paying more to access the White Mountains than the Mohonk Preserve.

The Preserve sees fit to charge $20 pp because they can.  And close Skytop. 

The Preserve closed land they don't own?

EDIT: Decided the sarcasm wasn't needed.

^^^^

Ha-ha, I like it. I do not take any offense.  The place is better off without me.

There is plenty of info about Skytop on the Interweb.  This is posted on mp.com - While public climbing is still legally and enforceably prohibited at Sky Top, you may climb LEGALLY at Sky Top as a guided client, since 2007.  Maybe I need to get guided to get on climbs like Sound and Fury and Foops which I missed back in the 90's.

S. Neoh wrote:

^^^^

Ha-ha, I like it. I do not take any offense.  The place is better off without me.

I wasn't being my best self when I posted that. :)

There is plenty of info about Skytop on the Interweb.  This is posted on mp.com - While public climbing is still legally and enforceably prohibited at Sky Top, you may climb LEGALLY at Sky Top as a guided client, since 2007.  Maybe I need to get guided to get on climbs like Sound and Fury and Foops which I missed back in the 90's.

Yes, and to be clear: The Mohonk Mountain House owns Skytop, and they're the ones who closed Skytop. The Mohonk Preserve could not have closed Skytop as you claimed, because they have no authority whatsoever over that land. The Preserve is largely to be credited for the fact that other local cliffs have not been closed.

David Kerkeslager wrote:

Yes, and to be clear: The Mohonk Mountain House owns Skytop, and they're the ones who closed Skytop. The Mohonk Preserve could not have closed Skytop as you claimed, because they have no authority whatsoever over that land. 

Thanks for correcting my long standing misunderstanding.  Never too old to learn. :)

Kevin Heckeler wrote:

Quick note: not-for-profit is only a tax designation, people do profit from the existence of the company/organization.  Everyone who earns a paycheck or sells that company services, supplies, etc.

Oh, ok, I guess that by this logic ALL public lands are actually "for profit," since plenty of folks get paychecks working for and with the BLM, NPS, and NFS.  

Seriously, you're getting really pedantic here.  

Pnelson wrote:

Oh, ok, I guess that by this logic ALL public lands are actually "for profit," since plenty of folks get paychecks working for and with the BLM, NPS, and NFS.  

Seriously, you're getting really pedantic here.  

I don't know if this was what Mr. Heckeler was trying to say, but I think there's a valid point to be made here, which is that nonprofits aren't always squeaky clean, and can be used to make money. An egregious example of this is Kids Wish Network (not to be confused with the Make-A-Wish Foundation), which raised $127.8 million in 2012 and spent $109.8 million on fundraising campaigns run by for-profit companies, some of which were owned by its retired Executive Director, spending fewer than 3% of its raised funds on wish granting--all legally. It's naive to assume an organization has non-profit motives just because they have a non-profit tax designation.

That said, I see no evidence that Mohonk Preserve is doing anything wrong here. On the contrary, they're winning awards as being one of the better-managed conservation organizations in the country.

june m wrote:

Years ago there was a free  place that we callecd the amc  campsite. The Was a cable across the road,  but it was not locked.  The Was an old building there. They said they were turning it in to a historic site, but they never did.  The real disappointment is that the campsite does not accommodate the amount of people who want to stay there(and only one car per site)

You're talking about what is now called the Van Lueven cabin. It is the last remaining structure of the Clove hamlet. It was indeed restored several years ago and now serves as an historical exhibit.  It is a wonder (and fortunate) that climbers bivying there decades ago didn't burn it down.

David Kerkeslager wrote:

I don't know if this was what Mr. Heckeler was trying to say, but I think there's a valid point to be made here, which is that nonprofits aren't always squeaky clean, and can be used to make money. An egregious example of this is Kids Wish Network (not to be confused with the Make-A-Wish Foundation), which raised $127.8 million in 2012 and spent $109.8 million on fundraising campaigns run by for-profit companies, some of which were owned by its retired Executive Director, spending fewer than 3% of its raised funds on wish granting--all legally. It's naive to assume an organization has non-profit motives just because they have a non-profit tax designation.

That said, I see no evidence that Mohonk Preserve is doing anything wrong here. On the contrary, they're winning awards as being one of the better-managed conservation organizations in the country.

And I wasn't clarifying as an accusation either.  But we can't throw around the 'not-for-profit' designation like a badge or purity test.

Someone mentioned earlier about preserve costs and what's in their budget.  You may shocked to know how large a percent goes into advertising (to get donations, memberships, etc).  At one point our household would get numerous mailers from the preserve asking for money and several regarding our memberships.  You figure they're sending this out to everyone on their books, so doing this frequently costs considerable amounts of money.  Not nearly as lob-sided as the Kids Wish Network example, but along the lines of not every penny goes directly into maintenance and bettering the visitor's experience.  The preserve is as much a money making machine as it is a conservation tool.  The usual argument is one begets the other.  As a conservation organization they get donations to assist with that, which in turn creates an infrastructure to maintain the things it conserves, which in turn creates a need for revenue to continue operations.  The larger the preserve gets the more money they need, as the value they're adding with the expenditure of money isn't a 1:1 ratio in generating new revenue, so existing sources of income are leveraged more aggressively.  This is why the fees go up and fliers are sent.  It's a product of growth.  It doesn't matter if any of us like it, there's no going backwards at this point for the Preserve.

Kevin Heckeler wrote:

But we can't throw around the 'not-for-profit' designation like a badge or purity test.

 It doesn't matter if any of us like it, there's no going backwards at this point for the Preserve.

I agree.

Well Come on mohonk preserve , wt@ does 17 dollars a day really get us then ? 

The preserve is more than a place to climb, bicyle, hike, etc.  Did you know, for instance, that scientist around the world rely an ecological data that the Conservation Science department(and Dan Smiley, before the MP was established) have collected over the years? And yes, part of your day fee goes into the pot which helps support that work. 

Did you know that the preserve donates membership cards to the local libraries, which allow those who take them out access to the preserve?  That twice a year the preserve offers the "Healthy Ulster" pass to any Ulster Country resident, a one month pass which gives preserve access to the holder? That they have a program that brings young students from a disadvantaged area to the preserve so those kids can spend a day in a safe environment, playing and learning that they are valued, and that the world is not entirely unsafe from gang/gun violence?

Yes, part of your day fee also goes to the support of those programs.

But if you don't care about those things, then it's really up to you to decide if the fee is an acceptable cost for your access to the place.  Attendance is not mandatory. 

http://mohonkpreserve.org/what-we-do

Kevin Heckeler wrote:

And I wasn't clarifying as an accusation either.  But we can't throw around the 'not-for-profit' designation like a badge or purity test.

Someone mentioned earlier about preserve costs and what's in their budget.  You may shocked to know how large a percent goes into advertising (to get donations, memberships, etc).  At one point our household would get numerous mailers from the preserve asking for money and several regarding our memberships.  You figure they're sending this out to everyone on their books, so doing this frequently costs considerable amounts of money.  Not nearly as lob-sided as the Kids Wish Network example, but along the lines of not every penny goes directly into maintenance and bettering the visitor's experience.  The preserve is as much a money making machine as it is a conservation tool.  The usual argument is one begets the other.  As a conservation organization they get donations to assist with that, which in turn creates an infrastructure to maintain the things it conserves, which in turn creates a need for revenue to continue operations.  The larger the preserve gets the more money they need, as the value they're adding with the expenditure of money isn't a 1:1 ratio in generating new revenue, so existing sources of income are leveraged more aggressively.  This is why the fees go up and fliers are sent.  It's a product of growth.  It doesn't matter if any of us like it, there's no going backwards at this point for the Preserve.

The idea of spending money on soliciting donations is that it shouldn't actually cost money--it should bring in more money than it costs. I don't necessarily agree with this philosophy--I have a rather negative view of advertising--but it's the prevailing philosophy, and I don't think the Preserve can be accused of mismanagement for following fairly standard nonprofit practices.

In case you missed it upthread, you should realize that entering the Preserve costs less than it did in the 80s. Yes, the dollar fee went up, but it went up less than inflation. Meanwhile, the Preserve provides much more in services than it did in the 80s--they're getting more efficient. So while the cycle of growth you're worried about, which we should be vigilant for, is a possibility, that's not what's happened.

S. Neoh wrote:

Pnelson wrote:

Oh, ok, I guess that by this logic ALL public lands are actually "for profit," since plenty of folks get paychecks working for and with the BLM, NPS, and NFS.  

Non-profit does not mean no salaries and no bills to be paid.

David Kerkeslager wrote:

In case you missed it upthread, you should realize that entering the Preserve costs less than it did in the 80s. Yes, the dollar fee went up, but it went up less than inflation. Meanwhile, the Preserve provides much more in services than it did in the 80s--they're getting more efficient. So while the cycle of growth you're worried about, which we should be vigilant for, is a possibility, that's not what's happened.

They're drawing much more revenue now than they ever have, so I'm not even sure what you mean by "they're getting more efficient".  Assuming the math regarding inflation is sound, the tepid rate of increasing access fee is a result of the increased number of visitors.  They're not doing more with less, they're doing more with more.

Once that number of visitors plateaus (an inevitability - the number of parking spaces alone determines much of that) things will get interesting for those who use the preserve and the preserve itself.  There's only one direction for the fees to go, the only power the preserve has is at what rate they increase.

Kevin Heckeler wrote:

Once that number of visitors plateaus (an inevitability - the number of parking spaces alone determines much of that) things will get interesting for those who use the preserve and the preserve itself.

Arguably that has already occurred. 

Here's something interesting I just found: https://www.guidestar.org/report/chartingimpact/507050356/mohonk-preserve.pdf