DOUBLETOP AND GRAHAM PERMANENTLY CLOSED

[DSettahr]

I think that hikers used to be a group that you could more easily say does no harm. Hikers today are not the hikers of yesteryear, and that's not just because of numbers. There is out-of-control use of microspikes in the seasons that should be easier on the land. Microspikes can be limited, but the user is not self-limiting the way they should. So, what is a landowner to do? What is the DEC to do with the rest of the Catskills, as they are the land manager of the rest? So far, nothing. The numbers of hikers, though, does require this issue to be addressed, even more so. Factors that cause issues... Unfortunately, some issues are never addressed, just accepted.

As an addition to this thought, hiking clubs should address this also, in my opinion. But, like DSettahr said, hikers don't do self-regulation. The product is out there, so..., what can be done?

Actually, it would have to be micro-spike police, just like the snowshoe police, that we have out there. So, its really just an attitude shift. Good luck with that, though... I'm only one. It takes more than one to make a shift. Its easier to state the problem, than to actually do anything about it, unfortunately. So here we are, no more Graham and Doubletop.

There's definitely multiple facets to the issue, for sure. Like you say, numbers are a part of the overall problem but there are other components that contribute to the overall issues. The issues we see at hand are undoubtedly the product of intersectionality of many contributing factors (and if numbers alone were the only issue it'd be buttloads easier to address).

I think another part of the overall situation (lack of self-regulation) is that patch challenges generally seem to attract what is often the most difficult type of hiker to educate- the hiker that over-estimates their own overall level of knowledge/skill regarding outdoor recreation. These are hikers that have gained some hard skills (knowledge of their own physical limits, experience with using gear, etc.) yet are still lacking in many of the soft skills (awareness of the importance of LNT and how to implement it, risk assessment and management, etc.). They are truly no longer beginners but they also don't yet have the experience and knowledge necessary to understand just how much further the spectrum of outdoor knowledge can go. All too often, ego gets in the way here- to be receptive to feedback is to acknowledge that their existing belief that they are an "expert" is in error. Easier to just assume that one is in the right and that any external critique is wrong.

You see a lot of defensiveness on social media especially whenever anyone is called out- to the extent that some folks see fit to defend that specific social media community in it's entirety. All too often when issues like this one crop up and someone suggests "hey everyone, we need to be better about this as a community," you inevitably see a response along the lines of "the members of this Facebook group aren't a part of that problem." It's super problematic because it's never true to begin with, and it absolves that entire specific social media community of any responsibility for addressing the problem and furthers the belief that they are all experts who are immune to critical feedback.

I don't mean to gatekeep hiking by any means- It doesn't take a genius to be able to understand this stuff, and it is accessible to anyone willing to put forth a minimal amount of effort into gaining that knowledge. But there is a learning curve when it comes to doing it responsibly, and it's more of a curve than many who are closer to the outset of their hiking career realize. And for what it is worth, there are two sides of the coin here- when it comes to providing feedback and education, not every hiker with the experience to give it is always great about how they choose to deliver the message. A message can be necessary and relevant but if it is delivered in an unreasonably accusatory manner, then I wouldn't blame anyone for choosing not to listen.

[TFR]

If I can get LIDAR data for Mill Brook, I'll post here.

According to LIDAR, Mill Brook is 3465'.

Other food for thought:

Graham Mountain at the state land boundary is ~ 3600'. But then again, the temptation to continue to the top would be great, imho.

https://caltopo.com/map.html#ll=42.0...176&z=17&b=mbt

[Dave Bourque]

Just wondering, if the Club decides to add Mill Brook to the requirements, would they also be changing the Club's name to the "Catskill 3465 Club"?

[TFR]

Just wondering, if the Club decides to add Mill Brook to the requirements, would they also be changing the Club's name to the "Catskill 3465 Club"?

I can't see either one of those things happening, but I'm only a past-president, no longer have a vote on the exec committee.

But then again, it they are going to change the list permanently, I would think that requires a change to the charter, and the general membership has to approve that. (Never mind the OR/AND problem, or Rocky = 3487')