The Gunks are way worthy!

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.

" I noticed they charge climbers more than any other user group for the annual pass which I think is pretty lame."

Not that hard to figure out why...

Probably any place whose owners would like to build some sort of protection against the heightened liability of having climbers on their land...

Ben Brotelho wrote:Probably any place whose owners would like to build some sort of protection against the heightened liability of having climbers on their land...

Don't we sign a waiver when we purchase a day/season pass as climbers that the Preserve is not liable in any way for whatever might go wrong?

A waiver is only a defense, it definitely doesn't stop people from suing the Preserve and crafting some creative legal arguments to get around the waiver. Even a close-and-shut case involving a death covered under the waiver would cost the preserve money, even if that cost is just the price of an attorney to look over the case.

Kevin Heckeler wrote: Don't we sign a waiver when we purchase a day/season pass as climbers that the Preserve is not liable in any way for whatever might go wrong?

Any waiver can be litigated which is sometimes more expensive than a settlement.

Happiegrrrl wrote: 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.

I don't think people's value of a land is determined or effected by the cost to use the resource. It's more the composition of the population is affected by the fee costs. And the actions you identify are a component of the values of that 'class' or educational level. Think order of needs principles.

Keven Heckeler wrote:Don't we sign a waiver when we purchase a day/season pass as climbers that the Preserve is not liable in any way for whatever might go wrong?

Yes, but in our litigious society, the Preserve has to carry insurance anyway because of climbing activity. Even if a climber has signed a waiver, they can still sue if they can argue that their accident was due to negligence on the part of the Preserve. To get an idea of just how far these notions can be stretched, Minnewaska State Park was sued by someone who picked up and handled a copperhead which, unsurprisingly, bit him. This person claimed that the park had failed to post signs warning that there were poisonous snakes. Even when such suits fail, as this one did, there are still legal costs involved in defending them.

Although there are some who doubt this, the Mountain House has consistently claimed that the ban of climbing at Skytop is due to prohibitive insurance costs, waivers or no.

The Preserve also maintains a trained and equipped technical rescue crew. The personnel have to be paid, their training has to be paid for, and equipment has to be purchased and maintained. These are all expenses incurred because of climbing, so it is not unreasonable to ask climbers, who will be very quick to call for help when something goes wrong, to help defray those expenses.

This at least partially explains why the Preserve charges climbers more than other users. As for the amount of that fee, I'm personally long past contributing to the teapot tempest. The arguments have been made and explanations given over and over again. The area is crowded and doesn't need additional climbers. There is no god-given right to climb on privately owned land. There is absolutely no prospect of a state or federal takeover. It is what it is; take it or leave it.

I always thought the fee was for matinence and rescue if a climber needed it. I dunno I could be wrong though

word of the day: litigious.

rgold wrote: The Preserve also maintains a trained and equipped technical rescue crew. The personnel have to be paid, their training has to be paid for, and equipment has to be purchased and maintained. These are all expenses incurred because of climbing, so it is not unreasonable to ask climbers, who will be very quick to call for help when something goes wrong, to help defray those expenses. This at least partially explains why the Preserve charges climbers more than other users.

So any speculation why bikers also lumped into the climber's high fee category? They don't need rescue that I'm aware of... and I would think that point would negate the above argument.

I can't help with that one in terms of real knowledge, but fortunately only speculation was called for.

The might be insurance considerations. Given that large sections of carriage road have totally unprotected drop-offs, I'd guess the potential for lawsuits from bikers who go over the edge is considerable. And the rescue situation is not totally clear-cut. A few years ago, a biker went over a cliff at Minnewaska and died. Extraction would have required a technical rescue if the biker had lived and did, I think, involve a technical retrieval in any case.

Another potential source of insurance concerns when walkers and bikers share trails is pedestrian injuries, which then can be blamed on the Preserve for either allowing biking at all or else for failing to properly control biker's speeding.

I ain't wading into the fee issues other than to say it is ridiculously high and one reason I much prefer other areas in the east.

Back to the OT, the climbing is pretty good, but there are many, many areas in the east I'd rate above the Gunks. Maybe for the 5.n00b contingent it can't be beat, but for people who can actually pull a little bit, it's good but not great.

You want roofs? Great rock quality? Anything in the cumberland plateau/cumberland mtn belt. Chattanooga blows New Paltz away from a climbing perspective. Same for WV.

Rgold, damn you for reminding me of how horrible our society is/can be (not that I don't get daily reminders). There should be a penalty against those filing frivolous law suits. I know in my line of work there's an overhead for keeping a million in liability coverage. Can imagine that number would be higher for the Preserve, and yes legal fees suck. I'm sure if they weren't rolling in it one of the many climbing lawyers would handle those cases pro-bono.

Kevin Heckeler, champion for tort reform!

But really this society sucks, people sue when they spill hot coffee, trespassers win lawsuits against private landowners when they get hurt on their property...etc.

Will S wrote:I ain't wading into the fee issues other than to say it is ridiculously high and one reason I much prefer other areas in the east. Back to the OT, the climbing is pretty good, but there are many, many areas in the east I'd rate above the Gunks. Maybe for the 5.n00b contingent it can't be beat, but for people who can actually pull a little bit, it's good but not great. You want roofs? Great rock quality? Anything in the cumberland plateau/cumberland mtn belt. Chattanooga blows New Paltz away from a climbing perspective. Same for WV.

Have you only climbed at the Trapps? There is a whole lot more to the climbing at the Gunks than just the most popular areas. The is also a surprisingly wide variety in the aspect, feel and steepness of the rock at the many assorted crags. There are many great climbing areas throughout the country, but very few can even begin to rival what the gunks has to offer. I've been climbing there for almost 20 years and I still continue to find areas that I have not climbed at that offer amazing routes, rock quality and settings. Not sure why people always feel the need to bash certain areas to make other places sound great. Just being out climbing anywhere is a great day .

Ben Brotelho wrote:Kevin Heckeler, champion for tort reform! But really this society sucks, people sue when they spill hot coffee, trespassers win lawsuits against private landowners when they get hurt on their property...etc.

Actually, the famous McDonald's Coffee lawsuit was pretty legit. There's plenty of info online about it, but cracked.com is the most entertaining:

cracked.com/article_19150_6…

Kevin Heckeler wrote:I'm sure if they weren't rolling in it one of the many climbing lawyers would handle those cases pro-bono.

How is it that you can be so "sure" of such a thing, Kevin? Let me ask, over the years, how many medium-sized and larger non-profit groups have you worked closely in, in a manner that you would have at least a glimpse of an insider's view as to how operations work?

Happiegrrrl wrote: How is it that you can be so "sure" of such a thing, Kevin? Let me ask, over the years, how many medium-sized and larger non-profit groups have you worked closely in, in a manner that you would have at least a glimpse of an insider's view as to how operations work?

How do you know I'm wrong? I thought you said you had no intimate knowledge of the inner workings of the Preserve and you weren't here as their spokesman?

[I've been on the board/cofounder of one 501c (as was Val), no longer a functioning corporation... and we did happen to receive much assistance for free from a very generous small firm who were sympathetic to our cause, but that wasn't even the reason I posted that]

I ask how you can be so sure of that statement for two reasons, and I was not inferring I had knowledge of MP inner workings. I have been involved with 4 n-f-p's, each responsible for millions of dollars, one of which was an international organization, and one, though locally based, that ran a program which was a model used in developing nations((not considering MP in this number as the only insight I have into their daily activity is talking with people when I am out and about, pretty much friendly banter).

The first reason I suggest it is a rather bold statement to make is that even though there may be a number of climbers at the Gunks who practice law, the majority of them are very likely not in the niche which would be applicable. A real estate attorney, someone who specializes in intellectual property rights or divorce/custody issues would not be, for instance, when it comes to climbing issues.

That reduces the number of potential offering attornies considerably. I am guessing(and could be wrong) that someone who is working with a firm doesn't necessarily get to decide which entities they will be providing free services to, which would reduce the number further. Again, I may be completely off base here. But if so, then it would really need to be a partner in a firm who makes the decision to offer this service, which further reduces the available options.

On the preserve side, I would guess there have been offers of pro bono legal work over the years, but have to wonder if it would be the responsible way to act, considering all that is potentially at stake, to not retain the very best legal services at their disposal. You brought up this point after someone posted " the heightened liability of having climbers on their land," after all. The subject wasn't referring to someone getting their finger nicked as they put trash in the bin.

And your comment about "if they weren't loaded" came directly in response to a post by another about a bicyclist who had perished, which would probably be a wrongful death suit - extremely serious. To even use the term "frivolous lawsuit" (as you did infer, saying there should be a penalty, directly in response to that post) is such a case is - bizarre. Perhaps you didn't realize that is how your statement came off, that you were thinking more of the copperhead bite. But if we go aback to the "climbing lawyers" and "heightened liability of having climbers on lands," the original statement that brought you to make your claim - these are not in any way shape or form, "frivolous lawsuits."

The preserve is dedicated, and legally responsible, to protect the lands and assets which members like yourself and many, many others, have entrusted them to. I think of some of the climbing accidents I know of over the years and can't for the life of me imagine it would be appropriate, or remotely feasible, to be using pro bono legal services at this level.

Maybe I am completely off base in my thinking. I know very few lawyers, and don't tend to talk shop with those I have met. Perhaps there are some in the field who will comment on this topic.

But also, perhaps a better option would be to let this thread revert back to "Gunks are Way Worthy!" posts, and create a thread specifically addressing the points you repeatedly have been bringing up whenever someone does post about the place.