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 01-26-2018, 06:41 PM   #21
TCD
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,601
Yes, WF has downsides. But if look at the flip side: Make it all Wilderness, like the green shirt bus riders want, and close the road at Blue Ridge road. Then watch for a year as 6 people total use the area.

Everyone wants their piece. The hypocrites want "Wilderness" but with exceptions for their particular pursuits.

I think this is a reasonable compromise.
TCD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2018, 06:50 PM   #22
Bounder45
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by montcalm View Post
I feel like WF waters down our "Great NY Wilderness" quite a lot. Designating a whole area WF to keep one road open is silly IMO, and little really ever comes from it unless you are a snowmobiler or hunter. For everyone else who's interested in recreation it often makes matters worse. Skiers are run off by snowmobiles. Bikes are relegated to muddy, terribly built snowmobile trails whose warm month functions have never been thought through. Waters are open to motor boats.

It's become a giant sham. It's not wilderness at all. It's a lot of noise and seasonal motorized activity. Or a large portion of land that is relatively wasted to save a legacy feature i.e. a dam, a road, a building, whatever...
I don't understand. So you're against Wild Forest designations, but you want more bike access (which isn't allowed on Wilderness designations)?

This whole WF designation "waters down" our lands is nonsense. Some of the most remote wilderness (using the term unofficially there) I've explored has been in WF (Moose River Plains, Black River). And there are no lack of snowmobile trails and forestry roads to bike on because of those WF designations.

The muddy trail issue is just the nature of the northeastern climate and terrain; unless you build a solid foundation, pretty much all unimproved roads and trails get muddy and rutted with use in this type of environment.

Literally the entire ADK park is open to X-country ski and snowshoe traffic; snowmobilers are very restricted in terms of driving on state land. So I've never understood that complaint either.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dundee View Post
I guess I poke around more than you do. I see these problems all the time, even when there is no road access.
I'm in the ADK's often enough, to include the two WF areas mentioned above. I rarely see the problems that you're bringing up, or if I do, they're normally small in scale and corrected very quickly by other land users (including myself). Quite honestly, I've seen junk at Wilderness lean-to's just as much as I've seen junk at road-accessible WF sites, and the occurrences in both examples are still pretty few and far between.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dundee View Post
Ruined fishery: bass, pike, perch, goldfish, carp etc., all released into the lake.
What extra threat do you fear with this plan that wouldn't have been relevant with any of the other plans? Those waters were going to get fished regardless, and the DEC will likely have to monitor and manage them just like they do with many other water bodies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dundee View Post
I know all about TNC and motorless is what they do.

I also know plenty of residents who want Wilderness.
TNC's land donations have historically been transitioned into both motor-free and motor-inclusive stand lands (and even in the latter the motor usage is fairly restricted).

I'm sure there are residents who disagree with the proposal. But you and others make it sound like this plan will face widespread opposition from the public. I don't think that's the case.
Bounder45 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2018, 07:28 PM   #23
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder45 View Post
I don't understand. So you're against Wild Forest designations, but you want more bike access (which isn't allowed on Wilderness designations)?

This whole WF designation "waters down" our lands is nonsense. Some of the most remote wilderness (using the term unofficially there) I've explored has been in WF (Moose River Plains, Black River). And there are no lack of snowmobile trails and forestry roads to bike on because of those WF designations.

The muddy trail issue is just the nature of the northeastern climate and terrain; unless you build a solid foundation, pretty much all unimproved roads and trails get muddy and rutted with use in this type of environment.
You obviously don't mountain bike or ski because you have no idea what you are talking about. You are just throwing out blanket terms and saying that "oh well" that's the way it is, when in fact, if you look at other areas where that type of recreation is thriving, that isn't the case.

Seen as how NYS wants little to do with bikes except to say they can use roads or snowmobile corridors, I'd rather they designate it Wilderness and exclude them altogether. If they were smart, they'd rework this whole Wilderness management to be sustainable for all human powered recreation, and not just hikers.

Just as many hiking trails aren't suitable for bikes, the same goes for skis. Skiing isn't just about hiking trails either. Northeastern skiers like glades, and NY fails to recognize that as a type of "trail" management. Also skiing on steep hiking trails isn't even fun, it's dangerous and scary. There are only a handful of actual trails that were designed for skiers, the rest re-purposed truck roads or hiking trails, the same as with bikes.

It's the same story... everyone up north cries that there is no economy and the state says sure, there's every opportunity, but we are not willing to put forth one spec of resource, and while we are at it, even if you did have a group or a club willing to do the work, we're not so sure we want you doing that. But we are glad to keep the old, poorly built systems open and allow people to tear around in trucks, motor boats and snow machines, even where it makes no sense i.e. snowmobile trails out to remote lakes that go nowhere? Why? So someone can go haul junk out to the lean tos and tear around on the ice?

I completely understand the infrastructure in the Adirondacks and that the towns should be connected by snowmobile trails as much as they should roads, and if the towns want to buy and manage their own trail systems like Webb, then so be it, but to put that on the DEC and the rest of NY is silly IMO. Especially when you consider the alternatives that could be done and those that could be made much more sustainable and with less impact to the forest than snow machines or roads.
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2018, 07:35 PM   #24
geogymn
Member
 
geogymn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,854
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCD View Post
Yes, WF has downsides. But if look at the flip side: Make it all Wilderness, like the green shirt bus riders want, and close the road at Blue Ridge road. Then watch for a year as 6 people total use the area.

Everyone wants their piece. The hypocrites want "Wilderness" but with exceptions for their particular pursuits.

I think this is a reasonable compromise.
6 people a year? Zero people a year wouldn't be bad in the grand scene of things, We humans are arrogantly myopic. The tragedy of the commons.
__________________
"A culture is no better than its woods." W.H. Auden
geogymn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2018, 10:59 PM   #25
TCD
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,601
Years ago on this forum we used to discuss the idea of a "true" wilderness area; setting aside an area where no people would go at all. Close the area to all visitors. Including "scientists", "politicians", "hermits", etc. And if you are in there and you get in trouble, the Rangers are not coming in to help you.

Amid all the hollering for a Wilderness designation for Boreas, I recalled that discussion and suggested maybe the Boreas tract would be a good place to try that out.

Went over like a fart in church.

Many of the people who are the loudest "wilderness advocates" want "wilderness, but..." with exceptions built in for their particular activity.
TCD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2018, 11:25 PM   #26
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 902
No exceptions here. I know NYS wilderness isn't wilderness. So why pretend it is. Because we call it that?

IMHO, what we call wilderness should be:

Motor free
Highest protections of wildlife, plant life, bioregions and watersheds
Free of any structures except those for Admin purposes or human waste
Free of any roads except those used for Admin or S&R
Minimal interference by man in terms trail building except whereas to preserve soils or provide drainage

Not much to ask really. Design trails using what we know now about soil erosion and drainage for their intended purpose, either multi-use, bike, hike (including canoe carries) or ski. Not every trail has to be for bikes. Not every trail has to be for skis. Not every ski trail has to be a "trail".

Many remote areas could easily be accessed by bike if properly set up. One may even bike to get to their hiking trail head. Such designs would put a much larger buffer between motor vehicle corridors and give more remote areas and more true wilderness experience with less noise pollution, litter and irresponsible behavior brought on by motor vehicles toting alcohol.

And I guess if you don't see what I mean, think about this:

Why can the Japanese build structures in the forest and not disturb, or minimally disturb the trees or ground and when Americans do the same task, we clear as much land as we can?

It's not the matter of can it be done, it's our mentality on how we do it.

Last edited by montcalm; 01-26-2018 at 11:38 PM..
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2018, 09:01 AM   #27
Tug Hill
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 162
Because the Japanese get their lumber to build structures from our American trees.
Tug Hill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2018, 11:05 AM   #28
Trail Boss
Member
 
Trail Boss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 865
It occurred to me that the state of Gulf Brook Road may also influence the quantity of visitors to Boreas Ponds.

In its current state (up to the northernmost parking area), your speed and comfort level are dictated by your vehicle's ground clearance and wheelbase. The road has many divots and exposed rocks. If you're in a sub-compact, and don't want to damage your car, it'll be a very slow and jarring drive (dodging protrusions and holes).

The road beyond the parking area is currently closed to vehicles and is comparatively smooth, probably because it hasn't been eroded by visitors. Once the gate is opened, it'll probably wear away like its southern half.

All this to say, they'll need to improve the entire road if they hope to attract visitors (and return visitors). Otherwise, it'll serve as a 'vehicular filter'. I guess adamant Wilderness advocates might perceive this to be a 'good thing'.

What comes to mind is Rapid Stream Road in Maine (to access Mount Abraham). That was a memorable drive for all the wrong reasons. First time I ever encountered a missing culvert!
__________________
Looking for views!
Trail Boss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2018, 01:14 PM   #29
Bounder45
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by montcalm View Post
You obviously don't mountain bike or ski because you have no idea what you are talking about. You are just throwing out blanket terms and saying that "oh well" that's the way it is, when in fact, if you look at other areas where that type of recreation is thriving, that isn't the case.

Seen as how NYS wants little to do with bikes except to say they can use roads or snowmobile corridors, I'd rather they designate it Wilderness and exclude them altogether. If they were smart, they'd rework this whole Wilderness management to be sustainable for all human powered recreation, and not just hikers.

Just as many hiking trails aren't suitable for bikes, the same goes for skis. Skiing isn't just about hiking trails either. Northeastern skiers like glades, and NY fails to recognize that as a type of "trail" management. Also skiing on steep hiking trails isn't even fun, it's dangerous and scary. There are only a handful of actual trails that were designed for skiers, the rest re-purposed truck roads or hiking trails, the same as with bikes.

It's the same story... everyone up north cries that there is no economy and the state says sure, there's every opportunity, but we are not willing to put forth one spec of resource, and while we are at it, even if you did have a group or a club willing to do the work, we're not so sure we want you doing that. But we are glad to keep the old, poorly built systems open and allow people to tear around in trucks, motor boats and snow machines, even where it makes no sense i.e. snowmobile trails out to remote lakes that go nowhere? Why? So someone can go haul junk out to the lean tos and tear around on the ice?

I completely understand the infrastructure in the Adirondacks and that the towns should be connected by snowmobile trails as much as they should roads, and if the towns want to buy and manage their own trail systems like Webb, then so be it, but to put that on the DEC and the rest of NY is silly IMO. Especially when you consider the alternatives that could be done and those that could be made much more sustainable and with less impact to the forest than snow machines or roads.
It sounds to me that you want the ADK state lands, to include Wilderness, to be open to your preferred form of recreation but not others. It just seems like your selectively applying your 'wilderness' principle. FWIW, designated wilderness across the board, including Federally-designated wilderness, excludes mechanically powered equipment, like bikes. The ADK's are not out of line in that regard.

If you want more bike access, you should organize with your fellow enthusiasts and petition for more Wild Forest roads and trails to be opened up. Biking on unimproved trails will take its toil on the soil, so the DEC and/or volunteer groups would need to actively maintain those trails.

Snow-shoeing and skiing can take place anywhere in the ADK's. If you want open glades and flat, easy trails, find another place to x-country ski.

I don't ride a snowmobile, but in many areas that recreation brings in boat loads of more tourist money in dead of winter than does skiing or snow-shoeing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by montcalm View Post
No exceptions here. I know NYS wilderness isn't wilderness. So why pretend it is. Because we call it that?

IMHO, what we call wilderness should be:

Motor free
Highest protections of wildlife, plant life, bioregions and watersheds
Free of any structures except those for Admin purposes or human waste
Free of any roads except those used for Admin or S&R
Minimal interference by man in terms trail building except whereas to preserve soils or provide drainage
ADK wilderness isn't real wilderness?
No motors allowed.
No man-made structures except for lean-to's.
I don't know what added protections for wildlife and plants you're referring to that aren't already in place.

The ADK's has quite a bit of wilderness; certainly within the northeast there are very few areas that are even comparable.

Last edited by Bounder45; 01-27-2018 at 01:26 PM..
Bounder45 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2018, 01:35 PM   #30
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder45 View Post
It sounds to me that you want the ADK state lands, to include Wilderness, to be open to your preferred form of recreation but not others. It just seems like your selectively applying your 'wilderness' principle. FWIW, designated wilderness across the board, including Federally-designated wilderness, excludes mechanically powered equipment, like bikes. The ADK's not out of line in that regard.

If you want more bike access, you should organize with your fellow enthusiasts and petition for more Wild Forest roads and trails to be opened up. Biking on unimproved trails will take its toil on the soil, so the DEC and/or volunteer groups would need to actively maintain those trails.

Snow-shoeing and skiing can take place anywhere in the ADK's. If you want open glades and flat, easy trails, find another place to x-country ski.

I don't ride a snowmobile, but in many areas that recreation brings in boat loads of more tourist money in dead of winter than does skiing or snow-shoeing.
Boy you are really out of your element here. A lot of blanket statements and then the ringer...

Quote:
I don't ride a snowmobile, but in many areas that recreation brings in boat loads of more tourist money in dead of winter than does skiing or snow-shoeing.
Why would that be?

Because there are more snowmobilers than skiers in NY? Lets see the numbers. Because skiers are cheap? Or poor?

Might it be because what they like has been largely neglected in favor of motorized recreation and hikers. Look at Vermont and you'll see a thriving ski economy. One that is continuing to open up on with continued sustainable and minimal impact ski areas. Guess where people go to BC ski. It ain't the Adirondacks. Yet you are saying it's all there and they can go have at it, but what do the locals think? I think they'd enjoy a much more active ski economy if it was there.

Same can go for bikes. Mountain biking is the fastest growing form of outdoor recreation and trails that are built correctly have little impact to the forest or soils. But nice ignorant claim there. The same silly argument that has been used against bikes for decades but now that extensive trail networks exist, there is actual data, and the data doesn't support your claim. Hikers do far more damage to trails because they use archaic trails that were built on the premise of getting from point A to point B as quick and easy as possible with no regard for the environmental impact. Same can be said for roads. Old roads are the worst trail systems we have. Often wet and poorly draining with trees and rocks removed that support the soils, little use can result in major damage. They should be closed and re-vegetated.

And your other ignorant statement:

Quote:
If you want more bike access, you should organize with your fellow enthusiasts and petition for more Wild Forest roads and trails to be opened up. Biking on unimproved trails will take its toil on the soil, so the DEC and/or volunteer groups would need to actively maintain those trails.
AFAIK every single road and snowmobile trail in any WF unit in the forest preserve is open to bikes. It doesn't mean they are good for bikes. Most of them are terrible. Most bikers won't even waste their time riding them. Hence your "bike economy" that is thriving everywhere else is completely lost. There is a small group making sustainable bike trails in Wilmington, but beyond that, it's mostly a lost cause.

I care little what land bikes or skis are allowed on. I even said I favor wilderness without bike access above wild forest with improper bike access and motor vehicles. Lumping bikes in with motor vehicles is archaic, and even the Federal government has realized this and may open up certain wilderness area trails to bikes. I don't think bikes belong in the wilderness anymore than I think people do, but it isn't wilderness. It's forest preserve and recreation area. It's what it really is. If you want to separate motors from not, then do it. But AFAIK pedal bikes to not have motors.

Again my whole point is the way we designate and manage land makes no sense in terms of sustainable recreation which can help local economies. And hence why I said the locals cry, but nothing happens or changes because no one puts forth the right effort or the right changes to use the land responsibly. We'd rather use legacy stuff that doesn't work and cut huge swaths of snowmobile trail than study the forest and soil and build recreation that is minimally intrusive, but also beneficial to users.
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2018, 01:53 PM   #31
Bounder45
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 362
Montcalm, what is up with you and fellow complainers? We just got a whole bunch of land added to wilderness, to include the water itself. And yet I see you and a few others here complaining like the sky is falling.

Vermont has a thriving ski economy because of its downhill skiiing, in addition to x-country skiing. It also has a lot of biking and skiing due to its network backcountry roads and trails, many of which are actively maintained by volunteer groups who use, gasp, motorized vehicles on those roads. Vermont has far less true wilderness than does the ADK's. If you want similarly maintained road and trail networks in the ADK's, you'll have to allow motorized vehicles to help maintain that infrastructure. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Biking does take its toll on the soil, and active maintenance would be required to offset that, which requires money and vehicle access.

There are no lack of places to ski or snow shoe in the ADK's. You complain that there is a lack of manicured and maintained trails, and yet such infrastructure seems to contradict the spirit of true wilderness. If you want to explore the ADK's by foot or ski in the winter, literally the entire Park is open to you. The fact is, many more people tour the ADK's by snowmobile than they do by ski or snow shoe, and I don't think any amount of ski trail networks is going to change that.

On the one hand, you keep preaching about how the ADK's doesn't have enough "true wilderness," and yet, on the other hand, you criticize the Park for not having enough maintained and accessible ski trails to entice visitors. If you want a true ADK wilderness experience by ski, the only thing holding you back is your own pessimism.
Bounder45 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2018, 02:04 PM   #32
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 902
It's actually quite the opposite.

How are old roads, lean tos, marked and maintained trails, signs at every junction wilderness?

It's not. I don't pretend it is. Where have I? There are very few true wildernesses left, and the ones that are, aren't in NY.

Actually hand built bike trails can be built and maintained all by BIKE!

There are bike trails in Pisgah that are more remote than anything in the Adirondacks despite them not being called wilderness.

And did you know, most of the SKI ONLY trails are in... guess what! WILDERNESS!

I'm done arguing with you. You are far too uneducated about these situations and far too set with NY's little rules which have no real bearing on wilderness or not. The only thing I really care about is motorized vs non-motorized access in terms of that, but in terms of moving forward in the future and helping the Adirondacks have a healthy, sustainable economy, I think it's going to take more than Snowmobilers going bar to bar and driving drunk through the forest. Not something I like to tell my kids about the greatest place in NY, but it's the reality.
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2018, 02:25 PM   #33
Bounder45
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by montcalm View Post
It's actually quite the opposite.
No it's not. Vermont, and most other eastern states, have far less designated wilderness than does NY.

Quote:
Originally Posted by montcalm View Post
How are old roads, lean tos, marked and maintained trails, signs at every junction wilderness?
The old roads are either used as foot trails or are being retaken by the forest. What more do you want?

Lean-to's and cabins are commonly used in both Canadian and American Wilderness designations. I'm glad to have them and I certainly don't think they take anything away from my 'wilderness' experience.

Maintained trails? Signage? We have enough problems with lost hikers and trail erosion as it is. Are you suggesting we shouldn't put any effort into the upkeep of those foot trails?


Quote:
Originally Posted by montcalm View Post

Actually hand built bike trails can be built and maintained all by BIKE!

There are bike trails in Pisgah that are more remote than anything in the Adirondacks despite them not being called wilderness.

And did you know, most of the SKI ONLY trails are in... guess what! WILDERNESS!
So you're against lean-to's and marked foot trails but you want more maintained bike trails and ski trails? As others have already pointed out, you're being very selective in how you apply your 'wilderness' principle.

Ski-only trails and ski-only access exist everywhere motorized traffic is forbidden. There are plenty of non-motorized trails in WF's as well as in the Wilderness areas. You have the entire Park to use; the motorized access is very limited in comparison. So I'm just not too concerned with your complaint on that topic.

As for Pisgah bike access, do you mean Pisgah NF in NC? Or are you referring to Mount Pisgah in VT's Northeast Kingdom? Because in either case, you're referring to areas that have far more motorized access than does much of the ADK's (which seems to be a recurring theme in your arguments).

VT's biking culture is heavily dependent on its network of back-country roads, which are maintained by vehicles. For better or for worse, the APA has closed off many of the old forestry roads that once existed in the ADK's. If you want them to be reopened and maintained for bike traffic, you'll have to advocate for the rules and land designations to be changed. And you'll have to figure out the money and labor which will be needed to maintain those trails.
Bounder45 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2018, 02:29 PM   #34
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 902
All I'll say is your reading comprehension is severely lacking and you are setting up straw men to knock down. Good day.
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2018, 02:38 PM   #35
Bounder45
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by montcalm View Post
I think it's going to take more than Snowmobilers going bar to bar and driving drunk through the forest. Not something I like to tell my kids about the greatest place in NY, but it's the reality.
Also, please don't get all self-righteous and accuse me of making "blanket statements" when you're all too willing to rely on stereotypes for your own arguments. It this kind of blinding anger that really poisons the discussions relating to the ADK's.
Bounder45 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2018, 03:06 PM   #36
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder45 View Post
Also, please don't get all self-righteous and accuse me of making "blanket statements" when you're all too willing to rely on stereotypes for your own arguments. It this kind of blinding anger that really poisons the discussions relating to the ADK's.
I wish I had a dollar for every restaurant I've been in and seen snowmobilers ride up and order a drink.

I actually know of one person who owned a resteraunt and didn't have a liquor license. Ask him how many snowmobilers stayed to eat. I know how many I counted sitting there for an hour each week.

Not all snowmobilers get drunk, this is true. But when there is a vast majority drinking and riding all day, you have to go with this. And this is what drives a significant portion of the Adirondack economy.

I can say the same for motor boats. How many people on boats in the summer do you think would pass a breathalyzer?
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2018, 03:16 PM   #37
Bounder45
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 362
Quote:
Originally Posted by montcalm View Post
I wish I had a dollar for every restaurant I've been in and seen snowmobilers ride up and order a drink.

I actually know of one person who owned a resteraunt and didn't have a liquor license. Ask him how many snowmobilers stayed to eat. I know how many I counted sitting there for an hour each week.

Not all snowmobilers get drunk, this is true. But when there is a vast majority drinking and riding all day, you have to go with this. And this is what drives a significant portion of the Adirondack economy.

I can say the same for motor boats. How many people on boats in the summer do you think would pass a breathalyzer?
1) Having a drink is not the same as getting drunk. It's legal to drink alcohol before driving, so long as your BAC is below .08%.

2) Just because you observed some snowmobilers getting drunk doesn't mean all, or even most, act that way. When you imply that most do, you're doing so out of biased and ignorant perception.

It never ceases to amaze me how people will transition from arguing over a core topic to arguing over and attacking other peoples' social and moral norms. We started off talking about a major land acquisition, and somehow the conversation has refocused on the social habits of snowmobilers?
Bounder45 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2018, 03:29 PM   #38
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder45 View Post
1) Having a drink is not the same as getting drunk. It's legal to drink alcohol before driving, so long as your BAC is below .08%.

2) Just because you observed some snowmobilers getting drunk doesn't mean all, or even most, act that way. When you imply that most do, you're doing so out of biased and ignorant perception.

It never ceases to amaze me how people will transition from arguing over a core topic to arguing over and attacking other peoples' social and moral norms. We started off talking about a major land acquisition, and somehow the conversation has refocused on the social habits of snowmobilers?
I actually don't care about the legality. I don't care if you drink. It's drinking and operating motor vehicles that I don't care for and it's carrying large amounts of alcohol in vehicles that I believe contributes to many issues in BC campsites.

If you want to tell your kids it's OK to drink and drive a death machine whether legal or not, that's on you. But I don't.

If you want to teach your kids that ripping around on smelly, loud machines is the right way to enjoy our beautiful mountains, then that's on you. But I don't.

Also you could go survey some of those in hotel and resteraunt managment services and see how many snowmobilers are drinking, and I think you'd find a pretty consistent answer. Whether it is legal or not has little point as there is no real enforcement or good way to enforce it.

And lastly, let's just do a thought experiment and wonder where all this money is going in the Adirondack economy from snowmobiles. Some lodging, sure. Some food, sure. Some gasoline and service centers. But do you know what has the largest markup, keeps the longest and is a crowd pleaser? You guessed it. So unless they are whittling factory products to be shipped to China or buying knick-knacks at the local tourist traps, we can guess that a significant amount of booze is being pumped into the snowmobile crowd.

Last edited by montcalm; 01-27-2018 at 03:53 PM..
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2018, 03:46 PM   #39
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 902
Now listen Bounder, all this snowmobiling aside, I'm gonna lay it out real clear for you.

It's not a matter of logic or reason. It's not an issue of morality. It's simply this, which I think you missed somewhere along the line:

We can sit back and pretend we have wilderness for the sake of saving trees and preserving wildlife, but if that were the case, we wouldn't have selfishly built any trails or structures out there and we'd stay out and leave it alone like TCD speculated in his post. That ain't gonna happen, so let's just get it out of our heads. It ain't wilderness. It's land that has many interests to many people, so we need to manage it. I gave a list of my priorities for that and you can agree or disagree, I don't care.

My next point is, if you want to draw the line with motors, which is a fine line to draw, then don't exclude bikes. There is no logic to motorless lands. It's just a nice thing to some people. Some people would also say bikes are not their favorite and rather they stay away. My answer to that is to allow access per basis of ability to sustain impact and recreational opportunities, or in simpler terms, split it up except for certain corridors where it makes sense to have multi-use. I actually think biking corridors could have a major benefit in making lands more remote but still accessible, but not in the sense you can drive your truck out there with a case of beer and trash the place. Just a thought, won't happen, but some people should think about it that way and it might seem more appealing. They already make a number of fat bikes for hunters, so as I see it, it could be a way for them to reach more remote places without the need for a motor vehicle.

Last edited by montcalm; 01-27-2018 at 09:26 PM..
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2018, 04:21 PM   #40
Justin
Moving along
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,000
Full Wilderness would be great, but I have no problems with the current interim access plan, which seems to be working out just fine. It’s a shame that wasn’t really considered at all.
If the public is allowed to drive within a mile of Boreas Ponds, then there is no reason to believe that Boreas Ponds will not end up just like any other place that is only a mile (or less) to access. Examples include places like Nine Corner Lake, Jockeybush Lake, Jabe Pond, Goodluck Lake, Fawn Lake, Ferris Lake, Rock Lake, Gull Lake, Goose Pond, or where I just came from...Big Pond in the Hoffman notch Wilderness. There are countless others. Anyone who has been to places like these is sure to see a good amount of litter, lots of cut trees, spray painted illegal trails, illegal campsites, and overuse in general. I for one would hate to see Boreas Ponds turn into that.

Last edited by Justin; 01-27-2018 at 05:53 PM..
Justin 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 01:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.