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

Go Back   Adirondack Forum > The Adirondack Forum > Paddling in the Adirondacks
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 06-10-2008, 10:04 PM   #61
timetohike
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodspirit View Post
Mr. Low created the impoundment and flooded his lands thus creating Lows Lake. Later he sold or perhaps gifted the land, including the flooded land to the Boy Scouts who later sold it to NY state. The end result is that the state has deeded title to the lake bed. This makes the lake publicly owned Forest Preserve and the adjoining landowners do not really have "rights" other than the limited rights retained by the Boy Scouts when they sold the land to the state. The state has absolute rights over the lake. DEC's counsel has confirmed this set of facts
That is similar to the situation for Caenovia Lake. When the state took title to the are from the Oneidas it acquired the lake. The subsequent purchasers from the state did not take title to lake (it is unclear whether they didn't want title, or the state wasn't willing to grant title. or it was an oversight.) The Holland land company eventually acquired the title of the purchsers from the state. Many years later people who bought shoreline property from the Holland Land Company or its grantees learned that they did not own title to the bed of the lake.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2008, 10:31 PM   #62
1894
Member
 
1894's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,342
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildriver View Post
..wildriver
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodspirit
DEC, in stretching to make its case for continued use of float planes, has suggested that there is a third landowner that uses a float plane to access his property. DEC ignores the fact that this person is deceased and has been for some time.
.Just a slight technicality, I think.
Snicker snicker , Being deceased hasn't stopped a lot of folks from voting , why should thier landowner rights be any less valid ?
__________________
Phil



“The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.” —Herbert Spencer

1894 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2008, 10:57 PM   #63
colden46
Member
 
colden46's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1894 View Post
Snicker snicker , Being deceased hasn't stopped a lot of folks from voting , why should thier landowner rights be any less valid ?
A candidate being dead didn't stop the voters of Missouri from electing him to the Senate.
colden46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2008, 10:28 PM   #64
LifeOutside
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Hastings, NY
Posts: 185
I was tempted to just post the beer drop on Spruce Lake video from another topic in here. To me this is what Lows Lake has become, except its a people drop.
__________________
Tech by Day. Nature by Night.
LifeOutside is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2008, 03:34 PM   #65
Harvey44
Member
 
Harvey44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: North River
Posts: 155
I've read about half of this thread and will finish the rest when I have a moment. Sorry if this thought has already been expressed.

While I don't know how many lakes in NYS allow plane access, I do know many have motorized access. Why do people coming by float plane feel the need to come to Lows over all the other lakes? My guess is because it is remote and (somewhat) wild. Essentially, what they're after, is endangered by their own use. This is true of all users to varying extents.

But - taken to extreme - if 1,000 planes landed each weekend, would they still want to be there?

While the handicapped issue is probably sensitive, I'll go out on a limb. By definition a wilderness can't be handicap accessible. Once it is handicap accessible it is no longer a wilderness.
Harvey44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2008, 07:20 PM   #66
mwanner
ViewAddict
 
mwanner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Saranac Lake
Posts: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pond Hopper View Post
Don't folks that enjoy the roar of engines have a great many options for places they can go?
Aren't folks that don't enjoy that sort of thing entitled to some options too...?
Sorry I missed this earlier, but I think this is the heart of the matter. Two hikers a quarter mile apart, might as well not exist, as far as each is concerned. Put one of them on an ATV or snowmobile or motorboat or jet ski or in a float plane, and they impinge on all others within earshot.

What is special about the Adirondacks is not that it has some more lakes and trails to zoom around, it's that it has some quiet spaces. We need to keep them quiet.
__________________
The Adirondack Wilderness ... is a vast natural park, one immense and silent forest, curiously and beautifully broken by the gleaming waters of a myriad of lakes, between which rugged mountain ranges rise as a sea of granite billows. -- Verplanck Colvin
mwanner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2008, 09:59 PM   #67
Bill I.
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,587
Following is the content of my personal comment letter to DEC on this matter:

Quote:
June 16, 2008

Peter Frank, Forest Preserve Bureau Chief
NYSDEC
625 Broadway
Albany NY 12233-4254

Re: Bog River Management Complex 2008 Amendment

Dear Mr. Frank,

I am writing to express my disapproval of the proposed unit management plan amendment that would permit continued floatplane access at Lows Lake. While I generally support DEC’s stewardship efforts and its management of state lands, I am unable to contemplate any potential merits the draft amendment may or may not have because I find the fact that it was written at all to be highly inappropriate.

A few decades ago, there was no public access of any kind to Lows. When the state began to acquire the shoreline, these parcels were without exception classified either Wilderness or Primitive. The lake itself was considered part of the Lows Lake Primitive Area with the clear understanding that it would be managed for muscle-powered recreation. With this in mind, it becomes clear that DEC never should have allowed the public use of planes and motors in the first place. Such public use is non-conforming and cannot be permitted to continue.

The authors attempt to justify the new proposal with multiple misinterpretations of the 2007 visitor survey results, as statements like the following make clear:
“The Study indicates that the majority of paddlers do not believe that the situation at Lows Lake warrants the immediate elimination of float planes from the lake.”
The authors also make the following statement regarding paddlers’ expectations:
“Returning visitors to the lake (comprising more than two-thirds of the users) presumably know from prior experience that they may encounter motorboats and float planes on the lake, and it is therefore questionable whether the presence of motorboats or float planes on return visits causes them to be frustrated and disappointed because the trip does not meet their expectations.”
Having read the results of the visitor survey, I dispute the state’s interpretation of the survey results. It seems clear that a majority of paddlers (68%) find the continued use of floatplanes to be detrimental at least to some degree and believe they should not be permitted on Lows Lake. Returning visitors have been expecting the state to ban planes for several years and have merely been tolerating them in the meantime. Both of the above quotes are inaccurate, misleading, and insulting in my opinion.

The draft amendment characterizes the solution endorsed in the 2002 UMP as an “immediate ban” on floatplane access. This is perhaps its greatest inaccuracy, for this ban has been anything but sudden and unexpected. The original solution—approved by DEC and APA, and in conformance with the APSLMP—was a 5-year phase-out period that ended last year. This current proposal cancels that decision and violates a public trust to manage Lows Lake as a Primitive Area—and these current actions are being taken exclusively for the benefit of private economic interests. If outfitters have established businesses for themselves based on an activity proscribed by the APSLMP, then these persons should be chastised by DEC, not abetted and encouraged.

The time to consider the alternatives put forth by this draft amendment has passed long ago. Perhaps if they had been offered when the lake was first classified as part of the Lows Lake Primitive Area there might have been some merit in discussing them at that time. As it stands, there is both a legal expectation and a public expectation to manage Lows Lake for motorless recreation, and this amendment not only ignores those expectations but also seeks to diminish them.

I appreciate the opportunity for public comment on this matter, but I ask DEC to abide by the 2002 UMP and prohibit floatplanes immediately.

Thank you,

Bill Ingersoll
Bill I. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2008, 10:18 PM   #68
Wldrns
Member
 
Wldrns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Western Adirondacks
Posts: 3,783
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildriver View Post
Following is the content of my personal comment letter to DEC on this matter:
I too have written and sent a full single page letter to Mr Frank. I'll not reprint it here, but it contains some of the points Wildriver makes, as well as others of my own thoughts and experiences on Lows. I encourage everyone with a valid opinion based on facts to write their own letter before the end of June comment closing date.
__________________
"Now I see the secret of making the best person, it is to grow in the open air and to eat and sleep with the earth." -Walt Whitman
Wldrns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2008, 10:44 PM   #69
Woodspirit
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 108
If you want to have maximum impact, recognize that this is a political issue, not a land use issue and address your letter to the political powers. One letter addressed to the following will do:

Hon. Pete Grannis
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
625 Broadway
Albany, New York 12233-0001

Hon. Curtis Stiles
NYS Adirondack Park Agency
PO Box 99
Ray Brook, NY 12977

Judith Enck
Executive Chamber
State Capitol
Albany, NY 12224
__________________
Woodspirit
Woodspirit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2008, 11:13 PM   #70
pico23
Member
 
pico23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Between the Cats and Daks
Posts: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wldrns View Post
Hmmm, I agree with that. I'm involved with the scouts there only during pre-season high adventure training. During the summer when I am on the lake on my own I've only seen them swimming at Scout and Pole Islands with canoes. Using motorboats is certainly not necessary nor desireable to get there. The current waterfront director needs to be better educated and I'll have to see about that. Although frequently there will be entire troops of disabled scouts in camp... physically mobile but not able to effectively paddle a canoe very far. Before I speak too soon it could be a case of allowing them some off-site adventure via motorboat.
If that is the case I don't have a problem. But you summarized my point well. Just that if it's a camp of capable boys you'd think they would prefer to paddle. I know I would have at that age (and I did while in scouts).

I had actually assumed they were legally able to use the boats, so I never thought much of it.

Hopefully you can get back to us if it wasn't the case of disabled scouts being shuttled with the situation being changed.
__________________


"As to every healthy boy with a taste for outdoor life, the northern forest -the Adirondacks- were to me a veritable land of enchantment." -Theodore Roosevelt

Mountain Visions: The Wilderness Through My Eyes
pico23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2008, 11:14 PM   #71
pico23
Member
 
pico23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Between the Cats and Daks
Posts: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildriver View Post
Hey! Don't mistake me for Wldrns. I'm younger and better looking!

Sorry...similar screen names...sometimes I do get you two confused (briefly).
__________________


"As to every healthy boy with a taste for outdoor life, the northern forest -the Adirondacks- were to me a veritable land of enchantment." -Theodore Roosevelt

Mountain Visions: The Wilderness Through My Eyes
pico23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2008, 01:40 AM   #72
Woodspirit
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 108
My observations have been that the Boy Scouts do travel to their destinations by canoe. While they are loud and those aluminum canoes are noisy, they are just boys being boys and enjoying a great outdoor experience. The rest of us might enjoy our outdoor experience a bit more if they would separate the group into, say, half a dozen kids making the trip at a time rather than a pack of 20 or so boys.

Not sure of the function of the motorboat as it just seems to travel back and forth but not carrying kids. Perhaps it carries the equipment (or perhaps someone is joy riding) In any event, someone posted that the scouts are becoming more sensitive to the inappropriate intrusion.

I have only seen the pontoon boat last Summer. It was poking around in the river and then doing some cruising around the lake. Noisy and irritating. It was definitely carrying some kids. Perhaps these were the physically challenged scouts in which case they should feel free to poke around and cruise, noisy or not. What a great program!
__________________
Woodspirit
Woodspirit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2008, 08:52 AM   #73
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by timetohike View Post
Well...as long as we are hijacking the thread to talk about the real important stuff, here is a "hovering" question for you. If it takes a plane 4 hours to fly from California to New York, but it only takes 3 hours for the earth to rotate the distance from California to New York, then why not just go up in a baloon in California, wait three hours, then come down in NY? Seems to me it would save an hour of travel time and a lot of jet fuel.

Wait, maybe that goes the other way - go up in the baloon in NY and come down in California. whatever, it should work.
Speaking of balloons. This thread is suddenly taking on a lot of hot air!!

Hawk
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2008, 09:37 AM   #74
chairrock
Indian Mt.Club
 
chairrock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,631
Welcome Back Redhawk!
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 448%20fire%20inflating%20balloon.jpg (45.5 KB, 125 views)
__________________
Be careful, don't spread invasive species!!

When a dog runs at you,whistle for him.
Henry David Thoreau

CL50-#23
chairrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2008, 11:08 AM   #75
DuctTape
Out of Shape
 
DuctTape's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 1,748
This lawsuit was "returnable" on July 11. What did that mean and is there any news on the suit?
DuctTape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2008, 06:38 PM   #76
timetohike
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuctTape View Post
This lawsuit was "returnable" on July 11. What did that mean and is there any news on the suit?
That usually means that the suit was started by what is known as "an order to show cause" rather than merely serving the complaint (or more properly the "petition" in a case involving the sate as a defendant.)

An "order to show cause" is less effective than it sounds. Basically is just a judge ordering the other party to appear and respond to the petitioner's petition. In most cases, the original return date is postponed to give the respondent more time to put together their responding papers.

You can call the county clerk and try to find out what judge the matter was assigned to, then call that judge’s secretary and ask for an update on the status on that case. All that information is public so you just have to extract it from the court personnel. The ADK Club should also be willing to tell its members where the suit stands.

As a NYS taxpayer and ADK Club member I'm paying for both sides to argue this case.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2008, 07:22 PM   #77
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,933
Quote:
Originally Posted by timetohike View Post
As a NYS taxpayer and ADK Club member I'm paying for both sides to argue this case.
Ain't Democracy Grand?
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2008, 08:20 PM   #78
Woodspirit
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Albany, NY
Posts: 108
The case was adjourned by mutual agreement, likely until sometime in the Fall.
__________________
Woodspirit
Woodspirit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2008, 12:42 AM   #79
Bill I.
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodspirit View Post
The case was adjourned by mutual agreement, likely until sometime in the Fall.
In the meatime the planes are still landing on Lows? I saw one going to and coming from that direction a few weeks ago while exploring Lila.
Bill I. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2008, 08:45 PM   #80
Wldrns
Member
 
Wldrns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Western Adirondacks
Posts: 3,783
APA Tables Proposed Permit System for Lows Lake Float Planes

WNBZ reported it. Looks like a one month delay in the decision, but the APA definitely does not like what the DEC was trying to do to appease a couple of businesses.

A September 4 memo from Regional Planning Supervisor Rick Weber and State Land Planning Project Assistant Walt Linck to APA interim executive director Jim Connolly concludes by saying that the proposed amendment “would represent a significant departure from the direction of the master plan” and “should not be approved by the agency.”
__________________
"Now I see the secret of making the best person, it is to grow in the open air and to eat and sleep with the earth." -Walt Whitman
Wldrns 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 09:38 AM.


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.