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

Go Back   Adirondack Forum > Current Affairs and Environmental Issues > Current and Historical Affairs
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 12-02-2010, 12:19 PM   #81
adkman12986
Member
 
adkman12986's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Tupper Lake
Posts: 766
Quote:
Originally Posted by paddlewheel View Post
I know that in the town of Moriah east of North Hudson there's a "shock troops" facility for younger guys. They have done alot of trail work and built a leanto in the Hammond Pond wild forest. I'm not sure if they still take these guys out to do that kind of stuff anymore, but they were fairly active with that kind of work in the late 80's & 90's.
I do believe that is slated to close if it hasn't already. Go figure close something that works.

Hawk Finally something we agree on Must be a holiday!
adkman12986 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2010, 05:20 PM   #82
40dog
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 158
I agree 100%
clean house
40dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2010, 06:25 PM   #83
adkman12986
Member
 
adkman12986's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Tupper Lake
Posts: 766
Digital Journal reports that

On September 5, New York State celebrated their 20 years of success. The program began on September 10, 1987, has been said to be the best program in the United States by a national research group.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/articl...#ixzz17Ha6KAWx

and also

Less than 8 percent of all graduates return to prison within a year, which is a decent recidivism rate. After inmates are released, they are required to participate in a 6-month "AfterShock supervision program run by the Division of Parole."

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/articl...#ixzz17HaWcmqz

So lets close more prisons and open more Shock Camps. Noval idea open more places that actually work.
adkman12986 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 08:59 AM   #84
40dog
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 158
moose river plains

i recently was sent a link to this letter. Thought it was very interesting

PROPERTY RIGHTS FOUNDATION OF AMERICA, INC.
P. O. Box 75
Stony Creek, NY 12878
(518) 696-5748
lagrasse@prfamerica.org
www.prfamerica.org

September 16, 2010

To:

Richard Weber
Adirondack Park Agency
P. O. Box 99
Ray Brook, NY 12977
E-mailed to: apa_slmp@gw.dec.state.ny.us

Josh Clague, DEC
625 Broadway, 5th floor
Albany, NY 12233
E-mailed to: lfadk@tgw.dec.state.ny.us

Re: Moose River Plains - Comment on DEC-APA Revisions to State Land Master Plan & UMP

Dear Mr. Weber and Mr. Clague:

This letter is to clarify and add to my official oral comments at the Indian Lake Central School on August 16, 2010 on the DEC/APA proposed revisions to the State Land Master Plan (SLMP) and the Unit Management Plan (UMP) for the Moose River Plains Wild Forest.

I request that you take my comments into account and withdraw the proposed plans, and also include this letter in the complete formal record of the comments on these proposed revisions to the plans.

New York State Conservation law and the agreement with the Gould Paper company state that the Gould property was acquired as a gift for the purposes of fish and wildlife management and that the area was to be known as the Moose River Recreation Area, to be used as a recreational area for hunters, fisherman and sportsman, and that the Moose River tract shall not become part of the Forest Preserve.
When the lands were conveyed according to that agreement with the Gould company, they were purchased with restricted New York State Recreation funds. Both the agreement and the Recreation funding were designated to creating roads, access, and campsites, and maintaining these for the use of sportsmen and women and others. The closing of roads, access, and campsites contemplated in the revisions to the SLMP and UMP would violate the terms of the agreement and the legislative purpose of the Recreation funds.
Therefore, the tract should be maintained for these recreational uses and none of the campsites, bridge(s) or other stream crossings or roads closed.
Neither the Otter Brook Road nor Indian Lake Road should be closed. These roads should not be converted to hiking or horse trails.
Both Otter Brook Road and Indian Lake Road should be maintained as motor vehicle roads.
The plan to reduce the number of campsites from a stated number of 170 to 83, with a future possible plan for 150, should be rejected.
Instead, all of the current campsites should be maintained, sanitation and staffing improved, and additional campsites added.
At a minimum, the original number of over 200 campsites that were established in the Moose River Plains should be restored.
The plan to separate the parking of vehicles from the actual campsites should be rejected.
In is essential that campsites be immediately adjacent to the area where the vehicle used by the particular camping group is parked, for accessibility and security.
The plan to close 49 miles of snowmobile trails and create 14 new miles should be rejected, even if the new trail mileage is a connector trail.
No snowmobile trails should be closed. The connector trail should be added also.
Float plane access should be maximized.
The plan to convert 15,062 acres of the Moose River Plains Wild Forest to Wilderness violates the terms of the Gould purchase and funding and other law.
The plan to make this huge conversion of land to Wilderness is the most mean-spirited feature of the shell game that this entire voluminous proposal is about. Measly so-called benefits are proposed, such as the string-like strip one-tenth of a mile wide on each side of Cedar River Road (totaling only 2,925 acres) to be converted to a new Intensive Use, are highlighted, while a massive amount of use by families, senior citizens, and sportsmen and women is sought to be wiped out.
In addition, there is the campsite shell game, the snowmobile trail shell game, and so on.
It is ironic that the agencies are comfortable to propose revision to the State Land Master Plan to effectuate these nasty pretexts at compromise, but in other contexts of the consideration of the Moose River Plains and other UMPs, the State Land Master Plan, which the agencies themselves created, is sacrosanct.
The proposed plans amount to a betrayal of the public trust. Sly games and ruses are the heart of the proposed plans.
None of the land within the Moose River Plains Wild Forest should be converted to Wilderness.
The tract does not fall under any UMP or SLMP, as it is a separate entity and was written into law as such.
The disposition of the gravel roads was settled in New York State Court and the State has no power to close any of them.
The proposed revisions to the SLMP and UMP should be reissued to abide with the terms of the Gould agreement and the provisions of New York State statute under which the purchase was funded.
Alternates for any changes that are proposed should favor public access and use.
The plans should be revised to improve access, to restore campsites and roads to increase public use, and a declaration of joint APA-DEC policy made to reject any additional land acquisition so that state funds are concentrated on staffing, desperately needed sanitation and maintenance, and improvements to better serve the public who would like to enjoy the State-owned forest land in the beautiful Adirondacks.
The environmental impact analysis is incomplete and cursory, failing to meet the requirements of SEQRA.
The proposed revisions to the plans are discriminatory, favoring the use of the State-owned land in the Adirondacks for one group to the omission of other groups who are citizens and taxpayers, and entitled to the use of the State-owned land as much as the favored group.
The proposed revisions to the plans are discriminatory by favoring the cultural history related to one select group to the diminishment of and omission of the traditions of the people who generally are the established users of the Moose River Plains Recreation Area and the historic residents within the Adirondack Blue Line.
The proposed revisions to the plans discriminate against senior citizens.
The proposed revisions to the plans are in violation of State law because they purport to rely on compliance with an outdated State Land Master Plan, which is, in itself, in violation of State statute.
The proposed revisions to the plans comprise the misuse of taxpayer funds.
In addition, I demand a specific reply to every comment in my August 16, 2010 statement and this letter.

Thank you.

Yours truly,

Carol W. LaGrasse
President, Property Rights Foundation of America, Inc.
And, as an individual,
A citizen of the State of New York and the United States of America,
A senior citizen,
A New York State taxpayer,
And a resident of the Town of Stony Creek within the Adirondack

the letter came to me from a friend inside the blue line who is fighting the state on a family camp issue . None of the states paperwork over the years has been proper in legal sense. the lawyer representing the camp has been played with by the state for years . Sending notice to the state not hearing from the state for years at a time and then the state responding with a demand for response to their letters in 30 days what a joke . For years they wanted to negotiate with the state as to what their options are. The state has not made this easy. its really sad

Last edited by Neil; 02-17-2011 at 05:49 PM..
40dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 09:24 AM   #85
Creekwader
Snag Locator
 
Creekwader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: In the Place of the Nettles
Posts: 831
Actually it's neither interesting or surprising considering the source. This is the same woman who advocates for all state land to become an ATV playground. BTW, if she can produce those Gould deed documents she should cough em up as I hear they don't exist or at least nobody knows where to find them.
Creekwader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 09:52 AM   #86
DSettahr
ɹǝqɯǝɯ
 
DSettahr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,363
There are clauses in the "Forever Wild" amendment that allow organizations to donate land to NYS to be used for purposes other than Forest Preserve Lands. According to The Forest Preserve of New York State: A Handbook for Conservations (which was published by the ADK back in 1985, I think it's out of print now but it's a must have book for anyone interested in the management of public land in the Adirondacks), NYS can accept gifts of land for the following uses other than addition to the Forest Preserve: Park or reservation purposes, restoration and wildlife management, fish and wildlife management purposes, and silvicultural research and experimentation in the science of forestry.

There are actually quite a few parcels of state land in the Adirondacks that isn't Forest Preserve, mostly in small bits here and there. The Debar Mountain Game Management Area was one such parcel, where the unsuccessful attempt to reintroduce Elk into the Adirondacks was made. There is an experimental silvicultural forest at Pack Forest where timber harvesting is permitted on state lands.

This clause was used, albeit in a somewhat tricky manner, to keep the roads in the Moose River Plains open when the state acquired the land from the Gould Paper Company. The state purchased the land itself, but the Paper Company donated the rights of way on which the road was situated for the purposes of "Fish and Game Management." As such, the roads through the MRP area are not on Forest Preserve Lands, and the state was able to keep them open.

All this is common knowledge, and she doesn't need to produce any documents to prove it.

However, she's wrong on several counts. The donation involved only the the roads, not the land itself, so arguing that converting some of the land to Wilderness violates the terms of the purchase would be incorrect, as any terms of the purchase involving accessibility would only be applicable to the roads themselves.

Second, I don't know of any law that requires land donated to NYS for reasons other than addition to the Forest Preserve to be used for those purposes in perpetuity. Again, with the example of the Debar Game Management Area- after the Elk reintroduction failed, the state took out all the buildings and abandoned use of the property as a game headquarters. It is pretty much managed as Forest Preserve Lands, with the lands quickly reverting back to a "wild" state.

If anything, citing the original terms of the gift will weaken her argument. The use of the gifts clause of the Forever Wild amendment was incredibly controversial in this case back when the terms of the Gould lands purchase were made public. Many environmental groups argued that the State was using the clause in a manner inconsistent with the intent of those who enacted it. It could quite easily be argued that public motor vehicle use is not a necessary component of "Fish and Game Management," which is what the roads are to be used for as specified by the terms of the gift.
DSettahr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 10:03 AM   #87
40dog
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 158
are you saying the state has made these documents disappear. Sounds like you don't like her much . I take it your not a fan of the atv's. well I'm not a fan of the state taking our taxes and then closing and limiting access to land we own as state citizens . then spending it on other proposed purchases when they cant maintain the land they already have all the time raising the property taxes we pay as land owners. I not for unlimited access for atvs but limited access such as handicap permit and SAR when needed. I'm also not for mt bikes on foot trails we have had a couple run ins with punks on bikes trying to jump off of boulders onto the trails yelling coming thru and expecting you to make way quickly just so they don't have to slow. No respect for foot traffic which always has the right of way.
40dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 10:14 AM   #88
DSettahr
ɹǝqɯǝɯ
 
DSettahr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by 40dog View Post
are you saying the state has made these documents disappear. Sounds like you don't like her much . I take it your not a fan of the atv's. well I'm not a fan of the state taking our taxes and then closing and limiting access to land we own as state citizens . then spending it on other proposed purchases when they cant maintain the land they already have all the time raising the property taxes we pay as land owners. I not for unlimited access for atvs but limited access such as handicap permit and SAR when needed. I'm also not for mt bikes on foot trails we have had a couple run ins with punks on bikes trying to jump off of boulders onto the trails yelling coming thru and expecting you to make way quickly just so they don't have to slow. No respect for foot traffic which always has the right of way.
Honestly, given the holes in her argument (big enough to fly a jumbo jet through), the accusatory tact and tone of the letter, the sense of entitlement that she projects, the complete lack of a suggestion as to how resources can be protected in conjunction with her proposed actions, and her complete lack of a coherent paragraph structure in an "official" letter from an organization whose intent is to publicly present a solution to a perceived problem, would make me want to stay pretty well clear of her if I was arguing for the roads in the MRP to remain open.
DSettahr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 10:29 AM   #89
Creekwader
Snag Locator
 
Creekwader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: In the Place of the Nettles
Posts: 831
Maybe aliens stole the documents, I made no insinuation as to why the documents are missing only that nobody seems to be able to find them.

Carol LaGasse is a far right radical with an agenda way outside the mainstream. So no I'm not a fan, as I'm not a fan of radicals of either end of the political spectrum.

Your connection between land classification in the MRP and your own property taxes is illogical and incorrect.
Creekwader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 10:48 AM   #90
40dog
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 158
1. sounds like she is a long time resident within the blue line.

2. tired of the states flip flopping on their responsibility to tax paying residents

3 publicly addressing the state employees who are at the front line of this

4. speaking in a demanding tone much like any legal or lawyer supported document which should always call / demand action

5. Speaking of a understanding / interpretation of this lands use from well before many of us were even born .

6. exercising her amendment rights

7. The best of all stirring up conflict and issue between state and private land ownership and designation of use and the stealing of access and accessibility of public land from we the user.

Re classification changes what needs to be spent on maintenance and up keep which directly is supported by our taxes in ny . By reducing costs on public land maintenance and repair the state gets out of solving the real problem their poor and insulting spending practices . and the rape of the state economy and sportsman's fund. Without a radical or two this country would not exist.
40dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 12:24 PM   #91
DSettahr
ɹǝqɯǝɯ
 
DSettahr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,363
Just because you have a right to free speech, and just because you have an argument that might have some valid points to it, doesn't mean you have a right to be "listened to."

Yes, you have the right to speak your mind and to express how your feel. Reality is, however, there are three things that you need to be able to do in order to be the most effective in getting your point across. You need to have a valid, well-thought out argument. You need to be coherent in getting this argument across and understood by others. And you need to be respectful to all those involved.

Some people can get away with having only one or two of these requirements, but usually only with a small group of people.

The fact is, even if there is some merit to your opinion and it's one that has value in having people listen to it, if what you say doesn't have those three attributes, you can exercise your first amendment rights all you want, but few people are seriously going to listen to you.

Take your rape comment for example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 40dog View Post
and the rape of the state economy and sportsman's fund.
When I first read this, the thoughts that went through my head were "Really? The state economy and the sportman's fund has been 'raped?'"

After a moments consideration, I realized that yes, you meant it as a figure of speech. I know that you're not trying to say that the state economy and the sportsman's fund has been literally "raped." I doubt you meant any intentional offense towards anyone. It's obvious from your choice of words that this is a subject that you feel quite passionately about. But the fact is, there are people who will take offense to a comment like this, and people who will take your comments a bit less seriously not because they are offended themselves, but because they can feel empathy with those who are offended. For many, your choice of words will have weakened their opinion of what you have to say, and you can say as much as pleases you, but they might not listen to you as closely as they would have if you'd chosen a different way of expressing yourself.

Anyone can say what they want all they want, but in order to make people really listen, they're going to have to put a little bit of extra work into what they say.
DSettahr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 01:05 PM   #92
DSettahr
ɹǝqɯǝɯ
 
DSettahr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by 40dog View Post
1. sounds like she is a long time resident within the blue line.
Whats your point here? Are you trying to say because someone lives within the park, their opinion about how a piece of state land is managed is somehow more "valid?" Yes, Adirondacks residents have a much better first hand view of the economic effects that the forest preserve has upon local populations. But if this is a point that she is trying to raise, she needs to give some examples about how the proposed management of the MRP will hurt local residents and the economy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 40dog View Post
2. tired of the states flip flopping on their responsibility to tax paying residents
How is the state flip flopping on it's responsibility? Honestly curious here, not trying to call you out on this one. Can you give any examples of instances where the state has done one thing, and then later on done something else that is seemingly contradictory to the first action?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 40dog View Post
3 publicly addressing the state employees who are at the front line of this
Which is the great thing about the DEC, that they do give the public the opportunity to express their opinions about how State lands should be managed. Anyone has the right to speak up about the MRP situation, and that includes people who disagree with what Mrs. LaGrasse has said. It doesn't necessarily mean that the view held by one particular person (or even a group of people) will be the one that is used to establish how a particular area is managed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 40dog View Post
4. speaking in a demanding tone much like any legal or lawyer supported document which should always call / demand action
Lawyer's don't speaking in a demanding tone, they speak authoritatively (and coherently). Even if her tone is similar to that used by a lawyer, in a court of law, there are always two sides to the argument, each side being argued by a lawyer. Since only one side in court can be right, that means one side is wrong, so therefore, simply because one speaks like a lawyer doesn't mean they are "right." A lawyer also still needs to work hard at what they say to sway the jury!

Legal documents also reference other legal documents to back up what they say. She does not. She references court cases, but doesn't say exactly which ones. She references the agreement that was made between Gould and NYS at the time of purchase, but has no quotations about what that agreement actually said. These are things that would be found in a legal document.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 40dog View Post
5. Speaking of a understanding / interpretation of this lands use from well before many of us were even born .
Are you trying to say that just because a piece of land was once used for one purpose, it should be continually used for that purpose forever? Are you saying that because all of the roads in the MRP were once kept open for car camping, they should continually be kept open for that same purpose? Should I not be allowed to build a house on my own property because the land is forested, and therefore should stay that way?

Or are you trying to reference her understanding of the terms of the purchase? Because based on what I know about the purchase, her interpretation is incorrect. Here is what Eleanor Brown says about the purchase in the aforementioned book on the Forest Preserve:

Quote:
The most controversial gift of land to the Preserve was probably the 26.2 miles of roads through the Gould Paper Company tract in the south part of the Moose River Plains in Hamilton and Herkimer counties. This unique, undeveloped area is covered mainly by grass and brush, with occasional white pines and islands of evergreens; it is a winter deer yard and has been a center for DEC studies of deer populations since 1931. The paper company's roads through the area had never been open to the public. When Gould made the tract available to the State in 1964, some conservation groups believed it should become a wilderness sanctuary. The State wanted to turn it into a controlled public hunting and fishing area and chose to keep and maintain the roads for accessibility, even though that meant it had to turn "a little devious." It accepted the roads as a "gift" from the paper company for "purposes of fish and wildlife management" and then completed the purchase of the land as an addition to the Preserve.
It seems to me that Mrs. LaGrasse is trying, incorrectly, to apply the terms of the gift of just the roads to the entire purchase of the Gould paper company lands (where she says that it would be against the terms of the purchase to rezone some of the land from Wild Forest to Wilderness). It also sounds like the State, not the Gould paper company, wanted the MRP open to motorized vehicle use, and I'd therefore be quite surprised to see if there were any terms in the gift or the purchase that required the roads to remain open forever.

I'll be the first to admit, though, that I've not read any of paperwork from the purchase. If a copy could be found, I'd be very interested to see what it said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 40dog View Post
6. exercising her amendment rights
Again, just because someone is taking advantage of the opportunity for the freedom of speech, doesn't necessarily translate into what they have to say having any merit. If you want people to listen (and agree with you), you have to put extra work into what you have to say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 40dog View Post
7. The best of all stirring up conflict and issue between state and private land ownership and designation of use and the stealing of access and accessibility of public land from we the user.
I agree, I love reading threads like this and what people have to say (even stuff as controversial as what she has to say). We've had some pretty good discussions here on ADK Forum about this and similar topics in the past.
DSettahr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 04:06 PM   #93
Neil
Kayak-46
 
Neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5,831
Quote:
Originally Posted by 40dog View Post
7. The best of all stirring up conflict and issue between state and private land ownership and designation of use and the stealing of access and accessibility of public land from we the user.
Are you saying that entering these lands has been made illegal and is now a form of trespassing?
__________________
The best, the most successful adventurer, is the one having the most fun.
Neil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2011, 04:43 PM   #94
40dog
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 158
i believe in the state constitution that it is illegal for the state to remove/ eliminate reasonable access by closure of roads to public land where access was once granted . i'm sure i will get beat up over this statement because I'm not exactly sure without more research. When following andy arthurs blogs about the mrp he may have mentioned this at some point . If you haven't followed any of his chatter he has extensively went over the moose river rec changes and IMO has some good points
40dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2011, 08:03 PM   #95
Skid
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 46
Moose River Plains

Take a look at Article XIV of the NYS Constitution, and the right of any citizen to enjoin a violation by appealing to the Appellate Division of the NYS Supreme
Court.

The people of the State of New York, by the grace of God free and independent, do not have to depend on the beneficence of the State to deign our access to lands forever wild.

Of course it does get a bit complicated by regulation.
Skid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2011, 12:33 PM   #96
DSettahr
ɹǝqɯǝɯ
 
DSettahr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by 40dog View Post
i believe in the state constitution that it is illegal for the state to remove/ eliminate reasonable access by closure of roads to public land where access was once granted . i'm sure i will get beat up over this statement because I'm not exactly sure without more research. When following andy arthurs blogs about the mrp he may have mentioned this at some point . If you haven't followed any of his chatter he has extensively went over the moose river rec changes and IMO has some good points
I did a google search and found Andy Arthur's blog. It took some further searching once I found his site, but I eventually found the comments to which I think you are referring.

Overall, his blog is interesting and well written, and while searching for his comments on the MRP, I did find some interesting articles on other subjects.

Anyways, while his MRP comments are much better written than the letter that was written by Mrs. LaGrass (and he has some good arguments), I noticed a few things.

Quote:
Indeed, the State Land Master Plan goes further to state:

"When public access to and enjoyment of the wild forest areas are inadequate, appropriate measures may be undertaken to provide improved access to encourage public use consistent with the wild forest character." (emphasis added)

In contrast is the plan that would actually reduce access, and discourage public use. Therefore, the proposal is inconsistent with the ASLMP.
It seems that Arthur is interpreting this language as a requirement that Wild Forest areas must be opened up for access when the current level of access is deemed "inadequate." He's forgetting a few things, though- first of all, the language in the APSLMP reads that appropriate measures "may" be undertaken. In no way does it require that such measures be taken, rather, it grants the DEC permission to take such measures.

Secondly, it needs to be shown that the current (or proposed) level of public access and enjoyment of the wild forest area is inadequate. Arthur fails to do this in his arguments- I could only find one quote to suggest that this could be the case.

Quote:
To quote Page 44 of the DGEIS Statement:
"There are 170 existing campsites along the road system within the unit. The national trends indicated in Table 5 show a continued increase in the number of persons participating in primitive camping, a trend which is likely to continue. Thus, any reduction of sites below current use levels may result in an increase in user defined sites in areas which are currently not used for camping." (emphasis added)
At one point, he does question:

Quote:
That said, has the DEC done any serious survey of existing sites? How many drive-in sites on average are used on weekdays, weekends? How about on peak weekends like July 4th or Labor Day Weekend? Is 83 sites sufficient under current peak use times? Also, how many of the 150 drive in sites are currently used, and how many have reverted back to forest, or otherwise provide a sub-prime experience by being too close to the road and essentially abandoned? I suspect fewer then 80 existing campsites in good enough shape to be regularly used. The DEC has not done a full survey of it.
I'm not sure if the DEC has done a campsite impact assessment study (although I would be surprised if they had not- I know they had SCA interns conduct a similar study of the primitive campsites in the West Canada Lakes Wilderness Area to the south a few years back). I do know as a fact, however, that the DEC conducted a pretty extensive visitor use study during the summer and fall of 2008.

He does have some good thoughts about the potential for harming the integrity of wilderness by expanding the boundaries of the WCLWA northward. He suggests that having a Wilderness Area that directly abuts an Intensive Use area would harm the quality of the wilderness experience in the Wilderness Area:

Quote:
Moreover, the expansion of West Canada Wilderness into the Moose River Wild Forest will be highly detrimental to the integrity of the Wilderness. The conversion of a portion of Moose River Plains Wild Forest on the North West side of Cedar River Flow to Wilderness will put it directly in contact with the new Moose River Plains Intensive Use Area, without any kind of buffer to protect the integrity of the wilderness area. People expect remoteness in a wilderness.
I would argue, however, that plenty of Wilderness Areas in the Adirondacks directly abut main roads or developed lands, without any significant examples of detrimental affects, barring a few exceptions (south meadows, etc).

I could find no mention of the State Constitution in his arguments, therefore I'm going to assume, 40dog, that you are mistaken in what you remember of his arguments. While it's possible that he may have referenced the constitution elsewhere on his site, I find it hard to believe that if any such argument had any merit, he would not have included it in his “official” response to the DEC on the draft UMP.

What he does reference, however, is a court case:

Quote:
The courts in the past have held that restrictions to access to public lands, even temporarily (see Friends of Van Cortlandt Park v. City of New York) are illegal. Moreover, creating excessive barriers to access to public lands, for their customary uses have be found by courts over the years to constitute an illegal alienation of public lands. The entire Moose River Plains UMP, insofar as it restricts public use from its lands, is illegal under the doctrine of public trust of public lands.
I can't attest as to the validity of the argument that “creating excessive barriers to access to public lands, for their customary uses have be found by courts over the years to constitute an illegal alienation of public lands,” since he doesn't reference any specific cases (and I'm certainly not about to go off searching for them, that's his responsibility if he wants his argument to have merit). So I'll focus on Friends of Van Cortlandt Park v. City of New York.

A quick google search found me this brief, which discusses the particulars of the case. It seems that what happened is that in 1998, the United States sued the City of New York because they weren't providing adequate filtration and disinfectant in their Croton Water supply. With fines mounting, the city was eager to build a new Water Treatment Plant (WTP), and selected a spot in the middle of Van Cortlandt Park. The plan was the dig up the golf course, install the WTP underground, and rebuild the golf course above it. At issue, it seems, was whether or not the State Legislature needed to approve the new use of the space beneath park land, as common law requires public park lands to remain in the public trust as such, and only the state legislature can authorize their sale or use for other purposes (my interpretation, probably not perfect, but that's what I got out of all the legalese).

Quote:
We therefore certify, subject to the provision set forth above, the following question: Does any aspect of the proposed WTP require state legislative approval?
Interestingly, two of the court cases cited as precedent for the Friends of Van Cortlandt Park v. City of New York case deal quite specifically (and clearly!) with non-park uses of public park land:

Quote:
the Court used broad language suggesting that legislative approval is required for non-park uses of parkland

(Williams v. Gallatin)
and

Quote:
"Dedicated park areas in New York are impressed with a public trust and their use for other than park purposes, either for a period of years or permanently, requires the direct and specific approval of the State Legislature, plainly conferred."

(Ackerman v. Steisel)
It took me a while to find the outcome of the case, but eventually I found this Judgement on the cornell website:

Quote:
Though the water treatment plant plainly serves an important public purpose--indeed, even the State Attorney General believes it should be built at the site selected (see, United States v City of New York, supra, 96 F Supp 2d, at 203)--our law is well settled: dedicated park areas in New York are impressed with a public trust for the benefit of the people of the State. Their "use for other than park purposes, either for a period of years or permanently, requires the direct and specific approval of the State Legislature, plainly conferred" (Ackerman v Steisel, supra, 104 AD2d, at 941, affd , 66 NY2d 833; see also, Potter v Collis, 156 NY 16, 30 [where a municipality holds title to land for public use "the power to regulate those uses (is) vested solely in the Legislature"]). That proposition is reflected both in our case law and in our statutes (see, e.g., L 1989, ch 533 [easements over parkland for construction, operation and maintenance of water treatment facility]; L 1998, ch 209 [easements in Webster Park for construction, operation and maintenance of sanitary sewer system facilities]; L 1994, ch 341 [parkland in Town of Waverly necessary for sewer district]; L 1994, ch 534 [easements in towns of Fleming and Owasco for water mains]).

Finally, we reach this conclusion as a matter of common law, without the need to address General City Law § 2).

Accordingly, the certified question should be answered in the affirmative.
The bolding is mine. Basically it says that yes, the proposed WTP required legislative approval before it could be constructed, as it was a non-park use of public park lands.

First of all, Arthur cites this case as precedent in stating that the MRP proposal is illegal. He stated that: “The courts in the past have held that restrictions to access to public lands, even temporarily (see Friends of Van Cortlandt Park v. City of New York) are illegal.” This is not quite true; the court case upheld that the proposed use of park land in NYC was not illegal, only that it required legislative approval. He does not mention that the legislature did eventually approve the proposed WTP, and construction began on it (legally) in 2004.

Secondly, it's pretty clear that this was a court judgment concerning the use of park lands for non-park purposes. In no way does the proposed plan for the MRP constitute such a use. Yes, motorized vehicle access will be restricted, but the lands will still be open and available for all to use as park land. It seems pretty clear to me that Friends of Van Cortlandt Park v. City of New York does not apply here as precedent.

Finally, I noticed this at the end of his comments:

Quote:
The Department Must Disregard Any Comments from Groups Without Standing in the Matter.

There are several groups and individuals that are commenting on the Moose River Plains Wild Forest Forest Unit Management Plan. Unless they can cite their specific uses of this specific piece of land, their comments should be stricken in their entirety from the record.

For example, certain groups located on Hamilton Street may have ideological predispositions towards this property, but they have no connection to the parcel, except being located on the street that leads to the freeway ramp to the Adirondack Northway. Being an environmental group situated on a ramp to a freeway that indirectly connects to the Adirondack Northway which happens to be over 50 miles from Moose River Plains, does not connote any form of standing.
I find it interesting that elsewhere on his website, he upholds the right to free speech by nazis and neo-fascists (I did not get the sense that he sympathizes with their political views, but rather simply supports their rights as citizens of the US), yet here he supports the idea of restricting the views of New York State citizens, all of whom, as joint landowners of state lands, have “standing” in the matter.
DSettahr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-12-2011, 06:30 PM   #97
40dog
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 158
moose river plains yes mrp again

FFAA
Update on Moose River Plains area, Inlet , NY
From the desk of – NYS Conservation Council

Access and Land Use Specialist



This past year has been a busy one regarding sportsmen's access and land use issues. The Counsel has taken an active role advocating for maintaining and expanding sportsman’s access on easement and state lands. The Moose River Plains UMP, the APA/DEC MOA regarding Easement Lands and the DEC Strategic Plan for State Forest Management all will have a significant impact on our ability to access hunting, fishing and trapping locations. The Status of these plans is as follows:



Moose River Plains - First for the bad news! The Draft Final Plan is out and has been approved by the Adirondack Park Agency. Despite tremendous public opposition to closing the Indian Lake Road (access to some of the best trout fishing in the northeast) and opposition to creating additional wilderness, the DEC has put forward a final plan to expand the wilderness by 14667 acres and shut down two miles of the Indian Lake Road starting at a parking lot which will be created one-half mile from Squaw lake. This means the public will have to walk two and one-half miles to get to Indian Lake to fish, canoe and enjoy nature. It is my understanding that discussions are under way to designate the last two miles of the Indian Lake Road as part of the North Country Scenic Trail, a hiking trail.



The 14667 acres wilderness expansion will be removed from existing wild forest and designated wilderness creating a new wilderness area of 12,270 acres south of the main Cedar River Road. The new wilderness would be formed on the North side of a mountain biking trail that will have Wild Forest designation. The other 2, 397 acres will be added to the West Canada Wilderness area.



Roadside Camping on the Moose River Plains will continue with some adjustments to site locations As I understand it the designation of an intensive use corridor within the Adirondack Park will require an addendum to the State Land master Plan. Let us not forget thsi was a preexisting condition and as such we gained very little. It also appears that agreement has been reached where none of the existing sites will be removed until new sites have been constructed. Floatplanes will be allowed. The UMP now goes to the Governor for his approval. The outcome in general is very disappointing for the sporting community when we consider this land was gifted to sportsmen by a timber company and many of the roads were actually deeded to insure access. The change in classification of the 14,667 acres of wild forest to wilderness requires the approval of the Governor; thus the future of the entire plan hinges on the Governors sign off and approval by the DEC Commissioner . Next steps are being considered.





Adirondack Park Agency / Department of Environmental Conservation MOA regarding Management of Easement Lands has been approved. A major concern was that the APA would be involved and would have to approve use of existing trails and roads for snowmobile and ATV use for sportsmen involved in hunting, fishing and trapping. It appears the DEC recognized that easement lands are private lands and that existing uses should not fall under the APA's purview. Following negotiations it appears APA oversight will be limited to new use and development and when the intensity of use by the public reaches a certain level. The Council provided extensive comments and it appears the comments supported the Department of Environmental Conservations thinking and helped facilitate a positive outcome. It now appears the traditional use of trails and roads on easement lands by sportsmen utilizing trucks, ATV's and snowmobiles will continue, contingent on easement language. The outcome appears positive for the sporting community.

DEC State Land Use Strategic Plan – A high number of public comments have been received on the plan and the Department of Environmental Conservation is reviewing and preparing responses to the comments. As I understand it the Dec Commissioner must sign off on the plan. At this point it does not appear the plan will be approved during the current administration. The Council weighted in heavily on access issues pertaining to State Lands. The impact on sportsmen is unknown until the plan is finalized.



Champion Camp Retention – 200 camps occupied by Sportsmen are scheduled to be torn down per the Easement Agreement. Club members and the sporting community have lobbied, litigated and negotiated to see that the camps remain. The DEC after careful deliberation decided to support the camps remaining and is awaiting a final review from the APA. Environmental Groups are opposing the action and it would appear continued pressure from the sporting community is important at this point. The decision will be precedent setting in terms of keeping hundreds of camps on other easement lands. It seems people are realizing that the traditional hunting clubs have been good stewards of the land. Current outcome unknown.



Thank-you - As we conclude the year I would like to thank everyone that took their time to weigh in with Public and Elected Officials on the critical land use and access issues facing the sporting community. Our efforts are yielding some results; visit the Council’s website frequently for action alerts. If you are not a member of the N.Y.S. Conservation Council an application can be accessed at www.nyscc.com and click on "get involved".



Happy New Year!
Posted December 22nd, 2010 at 12:43 PM by Jordan Ross

Just a little bit of good news for sportsman your only loosing 2 miles of access . lets hope we see the gates open by the end of may!
40dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2011, 08:18 AM   #98
thebluesman5748
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 178
Thank you for your time in posting this update...
thebluesman5748 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2011, 08:31 AM   #99
fvrwld
Moderator
 
fvrwld's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: West Sand Lake, NY
Posts: 2,214
Its dated 12/22/10. Thats almost 3 months ago...not realy an update.



Discuss it HERE
__________________
“One of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds.” ~ Aldo Leopold
fvrwld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2011, 09:03 AM   #100
DSettahr
ɹǝqɯǝɯ
 
DSettahr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,363
And did we really need a new thread about this? The old one is only 4 threads down in the "Current Affairs and Environmental Issues" forum. Thanks for posting it though, I'd not seen it yet even though it was a few months old.

One quick comment on something I saw-

Quote:
The outcome in general is very disappointing for the sporting community when we consider this land was gifted to sportsmen by a timber company and many of the roads were actually deeded to insure access.
The roads were gifted to the state to keep them out of the forest preserve and to allow access by motor vehicles for the purposes of fish and game management, not recreation. As I understand it, there is nothing in the deed that requires them to remain open to public motor vehicle use.

Btw, the public comments for this plan can be viewed here: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/lands_for...rpwfump026.pdf

And the entire UMP here: http://www.dec.ny.gov/lands/22571.html

One thing I noticed in the plan that concerns me:

Quote:
CP‐3 access is no longer being considered anywhere on Indian Lake Road.
As an old road bed, Indian Lake Road is ideal for CP-3 use by the disabled on ATVs. It's a shame that the DEC is not considering allowing this use on the road.

(Honestly, I'm not too impressed with some of the responses to the public comments in that pdf file. It would have been nice to see some more in-depth responses about why certain parts of the UMP are as written, rather than just "it conforms to APA standards and department policies.")

I honestly have no problem with a reduction in the number of campsites though- there are quite a few campsites back there that never get used, nor has the MRP ever been full any of the numerous times I've been there (although I admittedly have not been there on Labor Day or Columbus Day weekends- does it fill up then?). I know that the DEC did a pretty involved study on the amount of use the MRP gets during the summer and fall of 2008, so I'm sure they have some really solid numbers that they'll be basing any changes to the campsites off of.
DSettahr 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 11:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, 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.