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 08-11-2017, 01:22 PM   #41
Bounder45
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by dundee View Post
I believe the point was that vehicular access would make it easier to destroy a habitat and might make it happen faster.
1) Please give me specifics. What will get destroyed? And how will it be destroyed?

2) There has been vehicle access to that area for the past several decades. Has anyone documented significant negative effects resulting from that access?

3) For the sake of argument, let's say the DEC allows vehicle access to within several hundred feet, not the water's edge. What is the quantifiable difference in risk/damage associated with having people walk several hundred feet to drop in their boats versus walking several miles?
Bounder45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2017, 01:46 PM   #42
JohnnyVirgil
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Porter Corners, NY
Posts: 527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder45 View Post
1) Please give me specifics. What will get destroyed? And how will it be destroyed? What is the quantifiable difference in risk/damage associated with having people walk several hundred feet to drop in their boats versus walking several miles?
I think the big difference is in quantity (and probably quality?) of people willing to drive up vs. willing to walk several miles.
JohnnyVirgil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2017, 02:02 PM   #43
dundee
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder45 View Post
1) Please give me specifics. What will get destroyed? And how will it be destroyed?

2) There has been vehicle access to that area for the past several decades. Has anyone documented significant negative effects resulting from that access?

3) For the sake of argument, let's say the DEC allows vehicle access to within several hundred feet, not the water's edge. What is the quantifiable difference in risk/damage associated with having people walk several hundred feet to drop in their boats versus walking several miles?


You haven't been reading the previous posts, have you?
dundee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2017, 02:04 PM   #44
dundee
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder45 View Post
1) Please give me specifics. What will get destroyed? And how will it be destroyed?

2) There has been vehicle access to that area for the past several decades. Has anyone documented significant negative effects resulting from that access?

3) For the sake of argument, let's say the DEC allows vehicle access to within several hundred feet, not the water's edge. What is the quantifiable difference in risk/damage associated with having people walk several hundred feet to drop in their boats versus walking several miles?


You haven't been reading the previous posts, have you? The questions you ask have rather obvious answers.
dundee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2017, 02:21 PM   #45
Justin
Moving along
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder45 View Post
1) Please give me specifics. What will get destroyed? And how will it be destroyed?

2) There has been vehicle access to that area for the past several decades. Has anyone documented significant negative effects resulting from that access?

3) For the sake of argument, let's say the DEC allows vehicle access to within several hundred feet, not the water's edge. What is the quantifiable difference in risk/damage associated with having people walk several hundred feet to drop in their boats versus walking several miles?
1) I think the Powley Piseco Rd is a pretty good specific example of what is likely to happen with easy public motorized access. I can see it now, a thread pops up about someone who wanted to enjoy a nice quiet paddle but was turned off by a couple drunken yahoos firing off round after round from their RV parked near the launch. Not only that but the amount of trash that you will find along the Powley Piseco Rd on any given day. Or take a spin around Cedar River Flow and let me know how many cut trees & stumps that you see. Little Tupper Lake is a perfect example of what one idiot with a few buckets of bass in his car/truck can do to a native trout population in a body of water over 5 times the size of Boreas Ponds.

2) Has there been "public" road access for decades?
I think there's a HUGE differnce between a few fortunate leash holders than unlimited numbers of the general public using the resource.

3) The easier the access, the easier it is for inconsiderate/uneducated people to do harm to the environment. With a longer walk, the less likely inconsiderate/uneducated people will even bother. Plain & simple, it's not very scientific.


Last edited by Justin; 08-11-2017 at 02:50 PM..
Justin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2017, 03:55 PM   #46
Creekwader
Snag Locator
 
Creekwader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: In the Place of the Nettles
Posts: 854
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder45 View Post
I understand that many lakes in the ADK's get artificially stocked with fish. A lot of that has to do with the DEC wanting to ensure that there are viable, robust populations that won't be over-harvested. In fact, that is a fairly common conservation practice across much of North America.
But why stock if it doesn't need it? Why not protect an NSA (NSA=Natural Spawning Adequate, DEC's term, not mine) pond? And you're wrong about stocking being a common conservation practice, most western states have moved away from that model. DEC does it here because all the waters with easy access have been overrun with invasive species and there would be no trout fishing without stocking. Those invasives got there because of easy access.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder45 View Post
And yes, your point on acid rain is exactly what I'm getting at. There are plenty of remote lakes and ponds (foot access only) that have seen fish populations suffer or die out completely for a variety of reasons. This idea that road access will automatically kill off all the fish in Boreas ponds is naive. Boreas has had road access for the past several decades, with some use by leased hunting/fishing camps if I'm not mistaken.
You made the point about acid rain not me and I pointed out that your logic made no sense. And no, I am not naive to think that a self sustaining brook trout population that suddenly becomes a roadside attraction will not cease to be self sustaining and worse case be destroyed forever. I can only think of 1 roadside brook trout pond that is self sustained by natural reproduction in the entire park. Virtually every other lake and pond in the park used to have a self sustaining brook trout population. So how am I naive when almost 100% of roadside lakes/ponds in the park have lost their NSA populations?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder45 View Post
Can you explain to me the added risk there is with letting people drive right up to the water (or to within a few hundred feet) versus making them walk several miles before dropping in a boat? Either way, the area is going to get fished and foreign objects will be put in the water, and the DEC will likely have to manage and potentially restock the water to accommodate the use by fishermen. I wouldn't be surprised if the area had been restocked in years past in order to accommodate the people who had access to the area.

The added risk is that it takes considerably more effort to carry a bucket of minnows or perch or bass for miles as opposed to feet. This is no guarantee that some determined scumbag wouldn't do that but hiking distance seems to work well in the wilderness areas where stable trout populations exist (if you read that paper I linked in my last response you will see the correlation). I don't know how else to explain this.
Creekwader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-12-2017, 05:05 PM   #47
Hard Scrabble
Member
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 1,188
The fact is that the DEC has been undermanned due to budget constraints.
Too few personnel are expected to patrol a huge area.
Hard Scrabble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2017, 10:23 PM   #48
Buckladd
Member
 
Buckladd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Hogtown
Posts: 795
One thing I'll say about Powley-Piseco Road is that it provides access to a vast area during the hunting season, including for some who utilize the campsites. Same with Moose River Plains. They're starting to do the same thing in the Essex Chain and will at Boreas Ponds if access is sufficient.
__________________
Life's short, hunt hard!
Buckladd 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 10:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, 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.