Mountain Project Logo

AAC campground Gunks

Jesse Laniak · · Minneapolis, MN · Joined Mar 2014 · Points: 10

So I am a member of the AAC and like the organization a lot but to be honest the installment of the campground hasn't improved my experience of the Gunks at all. In fact quite the opposite. With an increase in the daily pass (up to $20 rather then $16) in addition to overly priced camping in the AAC ($38) its now easily $100 to climb at the Gunks for a weekend. I understand the need for more camping arrangements but why make them so specialized (AAC member discount is THE ONLY time camping here makes sense) and at the expense of the MUA area? Lets be real guys, the opening of the AAC and the closing of the MUA were almost exactly at the same time. This was definitely done to drive business to the AAC. The MUA took no maintenance at all and honestly they probably spent more money moving those car sized boulders into the parking lot then they ever did "maintaining" the camp. It was a primitive location with no water and one outhouse. People came and went, brought their things with them and did so without damaging the surrounding area. Its really silly to be honest. why not just leave the camp open for those that want primitive camping options and then add the AAC for those that wan't something more posh? There would be less jenky parking jobs along the road because there would be more spots available between the two camps. I'm very unimpressed and disappointed in this decision. 

Marc801 C · · Sandy, Utah · Joined Feb 2014 · Points: 65
Jesse Laniak wrote:
Kevin Heckeler · · Las Vegas, NV · Joined Jul 2010 · Points: 1,616
Marc801 C wrote:

Adding some detail and clearing up some possible misconceptions....

1. If you have a Preserve membership - eg: annual climbing pass - you get the same discount as an AAC member, so that drops it to $24/night

2. An annual membership breaks even on day 6. It also costs less than a day of skiing at Vail or Aspen.

3. The two primary reasons for MUA closing were local opposition and NYS DEC not really wanting to deal with it anymore. It wasn't done to "drive business to the AAC" and the agreement with DEC was to close the MUA once a new campground was developed. This was in place long before the AAC became involved. At one time the new campground was going to be developed and run by the AMC. On the other side of the ridge.

All true.  Verified on snopes.com  :p

Rob D · · Queens, NY · Joined May 2011 · Points: 30
Marc801 C wrote:

It also costs less than a day of skiing at Vail or Aspen

The constant need of people justifying gunks prices to connect it to skiing is just a constant reminder that I will never be able to afford to ski. 

Marc801 C · · Sandy, Utah · Joined Feb 2014 · Points: 65
Rob D. wrote:

The constant need of people justifying gunks prices to connect it to skiing is just a constant reminder that I will never be able to afford to ski. 

I was using the full-freight walk-up ticket window price. Deals abound. Anyone who pays the full $135 is either nuts, independently wealthy, or doesn't know about the internet. 

Other common comparisons would be 18 holes of golf or a day at Disneyland, both of which are also more expensive.

However, skiing, even at the cheaper areas, will always be an expensive sport unless you go backcountry and skin up to your objectives.

I buy my annual pass at Alta. It's $1000 before mid September ($200 more after); a typical season for me is ~50 days. A full day pass is $85. The way I approach it is the first day is fucking expensive - the rest are free.

Rob D · · Queens, NY · Joined May 2011 · Points: 30

I just think it's a silly way to talk about climbing costs at the gunks.  Climbing isn't skiing just like climbing isn't going to disneyworld and climbing isn't skydiving.  Climbing is free most places, and camping is cheap.  I think the preserve is wonderful and happily pay to use their land.  I think the campground is expensive and begrudgingly look for places I can afford.  

mbk · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jul 2013 · Points: 0

I am willing to pay to have a reserved site, clean bathrooms, warm shower, drinking water, etc.

Given those requirements, IMO the AAC Campground is an excellent value relative to other nearby campgrounds with similar amenities (Yogi Bear, Creek View, ...).

If you don't want/value those things, then perhaps other options would be better for you.

divnamite · · New York, NY · Joined Aug 2007 · Points: 90
Marc801 C wrote:

I was using the full-freight walk-up ticket window price. Deals abound. Anyone who pays the full $135 is either nuts, independently wealthy, or doesn't know about the internet. 

Other common comparisons would be 18 holes of golf or a day at Disneyland, both of which are also more expensive.

However, skiing, even at the cheaper areas, will always be an expensive sport unless you go backcountry and skin up to your objectives.

I buy my annual pass at Alta. It's $1000 before mid September ($200 more after); a typical season for me is ~50 days. A full day pass is $85. The way I approach it is the first day is fucking expensive - the rest are free.

The operating cost of ski resort is substantially more than the Gunks. No matter how you spin it, there is nothing alike.

I'm a pass holder at the Reserve, and I support them the best I can. But I'll be perfectly honest, I'm pissed that they couldn't come up with a basic/affordable ($10/night) campground themselves and offload the problem to AAC and public land.

Pnelson · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jan 2015 · Points: 635
Marc801 C wrote:

3. The two primary reasons for MUA closing were local opposition and NYS DEC not really wanting to deal with it anymore. It wasn't done to "drive business to the AAC" and the agreement with DEC was to close the MUA once a new campground was developed. This was in place long before the AAC became involved. At one time the new campground was going to be developed and run by the AMC. On the other side of the ridge.

Having worked for the AAC managing one of their other campgrounds and having firsthand experience with their finances and operations, I've got to say it's hilarious when people start getting all conspiracy-theorist about their deep-moneyed plans to establish national monopolies or whatever.  They're not that rich or well-organized.

Alissa Doherty · · Boulder, CO · Joined Oct 2012 · Points: 60
mbk wrote:

I am willing to pay to have a reserved site, clean bathrooms, warm shower, drinking water, etc.

Given those requirements, IMO the AAC Campground is an excellent value relative to other nearby campgrounds with similar amenities (Yogi Bear, Creek View, ...).

If you don't want/value those things, then perhaps other options would be better for you.

I think that may be the point. Many climbers (most even?) do not value those things and were very happy to utilize Slime or MUA. When these alternatives were shut down, priority over visiting climbers was given to those who are willing and able to pay for amenities. 

That said, there are other free, legal camping options to be found near the Gunks with a little research and creativity. Some don't even require much of walk. 

FWIW, I am willing to pay a fair price for camping at a maintained campground. However, I am not willing to make reservations weeks in advance when I will lose that money in the event of rain. I think the cancellation policy is the biggest problem here and could absolutely be improved without operating at a loss. As it stands, the campground has created a sub-market for climbers to barter sites which is no way to serve the community. I think that the policy does little but bolster the campground's bottom line and needs to be re-assessed.

Jesse Laniak · · Minneapolis, MN · Joined Mar 2014 · Points: 10
Marc801 C wrote:

Adding some detail and clearing up some possible misconceptions....

1. If you have a Preserve membership - eg: annual climbing pass - you get the same discount as an AAC member, so that drops it to $24/night

2. An annual membership breaks even on day 6. It also costs less than a day of skiing at Vail or Aspen.

3. The two primary reasons for MUA closing were local opposition and NYS DEC not really wanting to deal with it anymore. It wasn't done to "drive business to the AAC" and the agreement with DEC was to close the MUA once a new campground was developed. This was in place long before the AAC became involved. At one time the new campground was going to be developed and run by the AMC. On the other side of the ridge.

1) Right but for people who have to travel for 3-4 hours from Boston or other areas in New England its hard to make this happen 3-4 weekends consistently every year. and still $24 is more then you would pay at Camp 4 in the heart of Yosemite Valley. 

2) Why why why in the world would you ever justify high gunks prices because Vail and Aspen are expensive? Climbing and skiing are completely different sports. The overhead for gondolas, slope grooming etc is astronomical. This is the silliest justification I have ever heard and speaks to how out of touch people are about this. When climbing at the Gunks you bring your own gear, take your own risks and do your own thing. There isn't cappuccinos waiting for you on top of the Gondola. 

3) The MUA closed down and the AAC opened literally the same season. What was the NYS DEC tired of dealing with? The one outhouse? Why not develop a new campground of equal stature (free or cheap) rather than something overpriced and predatory against travelers / non-locals. And c'mon the home owners were tired of the noise? Then why was the AAC built literally right next to the MUA. The same noise is going to travel to the abject home owners and its gonna be more loud because the campground is bigger then the MUA

Its fine to open a new nice campground but not if you are taking away free campground after free campground to do so. The membership discount etc are just further points that this was not done with traveling climbers in mind. Plus the no cancellation policy is ridiculous. 

Pnelson · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jan 2015 · Points: 635

All of this complaining is apparently missing a really obvious fact: the greater NYC area is really expensive because of its high population.  It's simple economics; supply and demand.

Camping is going to be expensive because there are tons of people who want to camp.  There aren't a lot of campgrounds because property is expensive and even campgrounds in less populated, cheaper land areas often barely turn a profit.  

The only reason the AAC is charging their current prices is because they have the full advantage of state partnership and nonprofit, tax exempt status.  The prices are ONLY for covering operating costs and caretaker salaries.  MUA and Slime closing as soon as the AAC opens is really not that different than a free campsite starting to charge fees due to increased use.  Climbing is getting more popular and NYC has the highest population in the nation.

If you're complaining about the cost to camp and climb at the Gunks, just try to imagine how much it would cost if the current political administration's objectives of privatizing public land and moving more outdoor rec to a profit-driven model were to come true there.  

Marc801 C · · Sandy, Utah · Joined Feb 2014 · Points: 65
Jesse Laniak wrote:

1) Right but for people who have to travel for 3-4 hours from Boston or other areas in New England its hard to make this happen 3-4 weekends consistently every year. 

Nonsense. Not if they're serious about climbing. When I was a regular at the Gunks, other regulars that were there every weekend from early March to Thanksgiving, came from Boston, Rhode Island, southern NH, DC, and Philadelphia. John Stannard drove up from Silver Spring Maryland every weekend.  

and still $24 is more then you would pay at Camp 4 in the heart of Yosemite Valley. 

Invalid comparison. You need to compare to the local pay campgrounds in the area.

2) Why why why in the world would you ever justify high gunks prices because Vail and Aspen are expensive? Climbing and skiing are completely different sports. The overhead for gondolas, slope grooming etc is astronomical. This is the silliest justification I have ever heard and speaks to how out of touch people are about this. When climbing at the Gunks you bring your own gear, take your own risks and do your own thing. There isn't cappuccinos waiting for you on top of the Gondola. 

A lot of climbers actually participate in other outdoor activities <gasp>. The only reason for bringing up the ski, Disney, or golf analogies is to point out what a relative bargain the Gunks represent.  

3) The MUA closed down and the AAC opened literally the same season. What was the NYS DEC tired of dealing with? The one outhouse? Why not develop a new campground of equal stature (free or cheap) rather than something overpriced and predatory against travelers / non-locals.

See the post from JSH. Basically, the DEC doesn't want to be in the campground business, nor does the Preserve.

And c'mon the home owners were tired of the noise? Then why was the AAC built literally right next to the MUA. The same noise is going to travel to the abject home owners and its gonna be more loud because the campground is bigger then the MUA

 And c'mon the home owners were tired of the noise? Then why was the AAC built literally right next to the MUA. The same noise is going to travel to the abject home owners and its gonna be more loud because the campground is bigger then the MUA

But holds less people, has a caretaker, and doesn't attract transients and people intent on partying in the woods. Yes, the noise will travel - if there is noise.

Its fine to open a new nice campground but not if you are taking away free campground after free campground to do so. The membership discount etc are just further points that this was not done with traveling climbers in mind. Plus the no cancellation policy is ridiculous. 

I agree with the need for free or ultra low-cost options. The Preserve wanted to close slime ever since the 80's and it was NYDEC that wanted to close the MUA and both wanted someone else to build and manage any new campground.

divnamite · · New York, NY · Joined Aug 2007 · Points: 90
Pnelson wrote:

All of this complaining is apparently missing a really obvious fact: the greater NYC area is really expensive because of its high population.  It's simple economics; supply and demand.

Camping is going to be expensive because there are tons of people who want to camp.  There aren't a lot of campgrounds because property is expensive and even campgrounds in less populated, cheaper land areas often barely turn a profit.  

The only reason the AAC is charging their current prices is because they have the full advantage of state partnership and nonprofit, tax exempt status.  The prices are ONLY for covering operating costs and caretaker salaries.  MUA and Slime closing as soon as the AAC opens is really not that different than a free campsite starting to charge fees due to increased use.  Climbing is getting more popular and NYC has the highest population in the nation.

If you're complaining about the cost to camp and climb at the Gunks, just try to imagine how much it would cost if the current political administration's objectives of privatizing public land and moving more outdoor rec to a profit-driven model were to come true there.  

Gunks is already private land (Monhonk Preserve).

Pnelson · · Unknown Hometown · Joined Jan 2015 · Points: 635
divnamite wrote:

Gunks is already private land (Monhonk Preserve).

Yes,  private non-profit.  Which is why I clarified "private, profit-driven models" in my statement that you took the time to quote.

divnamite · · New York, NY · Joined Aug 2007 · Points: 90
Pnelson wrote:

Yes,  private non-profit.  Which is why I clarified "private, profit-driven models" in my statement that you took the time to quote.

Since it's already private, I don't see why you would bother comparing to the Trump is doing. You are basically saying "stop your bitching and be glad it's not turning into a fracking site" when it's never going to be turned into fracking site.

Kevin Heckeler · · Las Vegas, NV · Joined Jul 2010 · Points: 1,616

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.

M Mobley · · Bar Harbor, ME · Joined Mar 2006 · Points: 911

Damn, just 7 years ago when I was regularly crashing at the gunks I never saw a soul at slime. Maybe on a Saturday night one or two? The parking lots were being abused but slime was almost always empty. What happened?

James Sweeney · · Roselle Park, NJ · Joined Oct 2013 · Points: 30

 Gyms.

 And the entitlements were handed out.

  

Rob D · · Queens, NY · Joined May 2011 · Points: 30
James Sweeney wrote:

 Gyms.

 And the entitlements were handed out.

It's easy to say that, but even the season before slime closed I was there for almost the entire summer and it was clean (if not cleaner) than most other campgrounds.  The land was almost certainly being impacted, but I rarely saw trash anywhere and most climbers there were silent at night.  

I know it's easy to blame young people and gyms for everything, but slime was an awesome resource at the preserve that was removed while the cost of the membership went up.  That's life, and I get that complaining isn't going to solve much, but it still stings.  I love the preserve and happily pay the annual fee, but as others have noted, the cost of climbing and camping at the gunks reserves climbing for a select few.  If the term "entitled" can be handed out to anyone in this situation, it's clearly those that are entitled enough to be able to afford camping at the AAC with any regularity. 

Guideline #1: Don't be a jerk.

Northeastern States
Post a Reply to "AAC campground Gunks"

Log In to Reply

Join the Community

Create your FREE account today!
Already have an account? Login to close this notice.

Get Started.