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 06-20-2017, 02:29 PM   #1
JohnnyVirgil
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Porter Corners, NY
Posts: 445
Boreas "Glamping?"

Is this for real?

http://www.adirondackalmanack.com/20...bin-tents.html
JohnnyVirgil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2017, 02:54 PM   #2
Justin
member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,540
I was camped with Bill at the Falls Brook Yurts in the photo included in his article (you can see my pulk-sled in the background). It was a fun trip, with cozy "backwoods" accommodations, and I was happy to return to a nice warm shelter on such a cold winter weekend, but it's something I think that I don't see myself ever doing again. Just not my thing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not completely against the idea of a hut-to-hut system in the Adirondacks, but certainly not on Forest Preseve Lands, and definitely not at Boreas Ponds!
Justin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2017, 03:30 PM   #3
JohnnyVirgil
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Porter Corners, NY
Posts: 445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin View Post

Don't get me wrong, I'm not completely against the idea of a hut-to-hut system in the Adirondacks, but certainly not on Forest Preseve Lands, and definitely not at Boreas Ponds!
I'm not either, but man...I would really hate to see that happen at Boreas. For all the reasons he cites in the article. I just saw your comment to that effect on the article comments, and I agree. Not on the forest preserve.
JohnnyVirgil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2017, 03:37 PM   #4
Justin
member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyVirgil View Post
I just saw your comment to that effect on the article comments...
That was the beer talking again, and of course tongue in cheek.

Last edited by Justin; 06-21-2017 at 07:48 AM..
Justin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2017, 07:28 PM   #5
DuctTape
Out of Shape
 
DuctTape's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 1,691
i can see a constitutional issue arise if the State attempts this path. I am supposing that the intention would be to rent them out which appears to violate the constitutional prohibition on "leasing". but I am no constitutional scholar.
__________________
"There's a whisper on the night-wind, there's a star agleam to guide us, And the Wild is calling, calling . . . let us go." -from "The Call of the Wild" by Robert Service

My trail journal: DuctTape's Journal
DuctTape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2017, 10:21 AM   #6
DSettahr
ɹǝqɯǝɯ
 
DSettahr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,343
I agree with the other sentiments. I'm not against this idea in general, and I think that a hut-to-hut system in the Adirondacks would be a good thing. But with all of the private and easement land in the Adirondacks, its seems to me like this wouldn't be a hard thing to implement with only minimal additional infrastructure on state land (mostly construction of new trails to connect the huts).

With regards to Boreas specifically, passing up what will probably be the last opportunity in our lifetimes to expand one of the largest roadless, motor-free areas in the eastern US just seems incredibly shortsighted to me.
DSettahr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2017, 11:27 AM   #7
Terasec
Member
 
Terasec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 42
like some elements of it,
but fear the worst,
can see many more downsides to it than upsides,
abuse, abandoned sites, commercialization,
there has already been an uptick in private sector offering glamping sites on private lands
tentrr is a new webservice for such,
and others are doing similar, rather see them progress first before state jumping in
they can tweak current regs a bit, but hesitant for such a major change
Terasec is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2017, 02:23 PM   #8
Bounder45
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSettahr View Post
With regards to Boreas specifically, passing up what will probably be the last opportunity in our lifetimes to expand one of the largest roadless, motor-free areas in the eastern US just seems incredibly shortsighted to me.
The roads are already there, and likely won't go away anytime soon as people will continue to use them for foot travel and biking and riding.

Also, why does the "forever wild" concept preclude the possibility of a hut-to-hut system? If the huts are built with a minimal footprint and help promote tourism, what is there to complain about?

I hear so many people on here opine on how the ADK's and its communities should strive to find ways to promote tourism to enhance their economic situation. And yet when the state comes up with a program designed to do just that, I see a whole bunch of complaining and calls that the 'forever wild' principle is being violated.

Regardless of which classification the area gets and regardless of whether these huts are put up or not, we're getting access to a whole bunch of new lands for hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, exploring, ect. So maybe people should take a break from complaining and be grateful for what they're getting.

Last edited by Bounder45; 06-21-2017 at 02:36 PM..
Bounder45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2017, 02:38 PM   #9
mike
Member
 
mike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Syracuse, NY
Posts: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder45 View Post
The roads are already there, and likely won't go away anytime soon as people will continue to use them for foot travel and biking and riding.
Who's gonna grade them and upkeep them every year? Who will pay for that?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder45
Also, why does the "forever wild" concept preclude the possibility of a hut-to-hut systems? If the huts are built with a minimal footprint and help promote tourism, what is there to complain about?
It may break the state constitution no matter how we feel about it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder45
I hear so many people on here opine on how the ADK's and its communities should strive to find ways to promote tourism to enhance their economic prosperity. And yet when the state comes up with a program designed to do just that, I see a whole bunch of complaining and calls that the 'forever wild' principle is being violated.
I'd honestly like to see some hard data either way to be honest. I'm not entirely convinced plans such as this are the economic prosperity that people think it would be.

As far as I have seen neither side has really shown any hard data and comparisons that would stand up to an intellectual and academic lawmaking/policy review.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder45
Regardless of which classification the area gets and regardless of whether these huts are put up or not, we're getting access to a whole bunch of new lands for hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, exploring, ect. So maybe people should take a break from complaining and be grateful for what they're getting.
People have a right to voice their opinions whether you or anyone else likes them or not.

Asking people to just be "grateful" and shush it is kind of close minded.

A lot of us people who spend time in the great outdoors can be both grateful and opinionated about the things are are passionate about. We really don't need to choose to do either/or. We can multitask and will.
__________________
mike
mike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2017, 05:14 PM   #10
geogymn
Member
 
geogymn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,722
Hut to Hut is a good concept methinks but build the huts on private land. There is plenty of private land, keep the wild, wild. The wild is the attraction and is what the state should focus on, improve the wild character of the park. Let the people make the money renting out huts on private land, the State will get its share.
__________________
"A culture is no better than its woods." W.H. Auden
geogymn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2017, 09:02 PM   #11
Justin
member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,540
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder45 View Post
The roads are already there, and likely won't go away anytime soon as people will continue to use them for foot travel and biking and riding.

Also, why does the "forever wild" concept preclude the possibility of a hut-to-hut system? If the huts are built with a minimal footprint and help promote tourism, what is there to complain about?

I hear so many people on here opine on how the ADK's and its communitiies should strive to find ways to promote tourism to enhance their economic situation. And yet when the state comes up with a program designed to do just that, I see a whole bunch of complaining and calls that the 'forever wild' principle is being violated.

Regardless of which classification the area gets and regardless of whether these huts are put up or not, we're getting access to a whole bunch of new lands for hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, exploring, ect. So maybe people should take a break from complaining and be grateful for what they're getting.
Bounder,
Why should we all of a sudden now start to allow New York State officials to undo New York State policies that were fought for by those wishing to preserve public Adirondack forests long before us?
And if hiking & camping tourism is so important to the North Hudson area, then why are several of the public trails in the North Hudson area still unmarked, unmapped, and uneasy to find & use for over 30+ years now?
I'm sincerely curious.
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 10:40 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.