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 08-10-2012, 04:46 PM   #101
Neil
Kayak-46
 
Neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 6,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill I. View Post
The news reports were conflicting on that aspect. I know full access to everything wasn't expected until 2018, when the last of the leases expire.
Oh. That's a very long way off.
__________________
The best, the most successful adventurer, is the one having the most fun.
Neil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2012, 05:01 PM   #102
Pumpkin QAAD
Whachu talking about
 
Pumpkin QAAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,324
Clearly those lakes and rivers are navigable in fact
__________________
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they never shall sit in
Pumpkin QAAD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2012, 06:23 PM   #103
Bill I.
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
Oh. That's a very long way off.
But bits and pieces will come beforehand, at least one new chunk per year.
Bill I. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2012, 06:32 PM   #104
Bill I.
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by cityboy View Post
Even before this purchase the State owns 45% of the Park. How much more does it need.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DuctTape View Post
Only 45% of the preserve? I thought it was more. I have no hard percent in mind. Apparently you do.
Gentlemen. From the APA website:

August 2011 Parkwide Acreage:
Private Land......2,962,157......50.55%
State Land........2,524,726......43.08%
Water................373,009.......6.37%
Total Park.........5,859,893.......100.0%
Bill I. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2012, 06:39 PM   #105
Bill I.
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,587
From an APA report on recent state land staff activity:

Quote:
Field Evaluation of Former Finch Pruyn Lands for Future Classification
On July 23, APA and DEC staff met in the field to discuss potential public access points in the vicinity of the Outer Gooley Club in the Town of Minerva. The property provides access to the Indian River and Hudson River in the vicinity upstream from the Hudson River Gorge, a major wilderness whitewater rafting opportunity along a 16-mile stretch of the Indian & Hudson Rivers created from daily water releases from Lake Abanakee.
Bill I. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2012, 11:40 PM   #106
TCD
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,754
How much of the 50.55% private land is protected by conservation easements? I bet it's a good amount, just knowing about Elk Lake, Ausable, and the big chunk of Finch land...

When looking at the division of land, you need to accurately represent "the protected land" and the "the developable land."
TCD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2012, 12:12 AM   #107
forest dweller
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 588
Quote:
Originally Posted by cityboy View Post
A conservation easement was appropriate and if necessary buy the land surrounding the lakes but outright purchase was unnecessary. This property that is being described as pristine, a jewel was privately owned for 100 plus years. It wasn't being run into the ground but was used according to its highest and best use forrest land.
Nope. This land is exceptional. The creme de la creme MINORITY portion of the 160,000 acres TNC bought originally. They made the right decision to nail these lands down as forever wild.

"Your side" got the MAJORITY of the 160,000 acres as working forest lands with easements.

"Our" side got this.

Stop being greedy.

Remember, this was the "NATURE CONSERVANCY" that bought these lands - NOT the "Sympathy For Logging Companies And Hunters Clubs And Oh By The Way The State Is Broke Company" that bought these lands.
forest dweller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2012, 06:24 AM   #108
cityboy
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 574
forest dweller are you saying that ALL of the land is exceptional? I thought it was just the lakes and certain other portions. Do you really need access to every foot of the property? So who's greedy me or you? A conservation easement would provide you with access to all the creme and is in keeping with the APA master plan.

If it were up to me, you could have access to ALL lands in the Adirondacks through conservation easements. I'm for reasonable access. If there was no other reasonable way to access I'd be in favor of buying, but there is an valid alternative.
cityboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2012, 08:08 AM   #109
DuctTape
Out of Shape
 
DuctTape's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 1,782
A conservation easement does not necessarily provide any access. It is simply the state "buying" limited rights (an encumbrance to development). An affirmative usage easement may not provide you (cityboy) the access you desire. It may only include access at limited times, to limited places by limited means. The more access, the more the affirmative easement will cost. Full access is by purchasing the full rights to the property.

In the end, I don't think your real issue is cost, or public access. Your real issue is you are upset that some people do not get to keep their camps. Am I right on that? If not, I apologize.
__________________
"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 08-11-2012, 08:16 AM   #110
DuctTape
Out of Shape
 
DuctTape's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 1,782
Would you be in favor of a conservation easement and an affirmative usage easement which allowed for retention of private ownership and allowed public access to hiking, hunting, fishing, paddling, swimming, etc... all days of the year but required the removal of all developed structures, prohibited future construction and prohibited all wheeled vehicles (motorized and non-motorized) on the property (wheeled vehicle exception for the private owners and not transferable to lessees)?
__________________
"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 08-11-2012, 08:22 AM   #111
geogymn
Member
 
geogymn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,959
Not sure if this is a drift or not but....how would you people feel if the land (any land in the park) was purchased by a private entity that were better "forever wild" stewards of the land than the State? I think there are some existing examples. Or is access the priority that we seek?
__________________
"A culture is no better than its woods." W.H. Auden
geogymn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2012, 08:49 AM   #112
cityboy
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 574
"Your real issue is you are upset that some people do not get to keep their camps."

Nope. My issue is that State already has more than enough land to recreate. Even in good financial times I'd be opposed to new purchases. Finch land with all its logging roads provides access corridors to see all the "good stuff". An easement confing use along these corridors seems more environmentally sound then having people traipsing all over the damn place.

Another issue is the State making unilateral decisions effecting everyone without allowing the masses a vote. As I said originally a referendum would have been nice whatever the outcome.

By my estimate the State will be paying 1 million per year in taxes for the privilege to have access to most of the property that neither you or I could ever see in our lifetime.
cityboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2012, 08:57 AM   #113
Neil
Kayak-46
 
Neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 6,034
Easy on the name-calling gentlemen. What you think of any other single person's opinions has less importance than the issues under discussion.


We are mostly looking at this purchase through 2012 glasses. I wonder, what will it potentially mean 50 years down the line, 100 years, 200....

The state (ie. the people) owns 43% of the park, at first glance you'd normally think it should own 100% but I think we are all aware of the history behind that. Makes one wonder, what percentage of NYS is owned by the state?

Speaking of easements the AMR road and lower flanks of the surrounding mountains is an interesting example. No dogs, no lake access, no bikes, no stepping off a trail and I think everyone has a tale to tell regarding the "friendly" (sometimes armed) gentlemen who guard the gate.
__________________
The best, the most successful adventurer, is the one having the most fun.
Neil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2012, 09:01 AM   #114
DuctTape
Out of Shape
 
DuctTape's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 1,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by geogymn View Post
Not sure if this is a drift or not but....how would you people feel if the land (any land in the park) was purchased by a private entity that were better "forever wild" stewards of the land than the State? I think there are some existing examples. Or is access the priority that we seek?
I don't think the priorities are exclusive of each other. Both are priorities, however if the choice MUST be made between them, I would use some game theory to help decide.

Conservation over access, protects lands and water from future development and possibly gain access in future. Win 1, potential win 2.

Access over conservation. Possibly future development which would mean loss of access to pristine lands. Win 1, potential lose 2.

I would choose conservation (and hope for future access) because access without conservation may in the future be developed land (which would then not be access).
__________________
"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 08-11-2012, 09:09 AM   #115
DuctTape
Out of Shape
 
DuctTape's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 1,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by cityboy View Post
"Your real issue is you are upset that some people do not get to keep their camps."

Nope. My issue is that State already has more than enough land to recreate. Even in good financial times I'd be opposed to new purchases. Finch land with all its logging roads provides access corridors to see all the "good stuff". An easement confing use along these corridors seems more environmentally sound then having people traipsing all over the damn place.
Using the roads for biking (or driving) gives the access for those who choose to ride, but denies it to all others for other recreation. Plus, I disagree that the state has enough.

Another issue is the State making unilateral decisions effecting everyone without allowing the masses a vote. As I said originally a referendum would have been nice whatever the outcome.

By my estimate the State will be paying 1 million per year in taxes for the privilege to have access to most of the property that neither you or I could ever see in our lifetime.
I apologize for my assumption.

As to the rest, limiting access to a sightseeing tour along a road seems even more narrow access and to provide for the sights would require extensive use of roads which would be more damaging than allowing people to "traipse all over the place". You see, when people walk, even off trail the impact is much smaller than a wide road for cars or bikes. In pristine areas, in is desireable to minimize impact by spreading out. It is the continuous impact which lasts. In heavily used areas, this is mitigated by providing some more durable surfaces. Thus the durable surfaces are not to increase traffic, but to minimize effect of present use volume.

You do have a say. We elect people, some get appointed by those elected to make decisions on our behalf. If we were to use referendums, this would eliminate the need for the legislature and governor (not necessarily a bad thing). But our state and country are not democracies (this was by design to prevent tyranny of the majority). We have a representative democracy (a republic) to mitigate the tyranny of the masses.
__________________
"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 08-11-2012, 04:30 PM   #116
Bucknut
46er #7721
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Cincinnati/Newcomb
Posts: 320
Would Goodnow Flow Road be the main access to the property or would it be another road out of Minerva?
__________________
"Now he walks in quiet solitude the forest and the streams
Seeking grace in every step he takes
His sight has turned inside himself to try and understand
The serenity of a clear blue mountain lake" -John Denver
Bucknut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2012, 05:02 PM   #117
cityboy
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 574
"If we were to use referendums"

DuctTape we do use referendums for land questions. I distinctly recall a few years back voting on a land swap from some adirondack hamlet with NYS land. It passed I believe.
cityboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2012, 05:23 PM   #118
Alpine1
Member
 
Alpine1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North River, NY
Posts: 859
Yes, the land swap passed

Quote:
Originally Posted by cityboy View Post
"If we were to use referendums"

DuctTape we do use referendums for land questions. I distinctly recall a few years back voting on a land swap from some adirondack hamlet with NYS land. It passed I believe.
I believe your referring to Raquette Lk. There surface water source did not meet DOH requirements so they needed land to put a drilled well on for the village.

Sorry for the thread drift.
Alpine1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2012, 09:49 AM   #119
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by FTHR&DAGHTR View Post
I am surprised that I am the first to take "the other side" of this now non-issue. I am a hunter and I would be deeply saddened if my hunting club was be taking away,if I was losing a piece of family history. What if you were being told that you, the general public,could no longer use this land. Put the shoe on the other foot. The members of The Gooley Club are losing more than any one of you is gaining. Think of their history as you drag your canoes and race your mountain bikes on this "new" public land.


http://www.adirondackexplorer.org/st...gooleyclub.php
If yoiu really want to look at "The other side" then consider this. At one time the land was used exclusively by the original people of this country (Indians). The land that the "Gooley Club" is "losing" was never really theres to begin with since it was acquired by treaty which was broken and therfore legally invalid.

Not trying to beat a dead horse but if you want to try to justify a point, then you need to consider the whole picture.
__________________
"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 08-12-2012, 01:56 PM   #120
Pumpkin QAAD
Whachu talking about
 
Pumpkin QAAD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,324
The one down side I could see is that the state doesn't manage the land as well as the private users, particularly for hunting. It's not a coincidence the biggest bucks in the Adirondacks come off property like what Gooley leased.

http://poststar.com/sports/outdoors/...cc4c03286.html


I'm not going to start in on the treaties!
__________________
A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they never shall sit in
Pumpkin QAAD 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 12:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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.