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 04-22-2016, 09:34 PM   #21
craigmcg
Never stop exploring
 
craigmcg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Fairport, NY
Posts: 28
So no Earth Day announcement by the Governor. Good thing I'm not a political pundit!
craigmcg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2016, 09:16 AM   #22
craigmcg
Never stop exploring
 
craigmcg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Fairport, NY
Posts: 28
Cuomo announcement here:

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/gov...e-more-century

Next step is APA's. We will probably see a process similar to the Essex Chain Lakes. Anyone recall how long that took and the key steps?

Here is my fuzzy recollection:

1) DEC makes recommendation
2) Public hearings
3) APA vote
craigmcg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2016, 11:37 AM   #23
Buckladd
Member
 
Buckladd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Hogtown
Posts: 1,026
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigmcg View Post
Cuomo announcement here:

https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/gov...e-more-century

Next step is APA's. We will probably see a process similar to the Essex Chain Lakes. Anyone recall how long that took and the key steps?

Here is my fuzzy recollection:

1) DEC makes recommendation
2) Public hearings
3) APA vote
It took most of the summer of 2013 and the Essex Chain opened on Oct. 1 of that year.
Buckladd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2016, 12:03 PM   #24
stripperguy
Hangin' by a thread
 
stripperguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Schenectady, NY
Posts: 3,627
Essex Chain was opened in October, but between the announced acquisition and the opening, there was no public access allowed.
When NYS bought Little Tupper and the surrounds, it was no camping, day trips only for the first 5 or 6 months.

With this most recent purchase, there have been no official restrictions other than the closed road...
__________________
Stripperguy's Photos (sort of)
stripperguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2016, 04:35 PM   #25
Buckladd
Member
 
Buckladd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Hogtown
Posts: 1,026
I attended a public meeting on July 2, 2013. Three months later the Essex Chain opened. I went in during the summer of 2014 and by then they had campsites set up. Some people I know hunted in there that year. Looks a lot different than when it was run by the Gooley Club.

http://www.adirondackalmanack.com/20...e-forever.html
Buckladd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2016, 06:20 PM   #26
Zach
Last seen wandering vaguely
 
Zach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Orwell NY
Posts: 800
I heard an interesting talk with a representative of the Adirondack Council on the Capitol Pressroom last night while I was working in the shop. I don't know enough about studies to know if this is a well-executed one or not but it seemed interesting in light of the Boreas Ponds decisions that will need to be made, or at least publicized if the power brokers have already made them.
Zach

http://www.adirondackcouncil.org/pag...onomy-800.html
Zach is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2016, 06:36 PM   #27
Justin
Moving along
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,383
For what it's worth, the gentleman from TNC whom stopped to say hello to me as I was hiking out from the BP this past weekend was very friendly and knowledgeable of the area, and was nice enough to share some 'on the ground' info, and seemed to be genuinely happy to see someone actually hiking the road...
Justin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2016, 12:23 PM   #28
Bounder45
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 385
Would be nice if the APA gave it a Wild Forest classification. I find those areas much easier to get into and explore.
Bounder45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2016, 12:45 PM   #29
TCD
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,743
I also lean towards WF. I can still bushwhack with the best of them, and Wilderness is OK with me. But when the "Everything has to be wilderness right now!" folks get wound up, they end up pushing for areas that are full of roads and buildings to be designated "wilderness." Then follows the idiotic charade of "What do we do with all these non-conforming roads and buildings?" when it was not a "wilderness" to being with. Might as well bulldoze Speculator and declare it a "wilderness"...
TCD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2016, 12:59 PM   #30
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 971
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCD View Post
Then follows the idiotic charade of "What do we do with all these non-conforming roads and buildings?" when it was not a "wilderness" to being with.
Hrrmmm... by that line of thinking I don't think we'd have any considerable block of wilderness in the Adirondacks.

I see it exactly opposite, despite whatever non-conformances may exist, they can be be fixed in time - roads go away rather easily if not maintained. Buildings can be disassembled to conform and left to rot, or burned if more immediate action is needed. Look at the southern 5 ponds. That used to be a mess of roads and camps but you can barely walk it now. Remnants still exists, but are being reclaimed by the earth rapidly.

I think the option that leaves the WF boarder up to the road gives the best compromise. It makes sense geographically to add the northern portion to the HPW.
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2016, 01:37 PM   #31
Bounder45
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by montcalm View Post
Hrrmmm... by that line of thinking I don't think we'd have any considerable block of wilderness in the Adirondacks.

I see it exactly opposite, despite whatever non-conformances may exist, they can be be fixed in time - roads go away rather easily if not maintained. Buildings can be disassembled to conform and left to rot, or burned if more immediate action is needed. Look at the southern 5 ponds. That used to be a mess of roads and camps but you can barely walk it now. Remnants still exists, but are being reclaimed by the earth rapidly.

I think the option that leaves the WF boarder up to the road gives the best compromise. It makes sense geographically to add the northern portion to the HPW.
The Wild Forest areas are wild enough. Despite the commotion some people make about having everything classified as Wilderness Area no matter what, all of the WF areas I have been to feel just as remote as the wilderness and primitive areas.

The big difference is that you generally find more access roads and trails not only for recreational use (biking, snowmobile, skiing) but also so that hunters and fishermen can actually get deeper into the woods before having to dismount and hoof it to their final destination.

While there are many roads in wilderness areas that do get taken back by the forest, there are many that are in fact maintained and still used for multitude of reasons (emergency use, fires, DEC/Ranger Patrols, leased camp access). I've been down many of these old and still used roads (Pepperbox Wilderness, Essex Chain of Lakes, William C. Whitney Wilderness). Except for the occasional camp member driving his/her truck, I hardly ever see anyone using these roads, especially for hiking or backpacking. The shame of it is, you can get into some real remote areas for hunting, fishing or just recreational camping, but when it takes you a day or two just to hike the length of the road one way, you're not going to find many people willing to go in there, especially when heavy gear needs to be carried.

I've always seen the Wilderness Area classification as an indirect way for certain advocacy groups to discourage hunting and fishing access. But the more I explore some of these areas, the more I realize it is discouraging all types of access.
Bounder45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2016, 07:24 AM   #32
Justin
Moving along
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder45 View Post
... The shame of it is, you can get into some real remote areas for hunting, fishing or just recreational camping, but when it takes you a day or two just to hike the length of the road one way, you're not going to find many people willing to go in there...
Lest anyone may think that it would take all day to reach the Boreas Ponds by foot, it only took us 2.5 hours when we were there a couple weeks ago...

Boreas Ponds by JCF
Justin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2016, 09:23 AM   #33
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 971
I'm not against wild forest by any means, the problem I have with making something like that wild forest, and even the section nearest the Blue Ridge road is snowmobiles. And I definitely see a case to make all of it wilderness to limit access to HPW, but in some sense, I tend to think it will take strain off the other entry points to keep Gulf Brook Rd open in the summer.

The thing is the DEC wants to promote their proposal as being the ideal compromise for bikes, snowmobiles, skiers and hikers - but I don't see it that way. I made a post earlier in another thread about the situation that if that Gulf Brook Rd is made a snowmobile trail, that will severely limit the options for hikers and skiers (many skiers and hikers don't prefer to use busy snowmobile trails for many reasons, one being safety). If another trail is to be built for skiers and hikers to separate them, then it's less of an issue. If the whole block is designated wilderness, then it's a non-issue. If the whole block is designated wild forest, then the problem still exists and could move into the other trail network. It seems to me that more often than not, in wild forests, trail systems become snowmobile trails if they are wide enough. That then kills most any winter recreation opportunity for non-motorized users. Snowmobiles, due to their size, speed and noise, trump pretty much everything if allowed.

Many people that MTB are looking for specific bike trails these days. The days of riding fire roads and hiking trails is dwindling. And for bikepackers, there is no thru-pass - once you get to the HPW, you can't go any further. It doesn't make a lot of sense to keep access open for something that won't really provide much real use. Hikers and skiers will be the vast majority of users, and they will use this to access HPW. It's as simple as looking at the other access points to the HPW to realize those facts.
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2016, 01:33 PM   #34
Bounder45
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin View Post
Lest anyone may think that it would take all day to reach the Boreas Ponds by foot, it only took us 2.5 hours when we were there a couple weeks ago...

Boreas Ponds by JCF
Agreed. 2.5 hours for a few day hikers or backpackers isn't a huge deal. 2.5 hours for someone wanting to fish and/or hunt and the has to carry all his/her gear and harvest all the way back is quite different...in fact, I don't think we're talking about a 2.5 hour hike at that point.

Edit: and for the record, I'm not necessarily saying that there needs to be drive-up access to Boreas Ponds. I'm saying that Wild Forest designations tend to strike the best balance between keeping the wilderness preserved and allowing sportsmen and others to get reasonable access for their purposes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by montcalm View Post
The thing is the DEC wants to promote their proposal as being the ideal compromise for bikes, snowmobiles, skiers and hikers - but I don't see it that way. I made a post earlier in another thread about the situation that if that Gulf Brook Rd is made a snowmobile trail, that will severely limit the options for hikers and skiers (many skiers and hikers don't prefer to use busy snowmobile trails for many reasons, one being safety). If another trail is to be built for skiers and hikers to separate them, then it's less of an issue. If the whole block is designated wilderness, then it's a non-issue. If the whole block is designated wild forest, then the problem still exists and could move into the other trail network. It seems to me that more often than not, in wild forests, trail systems become snowmobile trails if they are wide enough. That then kills most any winter recreation opportunity for non-motorized users. Snowmobiles, due to their size, speed and noise, trump pretty much everything if allowed.
I've been down a lot of active snow-mobile trails during both the winter and the summer in several wild forest areas. During the summer, they are fine to hike, and honestly most are fine to drive in 4wd vehicles if they were open to that kind of traffic. In the winter, they are definitely good for x-country skiing, but I wouldn't bother hiking most of them since the distances to certain destinations are usually much longer than the average hiking trail.

FYI, in the wild forests I have been to there are certain trails that are designated for snow-mobile use, though theoretically they can be used for other recreational purposes, and there are trails that specifically prohibit snow-mobile use. You can't assume that just because a an area is designated a wild forest that all available trails will be used by snow mobiles; that's simply not how things work.

As for co-use between snow mobiles and foot or ski traffic, I agree separate trails would be the best option, but also co-use is not the end of the world. Cyclists and drivers have learned to share the road despite the big speed difference between the two groups. Snow mobile should slow down going around blind corners and foot mobile traffic should pay attention and keep to the side when they hear engines getting close...common sense stuff like that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by montcalm View Post
Many people that MTB are looking for specific bike trails these days. The days of riding fire roads and hiking trails is dwindling. And for bikepackers, there is no thru-pass - once you get to the HPW, you can't go any further. It doesn't make a lot of sense to keep access open for something that won't really provide much real use. Hikers and skiers will be the vast majority of users, and they will use this to access HPW. It's as simple as looking at the other access points to the HPW to realize those facts.
What makes you say that bike travel is dwindling? I think it is highly restrictive in many areas, unnecessarily so, but I see many bikers in areas where it is allowed and I'm sure bikers would appreciate being able to go into more areas that are currently off limits.

You really can't say, without any sort of obvious bias, who would and would not utilize access to HPW and Boreas Ponds because currently all access except for foot traffic is highly restricted.

And this mentality of yours demonstrates very clearly why certain advocacy groups insist the APA designate most, if not all, areas as wilderness areas. Because once one area is designated a wilderness area, it no longer "makes sense" to designate adjacent areas as anything else.

Last edited by Bounder45; 05-26-2016 at 01:43 PM..
Bounder45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2016, 03:49 PM   #35
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 971
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder45 View Post
Would be nice if the APA gave it a Wild Forest classification. I find those areas much easier to get into and explore.
It's obvious you did want to talk about this Mr. Bounder45. So why are these areas much easier to get to? Didn't you just shred everything I wrote about wilderness to defend some point you want to make with this?

I find statements like this on the internet to be linked to transparent trolling. Your responses seem to support my hypothesis.

Maybe someone else will take your bait, but I've had the argument you are dragging out far too many times to really want to go into its depths again.
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2016, 04:17 PM   #36
Brookie hunter
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: follow my tracks.
Posts: 211
I'm not afraid to hike anywhere or any distance. Almost all of my trips are day trips but that hasn't stopped me from seeing some of the most remote areas of the park.
That being said. The roads are most likely all perfectly useable so let's leave them open. I'll be there regardless of whether I drive it or hike it, but what about some of the less fortunate? They may never see it if their forced to hike down roads that are perfectly driveable.
Brookie hunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2016, 05:25 PM   #37
Bounder45
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by montcalm View Post
It's obvious you did want to talk about this Mr. Bounder45. So why are these areas much easier to get to? Didn't you just shred everything I wrote about wilderness to defend some point you want to make with this?

I find statements like this on the internet to be linked to transparent trolling. Your responses seem to support my hypothesis.

Maybe someone else will take your bait, but I've had the argument you are dragging out far too many times to really want to go into its depths again.
Take it easy. I'm expressing my opinion that the APA sometimes over-regulates access to some areas of the ADK's. You can throw labels and emoji's at me all you want, or you can discuss my points and bring up counterpoints.

If your question was truly sincere, here is my answer on: Wild forest areas are generally more permissive when it comes to dirt road access, snow-mobile and ATV access, the latter two being of particular relevance to many of the locals and visitors who rely on motorized access to get into remote areas with all their hunting/fishing gear and then carry their harvest back out.

It's fine if you want to hike, ski, backpack and bushwack to/from your final destinations with a relatively light load, but for a lot of other wilderness users, that simply isn't an option given the amount of gear, and potentially harvest, they have to carry in and out and given the distances they would have to cover. I've been in several wild forest areas in the middle of summer and in the dead of winter (at the height of snow-mobile season). I can tell you from experience that added noise and traffic that so many naysayers claim is associated with Wild Forest area is overblown and exaggerated. The traffic going down the main roads and snow-mobile trails was minimal at best and once you got off the main roads and into the woods, I felt just as isolated and alone as I have in many of the wilderness areas.

If it weren't for the fact that Moose River Plains was designated a Wild Forest, and wasn't so permissive when it came to motorized access (using roads that had been around for a while) I can promise you that there would be hardly anyone visiting its interior areas. It is simply too vast and too remote to hike and/or bushwack in unless you have days, if not weeks, worth of time on your hands....which very few people do.

I understand Boreas Ponds is a much smaller area by comparison, but this inclination by certain ADK advocacy groups to push for all new land acquisitions to be designated wilderness areas just because "it's better that way" is premature and excessive. Put some basic rules in place and there should be no reason why we can't give access to multiple types of recreation.
Bounder45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2016, 05:32 PM   #38
Justin
Moving along
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brookie hunter View Post
... but what about some of the less fortunate? They may never see it if their forced to hike down roads that are perfectly driveable.
I've mentioned this in other discussions also, and might as well add it to this discussion...
If Gulf Brook Rd ended up getting closed due to a Wilderness designation, I would think a horse & wagon service similar to the ones used at nearby Newcomb Lake would seem like it could be profitable for a local business or two. Also, perhaps the new lean-to & trails that are supposed to be constructed at nearby Wolf Lake will also offer a shorter hike to Boreas Ponds...?
Additionally, it is obvious to me & my experience that many oudoor enthusiasts are not at all hesitant to carry and/or cart gear & equipment over long distances along old roadbeds & even further into the backcountry, especially during the big game hunting season.

Last edited by Justin; 05-26-2016 at 05:53 PM.. Reason: Bad typing as usual
Justin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2016, 06:03 PM   #39
Bounder45
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin View Post
Also, it is obvious to me & my experience that many oudoor enthusiasts are not at all not hesitant to carry and/or cart their gear & equipment over long distances along old roadbeds & further into the backcountry, especially during the big game hunting season.
Whether or not that was directed at me, I can say without hesitation that I have my fair share of experience of hiking and backpacking with all types of gear throughout all types of wilderness environments. It's not laziness or an aversion to hiking and sore feet that motivates my view on this issue.

Besides, this isn't drive-up hunting/fishing that I am talking about or even advocating for. Anyone who knows anything about hunting the ADK's, knows that there are few, if any, places where you can simply drive up, get out and go harvest an animal, even in the areas where the old road networks are still in use. The game densities are far too low for that kind of hunting. A lot of walking and hiking is still required. That's just the nature of things up there.

What I am saying is that if there are roads already in place in some of these land acquisitions, why do we need to automatically close them and prohibit certain types of access? For all the times I've been down closed-off roads in the William C. Whitney wilderness area or Essex Chain of Lakes, I've never seen another party hiking the full length of the road (I've come across a few who hike a short stretch for boat access or access to side trails, but that's it). The only other people I've come across are lease-holders or DEC/Rangers driving by. IMO, the whole hiking/rustic reason for closing off a road to the public motor vehicles goes out the window when you have vehicles still using the road for administrative reasons.

If the roads are already there, let people use them. I know a lot of hunters, myself included, would appreciate the additional access which would give us more time to scout, hike, hunt, rather than spend it walking down a road that clearly isn't a hiking trail.
Bounder45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-26-2016, 06:31 PM   #40
Justin
Moving along
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,383
Cool thanks, Bounder!
My post wasn't directed at anyone, just sharing my thoughts also.
I'm in favor of a motor-less classification. There are many old roads out there from decades ago that are now fun trails to walk or ski, including the Burn Road near Little Tupper Lake... Little Tupper Lake & Bum Pond via the Burn Road
Justin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
boreas ponds tract, state land


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 11:31 AM.


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.