When is the Gunks Reopening ?

Brassmonkey wrote:

In case you haven't heard, its not as deadly as they previously thought, not as contagious as they previously thought, cases and deaths are dropping significantly, and more importantly, life will continue regardless and this disease isn't just going to disappear not matter how much social distancing people do.  Time to come back to reality.

Any other questions?

I'm sure this is a big comfort to the families of the 100,000+ who have died.

Brassmonkey wrote:

I actually have to work, imagine that, so I don't have time to give you a whole dissertation; but here is one article:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/05/28/863944333/antibody-tests-point-to-lower-death-rate-for-the-coronavirus-than-first-thought

Two quotes from the article  illustrating some of the flawed reasoning involved in citing it.

In other words, the virus is about as dangerous as at least some experts were predicting.  Sometimes you have to read more than the headlines...

"But even a virus with a fatality rate less than 1% presents a formidable threat."

So forget about the argument that potential rescue crews have nothing to worry about.

If the Preserve doesn't send out a PSA about climbing pass extensions once climbing is reopened, I'll be really surprised. 

they already have. passes will be extended for as many months as the Preserve is closed. I received a letter in the mail a couple weeks ago.

JRZane wrote:

they already have. passes will be extended for as many months as the Preserve is closed. I received a letter in the mail a couple weeks ago.

But that doesn't address the climbing issue. The Preserve is no longer closed, but climbing is prohibited. If that continues to be the case for another 3 months, will they add an extra 3 months extensions for climbers? They haven't addressed that. 

rgold wrote:

Two quotes from the article  illustrating some of the flawed reasoning involved in citing it.

"And the revised estimates support an early prediction by Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a leading member of the White House coronavirus task force."

In other words, the virus is about as dangerous as at least some experts were predicting.  Sometimes you have to read more than the headlines...

"But even a virus with a fatality rate less than 1% presents a formidable threat."

So forget about the argument that potential rescue crews have nothing to worry about.

Agreed. I am volunteer EMT with Gardiner Fire, we respond to rescue calls alongside Mohonk Rangers at the cliff. We have a small amount of members on whom our small community depends and right about now we don't need to lose a functioning crew because people can't wait a little longer to climb. As a board member for the GCC I can also reaffirm that the majority of rescues at the gunks are climbing-related, and those rescues are not easy to maintain proper isolation - whether rangers, volunteers carrying litters, or rescue professionals. Some climber takes a header and needs an airway or a collar - good luck with that while maintaining safe distance.

john2.71 wrote:

That makes sense, but it's not what the preserve has stated. They haven't given a reason for forbidding climbing, and they haven't offered criteria for re-opening.

It is, however, a major component of what Preserve policy-makers are thinking, and if they have not themselves published the details of their deliberations (I don't think anyone would while they are still actively evaluating what to do), several people with partial knowledge have posted here and on FB in the Gunks Climbing Partners group that concerns about exposing Preserve staff, rescuers in particular but others as well, and the reality of being under-staffed because rescue personnel are also involved in local EMT work is one of the things the Preserve is wrestling with as they try to do what is best for everyone.

john2.71 wrote:

Are you saying the criteria for re-opening is the availability of a vaccine?

If it is (hypothetically), it shouldn't be.  Not everyone will get it even once its available, partly due to what is expected to be somewhat limited availability and the historically slow/sloppy manner in which this administration gets anything meaningful accomplished.  The other issue -- as citizens, we are not legally obligated to get the vaccine.  Some will choose not to, perhaps because they already had the antibody test and have antibodies (that could provide protection for a year or two if this virus ends up being similar to previous viruses) or because the prevalence of the virus by that time (say Winter 2021) is very low.  Or because they're tinfoil helmet wearing antivaxxers.

Unless the vaccine is required and some type of card proving vaccination/antibodies was mandated by the Preserve, there's going to be some tough decisions needing to be made related to whether rescue is even an option or whether precautions can be taken to adequately protect the rescuers.  Perhaps moving rescue personnel to the front of the vaccine line would be warranted.  I certainly hope they do this for medical professionals.  Until then, there's going to be risk to rescuers no matter what.

Just curious if anyone knows how often a rescue or EMT call occurs at the Gunks for climbers.  (not calls for hikers, bikers, etc).

Brandon A wrote: Just curious if anyone knows how often a rescue or EMT call occurs at the Gunks for climbers.  (not calls for hikers, bikers, etc).

Yes, this is published in ANAC every year. In 2018 (as publised in last year's journal) there were 23 climbing-related accidents reported. 13 required technical rescue.

john2.71 wrote:

Are you saying the criteria for re-opening is the availability of a vaccine?

No, I'm not saying that.  But I won't climb if I feel the risk is on the higher side of my risk-return curve.  And I won't participate in rescues if I don't.

And I'm grateful to the Preserve leadership for their evaluation and care.

Time will sort out a lot of this.  There will be a certain percentage of us who already have antibodies and who will not be transmitting the illness.  There will be others who stop climbing because they were ill and have not adequately recovered.  If we find out how to identify carriers, or if there is a vaccine, then some of us will participate.

In the same way that there are those who decline rubella vaccinations, I'm sure there will be those who decline this.  I just won't support them in those decisions.  I will probably be vaccinated eventually, and I will eventually climb.  Not in that order.

Bryce Adamson wrote:

Yes, this is published in ANAC every year. In 2018 (as published in last year's journal) there were 23 climbing-related accidents reported. 13 required technical rescue.

And of course, that does not include the accidents where the climber chose not to report the accident or perhaps did not require ranger attention because of the mild severity of the injuries.

To continue about concerns the Preserve might (or ought to) have, the relaxing of the lockdown in the UK has resulted in number of people flocking to the outdoors in considerable excess of historic levels, and many of these people (68% in a Lakes District survey) would not normally have come, and many are first-time visitors with little or no outdoor experience.  There has been a rash of fires, packed parking that would have made it impossible for emergency vehicles to get to some places, and more than four times as many emergency crew call-outs as during the same two-week period a year ago.  Something analogous happened with parking at the Preserve over the weekend, with cars parked along 44-55 underneath the Uberfall down to the hairpin turn and in various places on the Clove Road.  

So what the Preserve has to contend with---in the presence of a staff shortage---is not necessarily a simple return to normal, but rather the possibility of a significant surge above usual levels, with potential dangers caused by illegal parking and the increased load on local police in trying to handle that safely, in addition to what is happening on the land itself.  The same type of surge might be true for climbing too, since Powerlinz, Peterskill, Rumney, Farley, and Thacher are all closed as far as I know and climbers who might have used those locales will see a reopened Gunks as their only option.

All of this is outside speculation on my part; I have no idea what Preserve policy folks are thinking at this point.  But factoring in the potential problems mentioned above would certainly be intelligent and responsible planning.

SMarsh wrote:

And of course, that does not include the accidents where the climber chose not to report the accident or perhaps did not require ranger attention because of the mild severity of the injuries.

Just to be clear, unlike accident data from other areas, those numbers are reported by the preserve, not individual climbers, and include all accidents that required ranger attention.

john2.71 wrote:

That makes sense, but it's not what the preserve has stated. They haven't given a reason for forbidding climbing, and they haven't offered criteria for re-opening.

No, you just haven’t been paying attention.

Damn, you kids are still bitching about the Preserve not opening for climbing?

probably when NY is not having over 1K new cases a day and still over 50 deaths a day. 

RJ Bwrote:

Ahhh I see. Misinterpreted your statement but understand now.

If the Preserve doesn't send out a PSA about climbing pass extensions once climbing is reopened, I'll be really surprised. 

Appreciated!

I think a partial forgiveness with time to extend passes once the climbing is re-opened is fair.

I do completely understand the need to keep it closed still due to safety as well.

JRZanewrote:

they already have. passes will be extended for as many months as the Preserve is closed. I received a letter in the mail a couple weeks ago.

That's great news! 

No letter received here yet though.

Are there others who've received a letter stating this?

This is from a Mohonk Preserve email sent May 18th.

"Please remember that due to the temporary closure, we are extending Preserve memberships with an expiration date after March 2020 by two months."

No mention of any extra extension for climbers.

Paul Wwrote: This is from a Mohonk Preserve email sent May 18th.

"Please remember that due to the temporary closure, we are extending Preserve memberships with an expiration date after March 2020 by two months."

No mention of any extra extension for climbers.

From the keeping perspective files: a two month closure "costs" the same as a martini at a Vegas strip casino. (IE: ~$17)