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 11-01-2007, 10:34 PM   #61
twochordcool
 
twochordcool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Cortlandt Manor, NY
Posts: 627
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwc View Post
if you were willing to pay to join a club, then you could.
How much would it cost me to camp on Boreas Ponds?
twochordcool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2007, 11:02 PM   #62
Rock
Member
 
Rock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 344
Quote:
Originally Posted by twochordcool View Post
I understand that, but you can always go back there - the only difference is there is no abode there and you may have to share it with others at any given time.
The land I speak of where these camps were located, people had access to regardless if there where camps there or not. In fact if you had stopped by and knocked on the door, one of them would have invited you in for a meat loaf!

Just like French Louie’s cabin, why did they have to go and tare that down? I will tell you why, because some jerk didn’t want to see a cabin in the middle of the West Canada's while he was on his little fishing trip because it ruined his atmosphere. So they bulldozed a cabin that one of the greatest and most famous ADK guides, not only lived in, but built with his bare hands. The place was also used as a good ranger base camp in case of emergency's!

All that’s in the past

All I know is many camp owners are nervous in the Perkins Clearing area in regards to what the State and Finch have planned for their futures. I have already heard they may be making them take down all the gates.
__________________
"Always drink upstream from the herd."

Last edited by Rock; 11-01-2007 at 11:26 PM..
Rock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2007, 06:38 AM   #63
ADK Rock Farmer
Administrator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 27
This is my first post to this forum. It does seem appropriate that the topic is over Finch lease land. I used to belong to the club that is on the end of the road (upper works area) where the Marcy Trail runs through. I saw the writing on the wall for that lease shortly after I got in about 6 years ago. I stuck around for 3 or 4 years but saw our rights as lease holders going down & fees going up, while people who had no right being off the trail slowly enjoying more & more of what I paid for- they go for free. I heard about the land deal back in February. Don't ask how- I just did. I personally do not believe that those lease hunting clubs will last much longer. They don't have deep pockets, they are not united & at this point they don't have any rights to defend. Very Sad

I still live, work & raise my kids in Adirondacks, 'NOT THE DAKS -the locals really hate that by the way'. It used to be fun to go play in the back country, glad I was around to experience part of that era.
ADK Rock Farmer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2007, 08:13 AM   #64
ADK Tank
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Mayfield, NY
Posts: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by twochordcool View Post
c) it can only be a good thing for the many species of wildlife that roam the Adirondacks, especially animals that need large areas to roam,

and

d) I believe with more land available to people for recreation it would theoretically "disperse" those people and thus lighten the overall impact on all areas within the Adirondacks, especially extremely popular areas, rather than having the impact so "concentrated".
Where are you getting your information from that it would be better for wildlife if the entire park was owned by the state? If the land was to be owned by the state all logging on the property would end within the park unless some major changes were made to the current policy. You may think that logging is bad for the enviroment and wildlife but when done properly, and I stress properly, it has a huge benifit to the wildlife. If you don't agree with this veiw go get you're forestry degree or go take some of the classes at The Ranger School in Wanakena and we'll see what your opinion is after that.

How many people want to hike to the top of Bernhardt Mountain which is located in Fulton County? This is located on former Finch land, should it be bought by the State and opened to the public, where I am sure very few will use the land because they don't use the state land that is a quarter mile further up the road. Sure opening up more land to the public will disperse some of the pressure but not much. All that will happen is that the pressure that is taken off existing popular areas will be put on new popular areas creating more enviromental impact on those new areas. The other alternative is leaving the land in private hands to be logged, managed, and used for recreation and bring in revenue to the local economy.
ADK Tank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2007, 08:32 AM   #65
chairrock
Indian Mt.Club
 
chairrock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by twochordcool View Post
How much would it cost me to camp on Boreas Ponds?
I don't know about Boreas Pond but I do know that the Minerva F&G Club leases apprx 5500 acres near Long Lake, their dues, last year, were $250 per member.Across the highway is Kempshaw Mt. Club and they were more expensive at apprx. $400 a member.Both leases has been logged responsibly over the past 60 years in existence.Their are no "remarkable"
features, no large ponds or large streams on the Minerva Club, I am not sure of Kempshaw.
chairrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2007, 08:42 AM   #66
ADK Tank
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Mayfield, NY
Posts: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by twochordcool View Post
I respect your opinion.

But ponder this:

If EVERYONE that wanted their own private piece of paradise within the Adirondacks plus man-made structures, then the Adirondacks would cease being the Adirondacks.

Hence, I personally have no desire to own my very own piece of the Adirondacks.

And I think you'd call that the OPPOSITE of being self-centered. It takes the Adirondacks and other lovers of it into consideration.

But I know that not everybody thinks like me.
I view you're stance as being self-centered. What gives you the right to dictate whether or not people own land withing the Park? Who are these other lovers of the Adirondacks that you are taking into consideration? Do I love the Adirondacks more than you because I chose to move here, buy a house, buy a camp, and raise a family within the Adirondacks so I can spend as much time as possible in the Adirondacks. I am a little self centered because I don't think it is wrong for owning land in the Adirondacks and why should I not buy land and build a house or camp on it. Isn't it a part of the "American Dream" to want to prosper and have a better quality of life. I guess I am definately not on the same page as you because I would never be willing to give up my property in the Adirondacks so that others could use it. Are you willing to give up your home so I can use it? You also stated "It was probably a mistake to let other interests get their feet in the door in the first place! Give an inch take a yard etc. Now the desire of the majority is held hostage by a relatively small group of people". Is this small group of people the residents of the Adirondacks, please tell me who this group is becuase I'm not sure which one of us is included in this minority that you talk about.
ADK Tank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2007, 08:57 AM   #67
ADK Tank
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Mayfield, NY
Posts: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by twochordcool View Post
I understand that, but you can always go back there - the only difference is there is no abode there and you may have to share it with others at any given time.

I hope I'm not being too insensitive.

I'm trying to imagine how I'd feel!

Let's say I personally owned the Seward Leanto on the Cold River and a square mile around it, and I had it ALL to myself!

But I had to pay quite a bit to have that to myself.

Then something happened and the state took it over and said I could go there for free - I just had to visit on their reasonable conditions and be willing to share it with other people who loved it (hopefully responsibly!) too!

I don't think that would be the worst thing in the world!

I still get to visit the place that I love, and with a few exceptions, generally like all of the people that I meet along the way up there!

First, you have definately gotten me fired up but I hope I still come off as being respectful. It is definately not the worst thing in the world to loose your lease, but I am assuming that you don't hunt and have never been a member of a Adirondack Hunting camp, no offense intented if I am wrong about this. It is a truly unique experience to be able to enjoy this long tradition of the Adirondacks and is something that I absolutely cherish to be able to spend this time every fall with family and friends in the mountains and every year be able to take a picture of my grandfather, father, myself, and my son in front of our camp knowing that this time of having four generations there will run long before I would like it too and my never experience again. When someone mentions taking this away from me, you may be able to see why my feathers get ruffled. Thank you for keeping this a civil and respectful disagreement.
ADK Tank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2007, 09:58 AM   #68
Bill I.
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,587
Let's not lose sight of the fact that NYS only buys from willing sellers. It is also well within a landowner's rights to sell their land to the Forest Preserve if he or she feels that is what is best. If you own a camp and want to keep it in your family, the biggest threat you are likely to face is rising property taxes.

Whenever you lease something, you are entering into a contract with the owner. That contract has to be renewed periodically, and it's the owner who sets the terms. This is true of a city apartment or a country cabin. The lessee enters into this arrangement with the understanding that any number of things might happen--the landlord might raise the rent, sell to another owner, or choose not to renew the lease. It's a gamble that the lessee takes. Sometimes the gamble pays off, sometimes it doesn't. That's the nature of the business, and it is neither new nor unique to the situation that we're discussing here.

From my perspective--lived within a stone's throw of the Blue Line all my life, who neither owns nor leases any property within the park, but who does own a small, wilderness-dependent business--I stand to benefit from continued growth of the Forest Preserve, because the more land the state buys means the more places I can go.

And from my perspective, the Forest Preserve is incomplete. There are links that are missing, holes that need to patched up, accessibility issues that need to be resolved. To me, it's not an issue of simply buying forest acreage merely for the sake of bulldozing cabins, but a chance to consolidate the state's existing holdings on such key landmarks as the Hudson Gorge and Blue Mountain, improving public access to a park of national significance, and perhaps even permanently resolving the question of what the state should or shouldn't own.

While someone like me can understand and sympathize with the sporting clubs on these leased lands who are facing an uncertain future, and while I can support the logging industry and its contributions to the Adirondack economy, it is hard for me to rally around the idea of supporting the retention of large tracts of private land from which I will be excluded. I may see the necessity of it, but pardon me if I don't get excited about the prospect of it.

I'm not trying to say that my desire to backpack or canoe camp on the state-owned portion of the Adirondacks is better than someone else's desire to continue a family tradition in a hunting camp. I'm just trying to present another argument to counter some of the good ones made by Chairrock, ADK Tank, and Rock earlier.

Thanks.
Bill I. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2007, 10:47 AM   #69
ADK Tank
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Mayfield, NY
Posts: 141
Wildriver,

I know a lease is a lease and thats it, and as I mention before, having leased property, we were well aware that at any moment we could lose it or it could become unreasonable to keep the lease, which is exactly what happened. Was it sad, yup, but we knew that it probably would happen at some point and actually was a blessing because it forced us to buy our own property and we have never looked back. I aslo know in reality that property taxes will be the biggest threat to the land but the point that I was arguing was that the majority of the land in the park should be public land and that it was beneficial to the eviroment and wildlife to have it this way and this was the way the majority want it. I do agree and stated previously that there are areas that I would like to see in some way opened up to public whether it's some type of easment or the State taking over total ownership of that property. I personally think what makes the Adirondack park so unique is the mix of private and public land that you don't get in many other parks and look how much people love this place. Whichever view you have of what the park should be, look at how strongly each side supports thier ideas. Behind it all is their love for the Adirondacks. I understand why you and others would have a hard time rallying around keeping these large tracts of private land, but it's the same basic reason that the groups who lease these lands have a hard time rallying around giving it up to the state. You would like to enjoy the same land that they are in you're own ways, and they want to be able to keep enjoying the land the way that they are. I think this biggest issue is trying to find some common ground between the two sides and work together for the better of the Adirondacks and each others intrests and not just our own. It all comes down to something that I was taught at a very young age, respect. I respect your want to open up some of the more desirable locations in the adirondacks and support you on it, and I ask that you respect my wanting to keep some areas of private land, even some of the large tracts, private and we should all get along just fine.
ADK Tank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2007, 10:58 AM   #70
Bill I.
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADK Tank View Post
I understand why you and others would have a hard time rallying around keeping these large tracts of private land, but it's the same basic reason that the groups who lease these lands have a hard time rallying around giving it up to the state. You would like to enjoy the same land that they are in you're own ways, and they want to be able to keep enjoying the land the way that they are. I think this biggest issue is trying to find some common ground between the two sides and work together for the better of the Adirondacks and each others intrests and not just our own. It all comes down to something that I was taught at a very young age, respect. I respect your want to open up some of the more desirable locations in the adirondacks and support you on it, and I ask that you respect my wanting to keep some areas of private land, even some of the large tracts, private and we should all get along just fine.
I absolutely 100% agree. If any disrespect has been detected in any of my posts on this thread, I humbly apologize. I have been doing my best to avoid even the perception of it.
Bill I. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2007, 10:59 AM   #71
chairrock
Indian Mt.Club
 
chairrock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,637
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildriver View Post
e
While someone like me can understand and sympathize with the sporting clubs on these leased lands who are facing an uncertain future, and while I can support the logging industry and its contributions to the Adirondack economy, it is hard for me to rally around the idea of supporting the retention of large tracts of private land from which I will be excluded. I may see the necessity of it, but pardon me if I don't get excited about the prospect of it.
Thanks.
As I stated before most of the clubs are always looking for members.So you shouldn't feel excluded.
I hate to say it but I see alot of "If I can't use it the way I want, you shouldn't be able to either" attitude poking thru these discussions.
Lease membes just want to hold on to something special, not take it away from anyone. AND I STATE AGAIN, MOST OF THE CLUBS ARE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR MEMBERS!I bet if you called up FP in GlensFalls they would be glad to give you the names and numbers of the clubs officers.
chairrock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2007, 11:52 AM   #72
Bill I.
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by chairrock View Post
AND I STATE AGAIN, MOST OF THE CLUBS ARE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR MEMBERS!I bet if you called up FP in GlensFalls they would be glad to give you the names and numbers of the clubs officers.
An interesting concept--non-hunters joining sportsmen clubs for the purpose of gaining access to public land. One that I admit has crossed my mind in the past.

Benefits: Increased revenue for the club, increased land access for non-hunters. (Can't use the word "public" here, because once the non-hunter has paid the membership dues he/she has gained privileged access rights.)

In order for it to work, the club would have to have access to something non-hunters would be willing to pay for. A simple cabin in the woods would not be enough. There would have to be something--a spectacular mountain, an undeveloped lake, a key canoe carry, access to an isolated tract of state land--that would be worth returning to again and again. A non-hunter isn't going to join a bunch of clubs in all the areas he might want to visit--the dues would kill him.

The club would have to market itself to non-hunters, since in my experience information on clubs have not always been very forthcoming. The club would have to promote the benefits it offers--a cabin that can serve as a base camp for canoeing a lake or climbing a mountain, reasonable access, etc.

Would it work? Hard to say. It would be an interesting solution, though.

The idea I had was that recreational clubs could take their own leases on paper company land. Most clubs couldn't afford it, though, without seriously rearranging their financial priorites.
Bill I. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2007, 12:28 PM   #73
ADK Tank
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Mayfield, NY
Posts: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by wildriver View Post
In order for it to work, the club would have to have access to something non-hunters would be willing to pay for. A simple cabin in the woods would not be enough. There would have to be something--a spectacular mountain, an undeveloped lake, a key canoe carry, access to an isolated tract of state land--that would be worth returning to again and again. A non-hunter isn't going to join a bunch of clubs in all the areas he might want to visit--the dues would kill him.

The club would have to market itself to non-hunters, since in my experience information on clubs have not always been very forthcoming. The club would have to promote the benefits it offers--a cabin that can serve as a base camp for canoeing a lake or climbing a mountain, reasonable access, etc.
This is exactly why I don't think that it would be benefical to open all of this Nature Conservancy land to the public. There are many of these club lands that don't have anything of significant value to the average non-hunter, so why not let someone be able to have a camp on the property and enjoy it that way where it could otherwise become unused land. A local club in the southern Adirondacks does do some of this, they have hikers, horseback riders, and mountain bikers that are members of the club for their specific use. So far they all seem to be getting along and it sure makes the finacial burden a lot easier on all of them. There are some clubs that do this and promote this, don't remeber the names of the club now, but they catered to everyone in order to make it easier to get members. I do remeber that this club had it setup where if you had 6 members together on it (to keep as few camps on the property as possible)you were allowed to build your own camp based on their guidelines at a designated site. A big thing they promoted with this was there was a natural trout pond on the property and no camps were built within a given distance of the pond to keep it as remote as possible. So there are opportunities out there.
ADK Tank is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2007, 01:26 PM   #74
Bill I.
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADK Tank View Post
This is exactly why I don't think that it would be benefical to open all of this Nature Conservancy land to the public. There are many of these club lands that don't have anything of significant value to the average non-hunter, so why not let someone be able to have a camp on the property and enjoy it that way where it could otherwise become unused land.
Realistically, I don't think anyone expects all 161,000 acres to go to the state. If there had never been any clubs, and there were no paper mills to supply with wood, then it might be a different story. It would be surplus land, so why not set it aside as wilderness?

But that obviously isn't the case with the FP lands, and everybody knows that. If you look at the RCPA's proposed map, you'll see that they are asking that only 85,000 acres go to the Forest Preserve--and most of that is stuff that buffers existing state lands, or contains some special feature.

Most of the rest would be conservation easements, which would allow TNC to keep the clubs if they wanted to. As I mentioned somewhere else on this thread, easements don't always entail full public access, since their primary purpose is to prevent subdivision and development.

I posted the RCPA's map here because it's the only detailed map I've seen so far. And as I mentioned before, it will be just one of many proposals. Ultimately, it will be TNC's decision, and their plan to collect input from all the stakeholders is commendable.
Bill I. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2007, 02:11 PM   #75
DRIFTER
.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 897
Without reading the novel that preceeded my post, is hunting going to be allowable on these lands if the proposed deal goes through????
DRIFTER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2007, 02:24 PM   #76
colden46
Member
 
colden46's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADK-DRIFTER View Post
Without reading the novel that preceeded my post, is hunting going to be allowable on these lands if the proposed deal goes through????
Which proposed deal? The Nature Conservancy currently owns it, and there is no public access -- same as was before when FP owned it. If any of the land is bought by the state, then yes, hunting would be allowed on that land, just like everywhere else in the Forest Preserve.

It's also possible that the Nature Conservancy could maintain ownership but open parts up for public access. Then it would be their decision whether hunting would be allowed.
colden46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2007, 02:36 PM   #77
DRIFTER
.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 897
Is the state vying to purchase these lands or would that be a wrong assumption, again, to much to read above.
DRIFTER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2007, 02:43 PM   #78
colden46
Member
 
colden46's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADK-DRIFTER View Post
Is the state vying to purchase these lands or would that be a wrong assumption, again, to much to read above.
I imagine the state will be interested in purchasing some parcels, but I think it's too early to say anything definitively at this point. The Nature Conservancy is in the process of performing an inventory to find out just what exactly they bought, and that's expected to last through all of next year as far as I know. I wouldn't expect any sales until they've completed that, at the earliest. As wildriver stated above though, no one realistically expects the state to purchase the entire 161,000 acres.

The state also only buys from willing sellers, so saying "vying to purchase" is not entirely accurate.
colden46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2007, 02:56 PM   #79
DRIFTER
.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 897
Definition: Vie
Vie
Verb
1. Compete for something

Thanks for clearing that up for me !!!!
DRIFTER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2007, 03:24 PM   #80
colden46
Member
 
colden46's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,060
Quote:
Originally Posted by ADK-DRIFTER View Post
Definition: Vie
1. Compete for something
Thanks for clearing that up for me !!!!
Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but if you are: the state doesn't engage in competitive bidding. Hence, vie not being entirely accurate.
colden46 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 03:52 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.