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 06-13-2016, 05:17 PM   #81
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 971
Dams can be tricky, but Lows, Stillwater and Cranberry Lake are all dammed. They also contain a lot of shoreline which is wilderness, although only Lows is motorless.

The dams themselves are not usually part of the wilderness classification, but the areas that contain the body of water may be. This is one reason I think why there is a strong proposal to keep the ponds themselves wilderness and designate the area up to the dam to be wild forest.

If that was the case, the dam would most likely stay and be maintained. If the whole area was designated wilderness, then when the dam failed, it would resort back to it's natural state, much like Duck Hole and Marcy Dam.

Either way I don't think it would be a big deal, and I doubt that area would dry up if the dam failed. It would probably remain a wetland.
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2016, 05:37 PM   #82
Justin
Moving along
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,386
Cedar Lakes also once had a functioning dam (still has the remains of one), and had a drivable road that once lead to it's shores. To me it's no different than saying that road to Cedar Lakes (and to Whitney Lake) should've been kept open for public motorized use to make access easier for all user groups. No thanks.
Justin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2016, 07:57 PM   #83
TCD
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,746
There's a lot of selective thinking that goes on. Roads are bad, but dams are good. Mountain bike wheels are bad, but canoe cart wheels are good. Climbing bolts are bad, but trail signs and markers are good. Etc.
TCD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2016, 08:58 PM   #84
Justin
Moving along
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,386
Allowing public motorized access to Boreas Ponds would be bad for the Boreas Ponds, plain & simple.
Justin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2016, 08:18 AM   #85
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 971
I don't see anything as bad or good. Every recreation has some impact, and impact is normal. Development takes that impact to a more permanent level, but only in short spans of time out of the scope of our lives.

Those that are for wilderness generally want to protect the land the best it can be protected given our current systems. Users are generally, but not always, limited due to the necessity of using your own means to get there and back (the point of this whole tangent, is it not?). More so that that, it allows for certain types of recreation to thrive which in other areas tends to be overrun by more modern means. Examples are hiking, skiing, paddling, primitive camping and hunting. When we introduce vehicles, these activities can suffer. Sure it's easier to drive than hike, but some people would prefer the walk. To say they can walk the road is a poor argument, because what they really are after is the escape from the network of roads that already exist. When you mix in snowmobiles, skiing becomes a totally different thing. Skiers don't tend to want to ski miles and miles to be bombarded by snow machines that belch blue smoke. They do it for peace and solitude and physical challenge, and sometimes a bit of downhill excitement in the mix. Same can be said for boats. I can't think of one kayaker or canoeist who enjoys being buzzed and bombarded by motor boats. Those that really enjoy those activities seek out the few places left where they can go and not have to contend with motor boats. Hunters who hunt wilderness may have to deal with longer carries of gear and game, but they are rewarded with a preserve of game that is not easily accessible by just anyone.

It always comes down to those lowest common denominators. Motor vehicles take everything up a notch, and it is hard to go backwards. Usually the one chance we get to go the other way is when the state purchases new lands and decides how to designate.

Last edited by montcalm; 06-14-2016 at 07:10 PM..
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2016, 04:37 PM   #86
Bounder45
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by montcalm View Post
I don't see anything as bad or good. Every recreation has some impact, and impact is normal. Development takes that impact to a more permanent level, but only in short spans of time out of the scope of our lives.

Those that are for wilderness generally want to protect the land the best it can be protected given our current systems. Users are generally, but not always, limited due to the necessity of using your own means to get there and back (the point of this whole tangent, is it not?). More so that that, it allows for certain types of recreation to thrive which in other areas tends to be overrun by more modern means. Examples are hiking, skiing, paddling, primitive camping and hunting. When we introduce vehicles, these activities can suffer. Sure it's easier to drive than hike, but some people would prefer the walk. To say they can walk the road is a poor argument, because what they really are after is the escape from the network of roads that already exist. When you mix in snowmobiles, skiing becomes a totally different thing. Skiers don't tend to want to ski miles and miles to be bombarded by snow machines that belch blue smoke. They do it for peace and solitude and physical challenge, and sometimes a bit of downhill excitement in the mix. Same can be said for boats. I can't think of one kayaker or canoeist who enjoys being buzzed and bombarded by motor boats. Those that really enjoy those activities seek out the few places left where they can go and not have to contend with motor boats. Hunters who hunt wilderness may have to deal with longer carries of gear and game, but they are rewarded with a preserve of game that is not easily accessible by just anyone.

It always comes down to those lowest common denominators. Motor vehicles take everything up a notch, and it is hard to go backwards. Usually the one chance we get to go the other way is when the state purchases new lands and decides how to designate.
Motor vehicles take everything "up a notch" and it's "hard to go backwards?"

Well using that logic, the APA has been "going backwards" since the creation of the park. Go compare how many forestry and hunting roads used to be open 100 years ago to how many are open now. Road closures are not hard to come by nowadays, especially when certain groups raise a ruckus and launch lawsuits.

And how do motor vehicles take everything "up a notch?" Referring back to Moose River Plains Wild Forest, is anyone here going to argue that the area is too civilized and tame? IMO, it offers some of the best opportunities for remote camping and hunting in the whole Park; the road access, which some people disagree with on principle, is the only reason people are able to even access some of those remote areas. I promise that none of the "wilderness" experience is lost when bushwhacking through the dense brush around the Moose River or following over-grown, unmaintained trails around Indian and Horn Lakes.

The pessimistic and, at times, apocalyptic tone that some people have on this issue ends up creating more drama than there needs to be. Most areas, Boreas Ponds included, are big enough that the APA can designate different areas/trails for different types of use and access. Allowing an extra mile or two of dirt road access for motor vehicles and designating specific trails for snowmobile use isn't going to take anything "up a notch" nor create an irreversible situation.

Some people hunt, some hike, some camp, some ski, some ride snowmobiles...some do all of the above. Anyone who thinks that the Adirondacks needs to be set up to cater to their preferred form of recreation at the exclusion of other forms is living in a bubble.
Bounder45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2016, 04:52 PM   #87
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 971
Thanks for the lengthy reply Bounder, but you obviously missed what I was trying to say or do not care. Either way, it's of little consequence to argue about it here. I made my case and those that understand will likely agree. I'm not going to spend my time picking apart your points with counterpoints and bold facing certain statements to make my case. It is what it is.
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2016, 05:08 PM   #88
Bounder45
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by montcalm View Post
I made my case and those that understand will likely agree.

I think that sentence right there pretty much sums it all up. You're directing your post to others who have a similar perspective to your own on this issue. My point is, and has been, that there are multiple perspectives on this issue that need to be taken into account.

And if you don't want to engage me in discussion, that's fine. Forums are supposed to be a place where people discuss ideas and topics. If we all were in 100% agreement on every single topic, I'm willing to bet that there'd be very little in the way of exchanges and conversation.
Bounder45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2016, 05:36 PM   #89
Creekwader
Snag Locator
 
Creekwader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: In the Place of the Nettles
Posts: 932
This is not directed at anyone in particular, just general commentary. If there is a naturally reproducing brook trout population in those ponds, a wilderness designation should be the used for the property and the parking lot for access should be as far away as possible. People tend to get wound around forest protection and of course that's important but to me water is the most important resource to be protected in the Adirondacks. The fish and water quality in the ponds/boreas river will be much better served by a wilderness/no motors protection.
Creekwader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2016, 05:53 PM   #90
Justin
Moving along
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,386
Creekwader, I agree 100%!
Hence my posts about chatting with the gentleman from TNC & the guys from the LeBeir Flow cabin, and not allowing public motorized access, which would no doubt have a negative affect on the aquatic wildlife of this complex wetland and it's densely forested shoreline.
With that, I'm done repeating myself in this discussion.
- Justin
Justin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2016, 06:23 PM   #91
forest dweller
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 583
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTVhike View Post
I've been following this discussion for awhile now, so on Saturday (6/11/16) I hiked in to Boreas Ponds. The first thing I noticed when I got to the bridge over the Boreas River was that it's a dam! Likewise, the first Pond is also held back by a dam. How can these areas be considered pristine areas if they are artificial reservoirs? (I said the same thing about Duck Hole and Marcy Dam which, thanks to Irene, are no longer there).
And fortunately / unfortunately, depending on how one looks at it, nature took it's course and altered what was once Duck Hole and Marcy Dam - and now they are even more wilderness like...in addition to still being classified as wilderness.
forest dweller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2016, 06:26 PM   #92
forest dweller
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 583
I wanna do a hike or two this weekend - the weather looks like it will be great - the road into Boreas Ponds is open to the public for hiking?
forest dweller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2016, 07:05 PM   #93
Justin
Moving along
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,386
Tim, yes public foot traffic is currently permitted and general backcountry regulations apply. It took us about 150 minutes to reach the dam at Boreas Ponds a few weeks ago, with a stop at Lebeir Flow. If you care for more details please feel free to send a pm. - Justin
Justin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2016, 11:41 PM   #94
Bounder45
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCD View Post
There's a lot of selective thinking that goes on. Roads are bad, but dams are good. Mountain bike wheels are bad, but canoe cart wheels are good. Climbing bolts are bad, but trail signs and markers are good. Etc.
"Selective" is one way of putting it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin View Post
Allowing public motorized access to Boreas Ponds would be bad for the Boreas Ponds, plain & simple.
How so? What specific problems do you foresee?

Have you been to Wakely Pond? Have you been to Cedar River Flow? I could easily rattle off a few more, but those two bodies of water have drive-up access. Every time I've driven by them, I've seen hardly a soul out on them and certainly no obvious signs of dumped trash or environmental degradation.

If you don't want drive-up access just so that you have a better "experience" out there, fine. But you and a few others on here have implying that allowing drive-up access would be detrimental to the health of the ponds and the surrounding ecosystem (someone earlier mentioned possible harm to the fish population). Is there a factual study or report that serves as the basis for your view, or is it based off of anecdotal experience?

Why are so many on here eager to assume the worst about enabling certain types of access. We have real-world examples of multi-use areas in the ADK's; with good, sound regulations and enforcement we are more than capable of allowing different types of usage and access while still maintaining a healthy environment.
Bounder45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2016, 06:08 AM   #95
forest dweller
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 583
The average person able to drive up to a place "leaves more of a trace", probably much more, than the average person that has to put in a real effort to get to a place in the backcountry. I personally don't want to hear some aholes having a keg party and setting off fireworks while camping at some remote place ever again.
forest dweller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2016, 06:43 AM   #96
Justin
Moving along
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder45 View Post
Have you been to Wakely Pond? Have you been to Cedar River Flow? I could easily rattle off a few more, but those two bodies of water have drive-up access. Every time I've driven by them, I've seen hardly a soul out on them and certainly no obvious signs of dumped trash or environmental degradation.
Yes I have, and I'd encourage you to get out & explore those places a bit more. It would be a huge shame if Boreas Ponds suffered the same fate as Cedar River Flow. I'm in favor of a wilderness classification not because "I" want a better experience, more so for future generations to enjoy.
Justin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2016, 05:18 PM   #97
Bounder45
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin View Post
Yes I have, and I'd encourage you to get out & explore those places a bit more. It would be a huge shame if Boreas Ponds suffered the same fate as Cedar River Flow. I'm in favor of a wilderness classification not because "I" want a better experience, more so for future generations to enjoy.
I'd be interested in hearing some specific, factual basis for what you're saying rather than vague rhetoric.

What exactly is wrong with Cedar River Flow?
And what fate might Boreas ponds suffer?
How does enabling drive-up access have a negative effect on lakes/ponds and surrounding ecosystems?
Aside from a jerk dumping his/her trash, which IMO isn't nearly as prevalent as some people here make it out to be, what are the environmental hazards that you are worried about?

My appreciation for the wilderness goes beyond my own personal use/enjoyment, believe it or not. If we mismanage these wilderness areas today, there will be cultural, economic and environmental consequences tomorrow. The difference between us, is that I think there are practical and reasonable ways to accommodate a variety of wilderness users without endangering the environment. There are any number of Wild Forest areas, State parks, and other areas, in the ADK's and elsewhere, where the success of such practices has been demonstrated. Cedar River Flow (part of the Moose River Plains Wild Forest) is one example I've previously brought up, but now you seem to disagree on that. Is there some scientific study or observable measure that inspired your view, or is it simply based on a subjective emotion or inclination?

I am very much playing devil's advocate at this point, because I'm not clamoring for drive-up access to Boreas Ponds, but then again I wouldn't complain if such access were allowed. I just would like to see some of the naysayers on here cite some scientific and factual reasons for why drive-up access would be such a "bad thing."
Bounder45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2016, 06:02 PM   #98
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 971
Not everything can be quantified with science or facts:

"This little piece of the world was given to us to use, and to look after. We are compelled to share. I’m not telling people to stay out of there forever, but again, it comes back down to that understanding of what is sacred" -Joe Pierre, Ktunaxa citizen

The quote speaks of something else, but it is very much applicable to situations like this.
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2016, 07:30 PM   #99
Justin
Moving along
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,386
Bounder, we seem to keep going in circles here.
I was at Cedar River Flow last December, yes December, during the abnormal warm period and well after the peak season. I had the place to myself, which allowed me to visit just about every designated campsite & undesignated campsite. Needless to say I packed out lots of trash, and saw lots of evidence of land abuse such as illegal makeshift campsites along the shore, lots of cutting of live trees, beer cans in the water, and even a full garbage bag at a remote spot that had been there a while, which I also packed out in my canoe since it really was that easy to do. There have been many stories on this forum about the abuse and party camping that goes on at Cedar River Flow. Here's one that comes to mind: Cedar River Flow.
Here's another Story.
There are other similar stories available on the internt if you take the time research it a bit more. Please let's not turn the Boreas Ponds into another Cedar River Flow!
That's all. - Justin
Justin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2016, 08:39 PM   #100
bioguide
Member
 
bioguide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Niskayuna, NY
Posts: 464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder45 View Post
I'd be interested in hearing some specific, factual basis for what you're saying rather than vague rhetoric....cite some scientific and factual reasons for why drive-up access would be such a "bad thing."
Here is an interesting article (granted an opinion article with citations and a worthy read, an example below):
http://www.eco-action.org/dt/roads.html

The Ecological Effects of Roads

"The most insidious of all effects of roads is the access they provide to humans and their tools of destruction. Let's face it, the vast majority of humans do not know how to behave in natural environments. Fearful of experiencing Nature on its own terms, they bring along their chainsaws, ATVs, guns, dogs and ghetto blasters. They harrass virtually every creature they meet, and leave their mark on every place they visit. The more inaccessible we can keep our remaining wild areas to these cretins, the safer and healthier these areas will be. Those humans who respect the land are willing to walk long distances. If this is an "elitist" attitude, so be it; the health of the land demands restrictions on human access and behavior."

And two papers on the topic of roads that review and summarize other research literature (the topic is actually pretty well researched):

A summary of the environmental impacts of roads, management responses, and research gaps: A literature review

http://jem.forrex.org/index.php/jem/.../download/38/9

Forest Roads: A Synthesis of Scientific Information

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr509.pdf

Now granted not every road type or impact discussed from the various road types relate to the Boreas Ponds but with a close read one can certainly ascertain what impacts you can expect by keeping the Boreas road open to the public.
__________________
My YouTube channel

Last edited by bioguide; 06-16-2016 at 09:48 PM..
bioguide 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 03:45 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.