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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04-24-2006, 11:55 AM   #61
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rik
My question for the group (and I just use a quote from Redhawk since he was closest to what I was getting at): Is all impact negative?
History has proven that it is.

All "improvements" interfere with the interaction of the ecosystem with everything it supports.

Going beyond Wilderness thinking in this, look at all the areas that were "improved" by dams. Today there is much more flooding.

Look at New Orleans and the destruction that Katrina did. The man made "improvements" caused the disappearence of a huge buffer area that would have stopped the flood surge and made the damage far less.

They have found that clearing brush and creating "burns" to prevent forest fires only cause more devatating fires and the the loss of more trees later.

Much of the major flooding caused on Riverways is a result of the Dams.

Man "improves" with no conception of the overall master Plan at all, but assumes in his arrogance that he can manage nature better then she has done successfully for millions of years.

So, the answer is. Yes, all impact is negative.

Give me an example of what you might think of as a positive. (Hint, it has nothing to do with making things easier for humans!)
__________________
"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  
Old 04-24-2006, 04:47 PM   #62
Rik
H-E-R-O
 
Rik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Safe Place
Posts: 1,000,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk

So, the answer is. Yes, all impact is negative.

Give me an example of what you might think of as a positive. (Hint, it has nothing to do with making things easier for humans!)
I don't have any specific examples, Just wanted to put it out there for discussion especially since the previous discussion seemed to head south leaving this part of the discussion that both sides have used to argue their points.
What if the impact attempts to correct previous impact? What if the new impact reduces the previous level of impact? What if the impact makes for less impact? (what if I sit in the woods (impacting) and shoot hikers (more impacting) in order to reduce the number of hikers in a particular area (reducing impact))
Ok here is my real example: What if I ripped Neil's flute from his hands while he was playing in a wilderness area and littered it. Surely the littering is negative impact but leaving the wilderness music to the birds must be a positive impact.
__________________
Die Free and Live
Rik is offline  
Old 04-24-2006, 08:21 PM   #63
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rik
I don't have any specific examples, Just wanted to put it out there for discussion especially since the previous discussion seemed to head south leaving this part of the discussion that both sides have used to argue their points.
What if the impact attempts to correct previous impact? What if the new impact reduces the previous level of impact? What if the impact makes for less impact? (what if I sit in the woods (impacting) and shoot hikers (more impacting) in order to reduce the number of hikers in a particular area (reducing impact))
Ok here is my real example: What if I ripped Neil's flute from his hands while he was playing in a wilderness area and littered it. Surely the littering is negative impact but leaving the wilderness music to the birds must be a positive impact.

As long as the birds are playing the flute and not Neil!!
__________________
"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  
Old 04-24-2006, 10:14 PM   #64
Little Rickie
Member
 
Little Rickie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Rochester ny
Posts: 1,565
Neal

What kind of flute do you play? I have a beautiful walnut native american courting flute made by Butch Hall. www.butchhallflutes.com

I don't really play it or call it music, it's just sounds that comes out that expresses how I feel. Yes, it is a spiritual experience for me.

I've often imagined playing my flute on top of a mt early in the morning or at sunset.

Little Rickie
Little Rickie is offline  
Old 04-25-2006, 12:16 AM   #65
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rik
What if the impact attempts to correct previous impact? What if the new impact reduces the previous level of impact? What if the impact makes for less impact?
Example: back in the thirties or forties, the CCC (Civilian Conservation Corps) Built a Dam at Duck Hole, this upset the ecosystem that existed at the time. Over the the last 60 or 70 years later, nature adapted and formed a new ecosystem, suppoting waterfowl including a healthy loon and merganser population.

Now the dam is in need of repair, but the DEC has decided to let it "revert" to it's "Natural" state. (Actually not the case, it's natural state is what it has adapted to over the last half century plus).


So, the CCC built the dam to "improve things" (although no one could tell you exactly what they "improved".

Now the DEC is going to "impove" it by letting it "unimprove itself" to what it was before the dam. However, the ecosystem that was destroyed with the building of the dam no longer exists and to revert to, and the current one will be destroyed when the dam goes and no one can explain what the "improvement" will be.

I think that answers the question quite handily!
__________________
"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  
Old 04-25-2006, 12:22 AM   #66
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,931
I wish I had bookmarked the link, but I closed the page before I did.

It was from a group out West that is advocating trails for Trail running and Mountain biking.

It stated that "If a trail is designed and built properly, there will be no impact on the envirnoment."

Of course, making the trail in the wilderness is a negative impact in itself. It's that kind of rationalization that just avoids any semblance of the truth.
__________________
"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  
Old 04-26-2006, 11:15 PM   #67
jeclose
Member
 
jeclose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Stillwater, N.Y.
Posts: 94
Notice: FPAC Meeting is CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC!

I was informed by DEC today that the Forest Preserve Advisory Committee Meeting on Friday, April 28 is NOT open to the public. Sorry if I indicated otherwise.

I was invited, however, to speak to the Committee on the issue of Trail Runs, which I will. I will try to report the gist of that meeting later...

Thanks, everyone, for your support!
__________________
We want no straddlers, for in the past they have surrendered too much good wilderness and primeaval which should never have been lost. -Bob Marshall, Forty-Sixer #3
jeclose is offline  
Old 04-27-2006, 01:08 AM   #68
Kevin
**BANNED**
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: West Sand Lake, NY
Posts: 5,857
jeclose, I'm eagerly awaiting your report .
Kevin is offline  
Old 04-27-2006, 11:02 AM   #69
Little Rickie
Member
 
Little Rickie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Rochester ny
Posts: 1,565
[QUOTE=jeclose]I was informed by DEC today that the Forest Preserve Advisory Committee Meeting on Friday, April 28 is NOT open to the public. Sorry if I indicated otherwise.

I was invited, however, to speak to the Committee on the issue of Trail Runs, which I will. I will try to report the gist of that meeting later...

If I agree with you or not I applaud you for taking positive action and adding something new to this string rather than

I too eagerly look foreword to your report.

Little Rickie
Little Rickie is offline  
Old 04-30-2006, 10:03 PM   #70
jeclose
Member
 
jeclose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Stillwater, N.Y.
Posts: 94
Outcome - the FPAC meeting on April 28th....

Folks - I apologize for not getting to this earlier in order to give you an update on what happened at the Forest Preserve Advisory Committee meeting at DEC on Friday, April 28th. I wanted to give you a full accounting of what happened, but I'm beginning to realize that may take a lot of work which I don't have time for.

Let me just say that it was an immensely interesting meeting - and I do mean immensely. There was a panel discussion (which I was invited to be on), consisting of representatives from DEC, the APA, myself (opponents), and the Hoffman Notch Snowshoe Run (proponents). We were all given an opportunity to speak, but not necessarily with equal time allotted. As it was, the meeting on this topic alone went on for three hours - which is a pretty good indication of how seriously DEC is taking the subject of competitive events in wilderness areas.

There was an excellent powerpoint presentation given by APA on the subject, which stole some of my thunder, but I simply focussed my presentation less on facts and citations as a result, and more on the personal impact of these events on wilderness enthusiasts who might be out for just that reason - how do you compute their loss of a sense of wilderness against that of 60 runners? I also cited my experience in June, 1988, when I was solo hiking the North Trail to Giant, and encountered a mother bear and two cubs. If there had been a trail run back then, on that day, how would you measure the loss of that decided wilderness experience against the "benefits" that 50 runners enjoyed by being able to traverse the trail? And if a trail runner had tripped that bear instead of me, would he/she have even cared - or would he/she have simply looked at their watch and said, "****! lost a minute!"

So that was the primary focus of what I said. I emphasized that DEC was going down a very, very, slippery slope on this issue, and one that they might not be able to back away from. I meant to inject Pete Hickey's comment from the 46er listserve last year, "What's next - baseball in the High Peaks?" as a final comment, but forgot.

At the end, Rob Davies, Director of Lands and Forests, indicated that they might be revisiting the TRP process to begin with. Right now, there is not public input into a proposed TRP, and they see that as a shortcoming.

The biggest shortcoming, however, is how DEC perceives these events. I came away from this meeting with the term "managing the resource" ringing in my ears from DEC. On much further reflection, it seems that this is DEC-speak for "accomodate-as-many-people-as-you-can", instead of, "Protect the resource" as a first mandate.

We have definitely gotten the agency's attention on this issue, as evidenced by this meeting and the amount of time devoted to it. Please continue to write letters, involve the media, and involve your elected representatives.

If you have any questions, please ask.
__________________
We want no straddlers, for in the past they have surrendered too much good wilderness and primeaval which should never have been lost. -Bob Marshall, Forty-Sixer #3
jeclose is offline  
Old 04-30-2006, 10:13 PM   #71
Kevin
**BANNED**
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: West Sand Lake, NY
Posts: 5,857
Thanks Jim for the report .

I was reminded by Redhawk today, while gabbing on various topics during our hike, that the residents and/or town officials voted unanimously AGAINST closing the road to Whitehouse. But the DEC closed it anyway. From that lone example, and the legal battle that's now being fought against the DEC's unethical treatment of the Whitehouse situation, I've concluded that what the DEC says and intends is completely opposite of its actions. Hold all the public input sessions you want, they're obviously not there to listen.

Save duck hole? I'm not holding out for the DEC to make a decision they've been avoiding for a decade or more. It's time for the people of this state to see what's really going on, and hold those not enforcing the policies accountable.

Last edited by Kevin; 04-30-2006 at 10:39 PM..
Kevin is offline  
Old 05-01-2006, 12:05 PM   #72
Tim Seaver
Photo-runner
 
Tim Seaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cold River Lean-to #4
Posts: 106
Blowhards and Blowdowns

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeclose
If there had been a trail run back then, on that day, how would you measure the loss of that decided wilderness experience against the "benefits" that 50 runners enjoyed by being able to traverse the trail? And if a trail runner had tripped that bear instead of me, would he/she have even cared - or would he/she have simply looked at their watch and said, "****! lost a minute!"
Your ongoing efforts to slur trail runners as people who don't appreciate wilderness are amusing. Inaccurate, but amusing. Shades of Bill O'Reilly!

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

I "ran" the route yesterday. There is an gargantuan amount of recent-looking blowdown ( I am guessing from last October's storm?) on most of the route, from shortly after the High Bank all the way to the return to hardwoods descending Hopkins. Freshly snapped treetops litter the trail for miles, sometimes in large tangles that make routefinding pretty challenging - I lost the trail at least 6 times, if only for a few minutes. I spent about an hour clearing small stuff, but I would guess a day or two (at least) of serious trail work is going to be needed to get the route back into shape. Until then, most of the running terrain is confined to the North Trail and the exit.

Perhaps some kind of trail work day can be arranged before mid-June - I know I would be glad to help.

**UPDATE** - I just spoke to the staff at the Mountaineer, and they are aware of the issue and evidently some clean-up campaigns are in the works, but no dates have been made as of yet. I encourage anyone interested in assisting in some trailwork to call the Mountaineer at 518-576-2281 for more information on upcoming trail clearing efforts.

Last edited by Tim Seaver; 05-01-2006 at 01:22 PM..
Tim Seaver is offline  
Old 05-01-2006, 11:15 PM   #73
RC
Woods Runner
 
RC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: gloversville NY
Posts: 333
In 25+ years of trail running I've only seen 2 bears and both times I'm sure it was as meaning full to me as it was to you.


RC
RC is offline  
Old 05-05-2006, 08:32 PM   #74
jeclose
Member
 
jeclose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Stillwater, N.Y.
Posts: 94
Albany Times-Union story!

Today's (Friday, May 5) Times-Union (capitol section) carried this story:

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/sto...sdate=5/5/2006

If you are accessing this story after May 12, you will have to pay for it through the archives section.

I thought the story was pretty bare bones. I had talked to the reporter for at least 20 minutes on the subject (no surprise there, eh Barb?), but he included nothing that I had provided him in terms of information. But it was a balanced story, even if short.
__________________
We want no straddlers, for in the past they have surrendered too much good wilderness and primeaval which should never have been lost. -Bob Marshall, Forty-Sixer #3
jeclose is offline  
Old 05-06-2006, 04:20 AM   #75
Kevin
**BANNED**
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: West Sand Lake, NY
Posts: 5,857
Quote:
Organizer Vinny McClelland said no one complained about last year's run, and steps are taken to keep the environmental impact to a minimum. "We're just trying to celebrate spring, get some exercise and drink some beer," he said.
Hmmm, there were several members just from this forum that called and complained. So that's an outright lie...
Kevin is offline  
Old 05-06-2006, 09:44 AM   #76
Tim Seaver
Photo-runner
 
Tim Seaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cold River Lean-to #4
Posts: 106
Smart Reporter!

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeclose
I had talked to the reporter for at least 20 minutes on the subject (no surprise there, eh Barb?), but he included nothing that I had provided him in terms of information.
It appears he included nothing by you, whatsoever. Nada.

Sounds like your fabricated propaganda of the bear-kicking trailrunners fell on deaf ears.
Tim Seaver is offline  
Old 05-06-2006, 03:42 PM   #77
BarbOrdell
Running Barefoot
 
BarbOrdell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 69

Last edited by BarbOrdell; 05-07-2006 at 03:28 AM..
BarbOrdell is offline  
Old 05-06-2006, 05:09 PM   #78
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,931
I love the gloating, it shows real respect for the facts.

The beauty is (before you do too much gloating) that with what was reported to the press by the organizer, along with copies of emails of over 80 people who complained last year (we kept copies of the emails!) and a copy of what was on The Mountaineers website last year about a "one time deal" (which chronologically came after all those emails, it can be proven without a doubt that the organizer lied about "no complaints".

Plenty of documentation to prove that what has been said by the organizer and The Mountainerer carry no creedence.

A copy of this thread, specifically showing some of the gloating and the self imposed blindness by some of the supporters ("No Envirnomental impact", "A runner is less apt to impact then a backpacker because they pay more attention" and others) is a great package to bring to bear on the trail run and not only prevent this one from happening but possibly now get the Marcy dam one cancelled as well.

Thats the great thing about the internet. It's very easy to keep a record of what was and wasn't said, and when it was said to eventually trip up those who would lie or embellish the truth in order to achieve their means.

It can also be used to point out the incredulity that people will use to support their postion.

Don't laugh yet. Much of the documentation I had from last year has been passed on to the reporter, and he's a little unhappy that he was lied to outright. I think the next round of this topic is going to be much more interesting.

In the long run, with perserverence, the lies will out themselves and the truth will shine through. The concept behind the old adage, "He who laughs last, laughs best".

And I guess you were so wrapped up in all this that you missed the part about the policy being "revisited" be the DEC. That in itself should give you pause.
__________________
"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

Last edited by redhawk; 05-07-2006 at 12:05 AM..
redhawk is offline  
Old 05-06-2006, 06:46 PM   #79
Skyclimber
SAFE CLIMBING
 
Skyclimber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,086
Way to Go Redhawk! That must be why I like you so much. You say it, "how it is!"
__________________
"It is easier to become a Forty-Sixer than to be one. The art of the being is to keep one's sense of wonder after the excitement of the game is over."

Paul Jamieson Class of '58
Skyclimber is offline  
Old 05-06-2006, 10:53 PM   #80
jeclose
Member
 
jeclose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Stillwater, N.Y.
Posts: 94
To quote Barb Ordell,
(or something like that)

But this one is for you Redhawk - thanks for setting that reporter straight. I guess maybe "balanced" was too strong of a word to use to describe the article, considering that major factual error (which I did notice when I read it).

The fact is, there were tons of complaints about the Trail Run - letters written, phone calls made, emails sent. It is precisely those complaints that brought DEC to this point in time where they are re-visiting their actions and considering not renewing these permits next year. A good thing, of course.....
__________________
We want no straddlers, for in the past they have surrendered too much good wilderness and primeaval which should never have been lost. -Bob Marshall, Forty-Sixer #3
jeclose is offline  
Closed Thread


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 02:57 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.