Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DOUBLETOP AND GRAHAM PERMANENTLY CLOSED

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • TFR
    replied
    Originally posted by Dave Bourque View Post
    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')

    Leave a comment:


  • Dave Bourque
    replied
    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"?

    Leave a comment:


  • TFR
    replied
    Originally posted by TFR View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • DSettahr
    replied
    Originally posted by CatskillKev View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • TFR
    replied
    Originally posted by Dave Bourque View Post
    Below is a copy of the email that I sent to the Catskill 3500 Club Executive Board. The reply I received was very clear that a decision has not been made and dropping the list to 33 peaks is being considered....
    PS. If at some point Millbrook Ridge is confirmed to be over 3500', then that would be the appropriate time to add it to the list, not now.
    If I can get LIDAR data for Mill Brook, I'll post here.

    Leave a comment:


  • TFR
    replied
    Originally posted by CatskillKev View Post
    Should being close to Gould land be a problem?
    It shouldn't be, but it could be. The temptation to go to the real peak would be great.

    Leave a comment:


  • CatskillKev
    replied
    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.
    Last edited by CatskillKev; 01-17-2021, 07:27 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dave Bourque
    replied
    Below is a copy of the email that I sent to the Catskill 3500 Club Executive Board. The reply I received was very clear that a decision has not been made and dropping the list to 33 peaks is being considered.

    I submit that the Catskill 3500 Club should consider just making the list 33 peaks. When I finished my first round you were only required to climb 34 peaks (SW Hunter did not count) so the Club already has the precedent of not having a “cozy” 35 peaks over 3500’ for admission. The mountain criteria was ALWAYS that the peak had to be 3500’ tall. Stay with that requirement. Future members should only have to climb 33 peaks. As you mentioned there are already examples of hikers using shortcuts across private land to get to South Doubletop. To be clear, adding South Doubletop to our list will only encourage people to cross private land regardless of the possibility of prosecution. We should steer clear of this area. And adding Millbrook Ridge will only cause trampling to this seldom visited area. The Club would be promoting the creation of more herd paths as not all hikers would use established trails. Is that what we really want? If and when access to Doubletop and Graham are re-established, they can be added back on to the list. Finishers with 33 summits would be grandfathered in as was done when SW Hunter was added. For the record, when SW Hunter was added, I promptly climbed it to be “whole”. I am aware that Rocky is now considered under 3500’. This peak was thought to be over 3500’ (when I have climbed it) but new measurements have lost a few feet. Sticking with tradition, the peak is rightfully grandfathered in as the Adirondack 46ers have done with Blake, Couch, Cliff and Nye. With Rocky there is no issue with private land so this is not a problem. There is nothing wrong with using the old elevation data. I encourage you not to “water down” our 3500’ criteria by knowingly adding peaks that do not meet our criteria. There is no reason the number has to be 35.

    Respectfully,
    Dave Bourque
    #468
    #533w

    PS. If at some point Millbrook Ridge is confirmed to be over 3500’ then that would be the appropriate time to add it to the list, not now.

    Leave a comment:


  • eleventhgear
    commented on 's reply
    Whoops, you're right. I meant Rocky.

  • DSettahr
    replied
    I figured this outcome was likely sooner or later given the publicized issues with trespassers/groups showing up without permission. As we've seen elsewhere, whenever a popular hike starts to see issues to the extent that threats are made to close off access if the hiking community doesn't work to correct the problem behaviors... the hiking community is inevitably unable to self-regulate. (I can't help but see parallels between this situation and the situation at Glen Onoko Falls in PA, even if the specifics were a bit different there.)

    (And to be clear, by "hiking community" I mean hikers in general, not those dedicated to and heavily involved with the 3500 club, who I know were doing what they could to try to protect this area and preserve public access.)

    Like I posted over on ADKForum, I don't doubt that the AllTrails generation shoulders some of the responsibility for this... why do research on a hike in advance when all you need to do is pull up the map on your phone at the trailhead?

    Leave a comment:


  • CatskillKev
    commented on 's reply
    You're right about sending the masses to whichever gets added to the list. Maybe irresponsible to add anything. Maybe subtract the list altogether, but I know the theory is some other opportunist will start it right back up. Lots of hikers hungry for attention out there.

    What is Twin's new lower elevation. No way its under 3500...

  • CatskillKev
    commented on 's reply
    Should being close to Gould land be a problem?

  • CatskillKev
    commented on 's reply
    After losing something due to too much interest, who's to say what obtaining the 35 is supposed to be anymore?

    Its kind of ironic that this has come about after a couple years of higher percentage permission asking. But, maybe its not about the people asking permission. Maybe its about seeing how many users there actually are. So I guess it was only natural that the more you ask permission, the worse it looks, the more overwhelming the process becomes... Always thought that calling the caretaker would overwhelm the caretaker.

    Seems like snowshoe-only could be an option. I'm kind of surprised that a bunch of hikers taking the logging roads from Balsam Lake to Graham building mess is causing a lot of problems, non-hunting season, that is.

  • TFR
    replied
    FYI, since people seem to be confused elsewhere, you can still hike any of the official DEC trails inside Gould property, on the way to peaks such as Balsam Lake, Eagle, Big Indian.

    Leave a comment:


  • LeftRightLeft
    replied
    So long, and thanks for all the nettles! I'm in the camp of not adding peaks that don't meet the height requirements. Graham is whatever, but I've climbed DT who knows how many times from all cardinal directions and loved it each time. Losing that one is a bummer.

    Doug and I had a funny trip where we whacked from DT to Graham and were BSing and just kind of assumed the other one was paying attention to where we were going until things stopped making sense. OK, time to get the maps out and figure out where the heck we are!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X