Adirondack Forum  
Rules Membership Donations and Online Store Adkhighpeaks Foundation ADKhighpeaks Forums ADKhighpeaks Wiki Disclaimer

Go Back   Adirondack Forum > The Adirondack Forum > General Adirondack Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-27-2018, 08:57 PM   #101
DSettahr
ɹǝqɯǝɯ
 
DSettahr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,474
This is pretty clearly just a meeting to solicit public input for use in actually writing the UMP amendments. What the DEC is basically saying is "hey, we're about to write the UMP amendments for these areas, we'd like public comment before we get started to help us in doing that." I'm sure that the DEC has some draft materials internally that aren't publicly available, but the amendment process is pretty clearly nowhere near complete.

And even after the UMP amendments are drafted, they still have to be submitted to the APA for approval from that agency. Part of the process of getting APA approval involves releasing the draft amendments to the public and providing for further public input via additional meetings as well as through submitted written comments. The High Peaks area has the benefit of having more resources at hand for management, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the full process took at least another year (if not longer).

And let's be honest- even if the DEC actually wanted to try to circumvent the public commenting process by moving as quickly as possible, the agency is a bureaucracy. It's simply not able to put together anything close to resembling a completed UMP amendment that quickly. Remember, the DEC started writing these UMPs back in the 70's... and there are still some management areas that don't have a UMP at all, 40 years later!
DSettahr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2018, 06:36 AM   #102
Buckladd
Member
 
Buckladd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Hogtown
Posts: 937
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSettahr View Post

Remember, the DEC started writing these UMPs back in the 70's... and there are still some management areas that don't have a UMP at all, 40 years later!
I'll drink to that! The Lake George Wild Forest UMP meetings were held a decade ago, and it's still not done.

Still, I was at a sportsman's meeting with R5 folks in February and they expect a lot of participation and comments with this one, for obvious reasons. How soon they finish is anyone's guess, but they do want to be moving forward on the plan at some level, ASAP.
__________________
Life's short, hunt hard!
Buckladd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-28-2018, 07:14 AM   #103
DuctTape
Out of Shape
 
DuctTape's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 1,748
If one has significant opinions on how the umps should be amended (or not) it would behoove them to also be involved with whatever clubs, organizations, etc... in their internal decision making for what those orgs will advocate.
__________________
"There's a whisper on the night-wind, there's a star agleam to guide us, And the Wild is calling, calling . . . let us go." -from "The Call of the Wild" by Robert Service

My trail journal: DuctTape's Journal
DuctTape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2018, 06:29 PM   #104
Nehasane
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 72
So it looks like DEC will let all folks drive to within 0.1 miles of the Ponds:
https://www.adirondackexplorer.org/o...gement-parking

Boreas Ponds will not be that quiet place! We can still make further comments, but...
Nehasane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2018, 06:37 PM   #105
dundee
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,534
A trail up Cheney Cobble? Brilliant, just brilliant.
dundee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2018, 06:55 PM   #106
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 953
And who didn't see this coming?
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2018, 07:35 PM   #107
Justin
Moving along
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,149
I look forward to doing a few more video documentaries from Boreas Ponds as this all plays out over the next few years. It’ll be interesting to see the difference from May ‘16.
Justin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2018, 07:23 AM   #108
geogymn
Member
 
geogymn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,899
Well that should make a lot of people happy, next generation not so much.
__________________
"A culture is no better than its woods." W.H. Auden
geogymn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2018, 02:53 PM   #109
Nehasane
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 72
APA should be announcing further comment locations/dates on May 10. Meanwhile, you can read the drafts here (big PDFs):

High Peaks Complex:
https://apa.ny.gov/Mailing/2018/05/S...PAmendment.pdf

Vanderwhacker WF:
https://apa.ny.gov/Mailing/2018/05/S...PAmendment.pdf

If links don't work try: https://apa.ny.gov/Mailing/2018/05/stateLand.htm

Last edited by Nehasane; 05-07-2018 at 03:55 PM.. Reason: links not working
Nehasane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2018, 08:40 PM   #110
Hear the Footsteps
Member
 
Hear the Footsteps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Saratoga County, NY
Posts: 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nehasane View Post
APA should be announcing further comment locations/dates on May 10. Meanwhile, you can read the drafts here (big PDFs):

High Peaks Complex:
https://apa.ny.gov/Mailing/2018/05/S...PAmendment.pdf

Vanderwhacker WF:
https://apa.ny.gov/Mailing/2018/05/S...PAmendment.pdf

If links don't work try: https://apa.ny.gov/Mailing/2018/05/stateLand.htm
These were very slow to download....not really that big and shouldn't have taken 30 minutes. Got to be something wrong with the host server or the server is overloaded with requests for the files.

Anyway the maps are very helpful. The VanHo Cascade reroute is really different than what was in place last fall with the re-route arriving on the ridge between the Cascade-Porter Jct and Porter. And the trail to Rt 73 closed to and from aforementioned junction.

It clarified for me the Dudley Brook route from Opalescent side over the ridge to the Boreas side that includes a spur trail to Cheney Cobble. If said spur is built I hope it's really hardened or has very good stairs ... otherwise it's difficult to visualize a sustainable route up the very steep final climb to the summit ridge.

Don
Hear the Footsteps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2018, 07:29 AM   #111
Buckladd
Member
 
Buckladd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Hogtown
Posts: 937
Wow. As some of you may know from my previous comments, I'm not disappointed with these proposals. I like the idea of the tent sites, especially those along Boreas Road west of the Four Corners, which would be accessible during Big Game season. I also never thought about the Ragged Mountain / Branch Road area, as so much focus on was the ponds and Gulf Brook Road, but the rock climbing routes, mountain bike and equestrian trails - not to mention the CP3 stuff, were a surprise. But the biggest is rerouting the Cascade Mt. Trail, and closing the Rt. 73 trailhead.
__________________
Life's short, hunt hard!
Buckladd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2018, 03:25 PM   #112
equyst
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Posts: 14
interest thread
equyst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2018, 01:00 PM   #113
Bounder45
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buckladd View Post
Wow. As some of you may know from my previous comments, I'm not disappointed with these proposals. I like the idea of the tent sites, especially those along Boreas Road west of the Four Corners, which would be accessible during Big Game season. I also never thought about the Ragged Mountain / Branch Road area, as so much focus on was the ponds and Gulf Brook Road, but the rock climbing routes, mountain bike and equestrian trails - not to mention the CP3 stuff, were a surprise. But the biggest is rerouting the Cascade Mt. Trail, and closing the Rt. 73 trailhead.
I'm not disappointed either Buckladd.

Preserving the "wild" needs to be balanced with access to the "wild." I think the current proposal allows for decent, common-sense access not just to Boreas Ponds, but to the High Peaks wilderness.

The water itself is still motor-free, no? So heaven forbid there are a few more kayaks and canoes out there enjoying mother nature. And quite honestly, I think some people here are getting worked up over nothing. The majority of the crowds tend to congregate at the popular trailheads along the main, paved corridors. These backroad trailheads and access sites rarely see as much activity. I don't think that's going to change with this current proposal.

I'm looking forward to exploring the potential hunting and fishing opportunities afforded by this new access over the coming summer.
Bounder45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2018, 06:19 PM   #114
bluequill
Member
 
bluequill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Saranac Lake
Posts: 749
quick question. i would like to head over to boreas ponds tomorrow.

is the gate open?
bluequill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2018, 06:41 PM   #115
Justin
Moving along
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,149
Not yet according to the DEC website. I’m pretty sure it didn’t open until Memorial Day Weekend last year.

Quote:
The lower gate on the Gulf Brook Road is closed until the end of the spring mud season. (2018)
Justin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2018, 06:48 PM   #116
bluequill
Member
 
bluequill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Saranac Lake
Posts: 749
Thanks, Justin. I couldn't find info on such short notice.
bluequill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2018, 09:03 AM   #117
greatexpectations
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder45 View Post
Preserving the "wild" needs to be balanced with access to the "wild." I think the current proposal allows for decent, common-sense access not just to Boreas Ponds, but to the High Peaks wilderness.
i agree with you 100% that there needs to be a balance, but in this case i don't think the proposal meets that balance. there are many other options in the adirondacks with great access. this is a fairly unique chance to add a big tract of untouched land for preservation purposes. the risks don't outweight the benefits in my opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder45 View Post
The water itself is still motor-free, no? So heaven forbid there are a few more kayaks and canoes out there enjoying mother nature. And quite honestly, I think some people here are getting worked up over nothing. The majority of the crowds tend to congregate at the popular trailheads along the main, paved corridors. These backroad trailheads and access sites rarely see as much activity. I don't think that's going to change with this current proposal.
the first half of your statement seems to be a misrepresentation of why some people disagree with the proposed access. i'm not sure i've seen many (any?) complaints that there would be too many paddlers, specifically. the complaints are typically about the degradation of the resource because of visitor volume and campers being able to get close accees.

the second half of your statement seems to be a bit of a catch 22. if not many people are going to be making use of this area then is the drive up access really necessary? the die hards have already shown they are willing to walk the road for access so why should we keep a road for a handful of people? but if the visitor volume is what some people guess it would be then people are getting worked up over 'something'.
greatexpectations is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2018, 09:40 AM   #118
Bounder45
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by greatexpectations View Post
i agree with you 100% that there needs to be a balance, but in this case i don't think the proposal meets that balance. there are many other options in the adirondacks with great access. this is a fairly unique chance to add a big tract of untouched land for preservation purposes. the risks don't outweight the benefits in my opinion.
1) This land isn't "untouched." It is former logging land with roads and trails all over the place. There are plenty of remote ADK lands (both wilderness and wild forest) with very little of either.
2) You have your opinion, I have mine. I think the existing road networks provide good access to the adjacent High Peaks wilderness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greatexpectations View Post
the first half of your statement seems to be a misrepresentation of why some people disagree with the proposed access. i'm not sure i've seen many (any?) complaints that there would be too many paddlers, specifically. the complaints are typically about the degradation of the resource because of visitor volume and campers being able to get close accees.
Essex Chain of Lakes and Moose River Plains Wild Forest have similar access. I haven't seen any significant "degradation" of resources there. People like to talk about these vague, theoretical problems for these newly acquired lands, but I've yet to see them become a reality.

I see far greater "degradation" in popular areas like the High Peaks and trailheads along the main paved roads.


Quote:
Originally Posted by greatexpectations View Post
the second half of your statement seems to be a bit of a catch 22. if not many people are going to be making use of this area then is the drive up access really necessary?
"Catch 22" is misused in this context. Some people (hunters and anglers included) will appreciate and make use of this access. It takes a few miles off the hike in and out while still providing access to large areas of roadless wilderness (High Peaks). That's the beauty of these backroad trailheads and access sites; they provide decent access, but few of the summer tourists take the time to go explore them.

Honestly, I think you and some of your like-minded comrades have impractical expectations for these land acquisitions. You all got a motor-free Boreas Ponds and the land around it is wilderness...count your blessings and understand that even if you don't agree with this access plan, there are many other ADK enthusiasts who do.
Bounder45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2018, 11:24 AM   #119
Buckladd
Member
 
Buckladd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Hogtown
Posts: 937
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluequill View Post
Thanks, Justin. I couldn't find info on such short notice.
https://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/9198.html
__________________
Life's short, hunt hard!
Buckladd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 08:32 PM   #120
bluequill
Member
 
bluequill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Saranac Lake
Posts: 749
As Justin stated, the gate will not open until Memorial Day. Gate is closed for the "mud season". The road has NO mud on it and is in ok shape. A group of campers/ paddlers were wheeling their canoes in from Blue Ridge ....that's dedication!
bluequill is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

DISCLAIMER: Use of these forums, and information found herein, is at your own risk. Use of this site by members and non-members alike is only granted by the adkhighpeak.com administration provided the terms and conditions found in the FULL DISCLAIMER have been read. Continued use of this site implies that you have read, understood and agree to the terms and conditions of this site. Any questions can be directed to the Administrator of this site.