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 10-23-2018, 10:02 PM   #1
Skid
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 51
Raquette Lake Leanto at Hasbroucks

Guys,

Since 1978 I have used the leanto at the point referred to on the topos as Hasbrouk's across from Beecher Island at the north end of Raquette Lake.

It was a magnificent spot with the view of sunrise and sunset, a breeze to at least help keep the flies away, and a rock landing for a skiff or canoe 20 feet
from the leanto making lugging gear no issue.

I have been there with college buddies from NYC who knew nothing of the Adirondacks, my kids as they grew, and two years ago with an old pal from Syracuse who had never seen the Adirondacks. Everyone was amazed that it was there and free to use.

Just before Labor Day I went there solo and found my leanto had been moved 100 feet back into the woods where the outhouses had always been. The lake view and breeze were gone. No more the sunset from the leanto. No more the sunrise through the mist on the lake.

I understand the reason for the 100 foot rule for camping from water. It is to
protect bodies of water from human impact. But when Raquette Lake is almost completely lined with private "camps" going for $250K or better, why is a regular guy who pays NY taxes being denied a free lakefront accommodation that had been there thanks to the people of the State of New York, by the grace of God free and independent, for at least the last 40 years to my own knowledge.

Just wondering.

Skid
Skid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2018, 12:26 AM   #2
OntarioSkiBum
Member
 
OntarioSkiBum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 294
$250k seems on the low side!
OntarioSkiBum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2018, 01:31 AM   #3
Schultzz
Low Impact Skidder
 
Schultzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 742
Just wondering.

Skid

That's typical of the mentality of some new anal manager trying to justify their salary. I wonder what would happen if it mysteriously got moved back to where it was for forty years.
__________________
Never Argue With An Idiot. They Will Drag You Down To Their Level And Beat You With Experience.
Schultzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2018, 06:44 AM   #4
TCD
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,683
Not sure if that location is private or is managed by NY State.

The State has been setting the example for these "move the leanto very far from water sources" projects for some years. It's an incredibly destructive program, that has made many formerly nice leantos either less useful or altogether useless. (The leantos were originally situated near water for the obvious reason that campers need a water source.)

Unfortunately, this is being pursued dogmatically by the State, in direct contradiction of the evidence. There is NO data that shows that having the leanto close to the water deteriorates the water quality or causes other actual environmental damage. Sure, we can all cite anecdotal observations of this or that, but there is no solid data. I have asked for the data in the past, and no one has been able to produce it. But there is data that shows that the cutting of hundreds of trees and the making of muddy new paths to the leantos new location causes environmental damage.

So this program does far more harm than good, in addition to negatively impacting recreation. It's sad that the State pushes ahead with this.
TCD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2018, 08:06 AM   #5
Justin
Moving along
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,238
I feel your pain, Skid.
Boucher Point (Hasbroucks) was for years an annual ice fishing/winter camping destination for some friends & I. It was nice to be able to watch our tip-ups while hanging out in one of the three lean-tos by a warm campfire. Since they moved the lean-tos back we decided to go elsewhere.
Justin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2018, 09:29 AM   #6
dundee
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,543
As usual the DEC is all over the place on this. Yes, some LTs have been moved back, but some have been repaired where they are; Ouluska, Queer Lake are two examples.
dundee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2018, 10:35 AM   #7
Wldrns
Member
 
Wldrns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Western Adirondacks
Posts: 3,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by dundee View Post
As usual the DEC is all over the place on this. Yes, some LTs have been moved back, but some have been repaired where they are; Ouluska, Queer Lake are two examples.
It has something to do with whether they are on a primary of secondary water body. I've been confused when the lean2rescue crew makes repairs and leaves one in its original site, one that cleary is near a feeder stream into a larger water body. Most repairs done recently require moving back 100 feet from their original near shore location. It is the regional DEC forester planner who determines where a leanto is to be placed, and if it must be moved when major repairs are made by L2R. L2R has no choice in the matter.
__________________
"Now I see the secret of making the best person, it is to grow in the open air and to eat and sleep with the earth." -Walt Whitman
Wldrns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2018, 11:39 AM   #8
NEranger21
Member
 
NEranger21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Transient
Posts: 57
For whatever reason The DEC division of Lands and Forests has 100%, wholeheartedly, adopted the APA "state land master plan", RECOMMENDATION, that campsites/leanto's be at least 100ft back from high water mark.
__________________
“Great things are done when men and mountains meet"
-William Blake
NEranger21 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2018, 12:02 PM   #9
Bounder45
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by NEranger21 View Post
For whatever reason The DEC division of Lands and Forests has 100%, wholeheartedly, adopted the APA "state land master plan", RECOMMENDATION, that campsites/leanto's be at least 100ft back from high water mark.
Is there any reason for the APA making that recommendation in the first place?

It seems like the State Land Master Plan essentially becomes gospel, and yet there isn't always clear onus on the APA to prove whether or not those recommendations are useful or even viable.

Case and point: moving the lean-to back 100 feet from the water's edge on a lake that is full of motor-boat traffic and has plenty of lake-side residences seems very trivial, one could even say pointless....taxpayer money would be better spent elsewhere.
Bounder45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2018, 12:57 PM   #10
Wldrns
Member
 
Wldrns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Western Adirondacks
Posts: 3,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder45 View Post
Case and point: moving the lean-to back 100 feet from the water's edge on a lake that is full of motor-boat traffic and has plenty of lake-side residences seems very trivial, one could even say pointless....taxpayer money would be better spent elsewhere.
Note for the record: the Lean2Rescue crew performs its work using totally volunteer effort, they receive no tax payer funds for travel or labor. The DEC (hence tax payers) as well corporate donations pay for the materials. Labor and expertise/experience in new construction, repair, movement of leantos, use of personal and or L2R crew tools comes for free. Most often roof boards and shingles need to be replaced. But when logs (usually just the bottom layer) are rotted and degraded beyond repair, the DEC will determine if movement is necessary as the leanto is deconstructed and reconstructed for replacement of new logs and floor on a new designated site.

So the question comes down to spending any taxpayer money for a leanto in need of repair at all, as it costs nothing extra to move one to comply with APA guidelines.
__________________
"Now I see the secret of making the best person, it is to grow in the open air and to eat and sleep with the earth." -Walt Whitman

Last edited by Wldrns; 10-24-2018 at 01:14 PM..
Wldrns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2018, 06:31 PM   #11
Bounder45
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wldrns View Post
Note for the record: the Lean2Rescue crew performs its work using totally volunteer effort, they receive no tax payer funds for travel or labor. The DEC (hence tax payers) as well corporate donations pay for the materials. Labor and expertise/experience in new construction, repair, movement of leantos, use of personal and or L2R crew tools comes for free. Most often roof boards and shingles need to be replaced. But when logs (usually just the bottom layer) are rotted and degraded beyond repair, the DEC will determine if movement is necessary as the leanto is deconstructed and reconstructed for replacement of new logs and floor on a new designated site.

So the question comes down to spending any taxpayer money for a leanto in need of repair at all, as it costs nothing extra to move one to comply with APA guidelines.
Even if it was mostly volunteer labor that moved the lean-to in question, my point is that effort would be better directed towards other projects.

Moving a lean-to back 100 feet from the water's edge on a lake as busy as Raquette just doesn't seem like its accomplishing much, if anything, environmentally-speaking. Did the APA even consider that or do they just want those guidelines enforced because it looks good on paper?
Bounder45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2018, 06:42 PM   #12
Wldrns
Member
 
Wldrns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Western Adirondacks
Posts: 3,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder45 View Post
Even if it was mostly volunteer labor that moved the lean-to in question, my point is that effort would be better directed towards other projects.
Not mostly, it is ALL volunteer labor working on leantos. They also work several major wilderness bridge maintenance projects. Many of the same people also work on trail clearing projects in coordination with the DEC and are members of various volunteer SAR teams. What other projects do you have in mind that the volunteers could be directed to do instead? Do you volunteer your effort in an organized manner?
__________________
"Now I see the secret of making the best person, it is to grow in the open air and to eat and sleep with the earth." -Walt Whitman
Wldrns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2018, 06:51 PM   #13
Bounder45
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wldrns View Post
Not mostly, it is ALL volunteer labor working on leantos. They also work several major wilderness bridge maintenance projects. What other projects do you have in mind that the volunteers could be directed to do instead? Many of the same people also work on trail clearing projects in coordination with the DEC and are members of various volunteer SAR teams. Do you volunteer your effort in an organized manner?
Well considering the trail to Wakely Mountain was closed for a portion of this summer season due to fire tower renovations, and considering that there are numerous trails dealing with significant erosion issues, yes, I'd say there are other conservation efforts more deserving of the DEC's and public's attention.

I don't need to hear about peoples' affiliations or how they spend their spare time. I wasn't criticizing the people who physically relocated the lean-to, I was criticizing the policy behind the move.
Bounder45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2018, 07:36 PM   #14
Justin
Moving along
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder45 View Post

Moving a lean-to back 100 feet from the water's edge on a lake as busy as Raquette just doesn't seem like its accomplishing much, if anything, environmentally-speaking. Did the APA even consider that or do they just want those guidelines enforced because it looks good on paper?
Same goes for DEC’s new practice of clear-cutting the forest within a designated “Wilderness Area” in order to air-drop pressure treated lumber for needless 4 foot wide “footbridges”, which NYS taxpayers are paying for.
Justin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2018, 08:02 PM   #15
Schultzz
Low Impact Skidder
 
Schultzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 742
Same goes for DEC’s new practice of clear-cutting the forest within a designated “Wilderness Area” in order to air-drop pressure treated lumber for needless 4 foot wide “footbridges”, which NYS taxpayers are paying for.
Justin is offline Report Post

The four ft wide bridges are for Ranger ATV's.
__________________
Never Argue With An Idiot. They Will Drag You Down To Their Level And Beat You With Experience.
Schultzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2018, 08:13 PM   #16
Justin
Moving along
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schultzz View Post
The four ft wide bridges are for Ranger ATV's.
Just curious... Since when was it necessary for ATV use by DEC in say the Ha-De-Ron-Dah-Wilderness? Examples please.
Justin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2018, 08:26 PM   #17
Schultzz
Low Impact Skidder
 
Schultzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 742
Just curious... Since when was it necessary for ATV use by DEC in say the Ha-De-Ron-Dah-Wilderness? Examples please.
Justin is offline Report Post

Friend, these "improvements" are for "possible future use" by Ranger ATV's,

Probably to check on the collar transmitters of the newly stocked mountain lions. (A coop along with PA DEC) Sounds incredible doesn't it. The first step in the process of the integration of new ideas is ridicule. Now it is up to you to decide how credible this information is. Times are changing.
__________________
Never Argue With An Idiot. They Will Drag You Down To Their Level And Beat You With Experience.
Schultzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2018, 08:32 PM   #18
Wldrns
Member
 
Wldrns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Western Adirondacks
Posts: 3,817
I can't say anything (yet) about the Ha-De-Ron-Dah, but in the not far away Black River Wild Forest, it was the week of July 14, 2014 where there was a major search incident for the lost 84 yr old gentleman named Donald Combs. As much as I dislike ATVs, especially in that area, DEC rangers used numerous ATVs, UTVs, and an Argo machine to transport dozens of rangers and searchers, including myself, from the trailhead 3 miles toward Gull and Chub Lakes on the search. Missing for a full week, Mr Combs was found down and immobile but was rescued still alive. Major repair work had to be done to the muddy trails after the ATVs tore them up during the incident. A bridge or two would have saved much of the necessary repair work and mud splatter.
__________________
"Now I see the secret of making the best person, it is to grow in the open air and to eat and sleep with the earth." -Walt Whitman
Wldrns is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-24-2018, 08:38 PM   #19
Justin
Moving along
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,238
Well it has definitely been pretty clear over the past couple years that our government is going to do whatever it wants, despite state laws & public input.
Justin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2018, 05:06 PM   #20
Skid
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 51
Guys,

Not in the wildest imagination did I intend to disparage the people who volunteer their time, effort and expertise to work on leanto's for the benefit of all of us. In fact the renovation done along with the move in this instance was beautiful in the way that they salvaged and reused the wall timbers with all of the graffiti carved or candle smoked by the innumerable people who wanted to memorialize their visit. Nor do I have any problem with that graffiti. It's been going on since humans camped in caves in 13,000 BC.

I also understand the need for rangers to have access to the back country in emergencies, though I do join Justin in questioning why there is a need to clear cut to provide it and see it as an opening to ATV use.

My issue is what is at best a slavish adherence to the letter of the 100 foot rule without thought for the intent or at worst a strict enforcement of the rule at the behest of those with the wherewithal to have picture window rustic lakeside palaces complete with dock and 150 horse engines who would prefer a view uncluttered by guys not suitably dressed in the latest Columbia outerwear.

Skid
Skid 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 09:59 AM.


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.