Adirondack Forum  
Rules Membership Donations and Online Store Adkhighpeaks Foundation ADKhighpeaks Forums ADKhighpeaks Wiki Disclaimer

Go Back   Adirondack Forum > Current Affairs and Environmental Issues > Current and Historical Affairs
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11-16-2010, 03:03 PM   #1
adkeditor
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Saranac Lake
Posts: 400
Moose River Plains controversy

Click here to read about DEC's proposal to allow mountain biking in corridor that cuts through a Wilderness Area. The corridor would be classifed as Wild Forest to make it legal.
__________________
Adirondack Explorer
www.adirondackexplorer.org
adkeditor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2010, 03:38 PM   #2
DSettahr
ɹǝqɯǝɯ
 
DSettahr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,363
I don't have a problem with Mountain Bikes on this trail. I've hiked it several times, and as a hardened logging road that was open to vehicular traffic until quite recently in history, it can definitely withstand the impact of bikes much better than most other Adirondack trails.

It's also important to note that the trail currently is open to bike use, as it forms the border between a Wilderness Area and a Wild Forest. So it's not like they are suddenly opening up a trail to bike use that has been closed to bikes already. While it is true that the trail receives little use by bikers, it also receives little use by hikers too. The only time you are ever likely to encounter another human being on this trail is during hunting season in the fall.

It does bother me that they are using a trick with zoning to achieve this, however. I'd much rather see a system similar to what was done in the Catskills, with certain corridors in wilderness areas that are open to bike use. (Also, where was the ADK when that was done?)

PS: Post #1000!

Last edited by DSettahr; 11-16-2010 at 04:09 PM..
DSettahr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2010, 03:53 PM   #3
dundee
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,372
What D says is true. It gets liitle use and bikes have been on it for years.

ADK talks a lot, but does little. However, DEC & APA continue to chip away at Wilderness (fire towers, bike corridors, etc) and I wonder when they'll change something in an area that readers of this forum will really get pissed at.
dundee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2010, 04:18 PM   #4
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,932
I don't have a problem with bikes using this trail either as long as the trail continues to be classified as Wild Forest. Irregardless of how they juggle it.

My fear would be that if an area is classified as Wilderness and then you make an exception for some activity normally not allowed, you then set a precedent.

As far as the DEC or APA is concerned, whatever they do thay always get someone upset. I doubt if they will ever do anything that upsets EVERYONE because usually one group or another benefits from the changes.

As for the ADK. I dropped my membership a long time ago because I found their priorities to be heavily weighted to the High P3eaks wilderness and peak baggers in general. I think their membership may have suffered in recent years because of their priorities and as a result that are getting more involved in other areas like the NPT, etc. I don't know if they still oppose saving the Duck Hole Dam. That turned a lot of people off to them.

Hawk
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2010, 04:59 PM   #5
TCD
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,472
Allowing bikes on a trail like this appears to make sense, because the decision is based on a real understanding of the nature of the trail, not on artificial designations. There are lots of trails like this in wilderness, just as there are lots of trails in wild forest where bikes are probably not appropriate, even though they are allowed. It's good to see a decision being made based on a real understanding of the resource.

(ADK is getting rapidly left behind. They admited in an editorial in their magazine a few years ago that most of their money comes from the city, and they were shifting their priorities based on that. So their priorities are driven by either peakbaggers, or by folks who never set foot in the woods. I'm still a member becasue I enjoy reading the local club newsletter, and we occasionally lead hikes. But as an organization, they ome down on the "wrong" side of most issues. I do applaud them for their work on the Marcellus Shale issue, however.)
TCD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2010, 05:14 PM   #6
fisher39
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,006
Another fine example of why I can't stand ADK (and PROTECT!), but support the Adirondack Council, which does a much better job of choosing its battles. If ADK wants to fight some spot zoning that compromises a Wilderness area, they should be working to close the road to Lake Lila.

Of course the solution to this particular issue would be to ban MOTORIZED transport in wilderness areas, rather than MECHANIZED transport, as was discussed in another thread.
fisher39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2010, 06:00 PM   #7
TCD
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,472
I think "Protect" is also on its way out. Two rapidly shrinking groups merged into one rapidly shrinking group. RCPA committed suicide with its ridiculous stance on the Gore Mountain interconnect.

But back to biking - I hope to do some more in summer 2011 (my knee's not great, so biking may have to replace running to some extent). Moose River area looks very promising, with long, relatively level distances on relatively hardened trails. Good stuff.
TCD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2010, 07:55 PM   #8
Neil
Kayak-46
 
Neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5,829
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peakbagr View Post
Likely we wouldn't have the Whitney Preserve, Tahawus purchase, Domtar, Follensby, the Finch Pruyn land( when it goes thru) and thousands of other acres if it weren't for the behind the scenes work ADK has done with DEC and various governor's offices. ADK has testified before congress on behalf of clean air and clean water issues, and at the same time been a tireless advocate for paddlers and hikers.
While the ADK's 25 chapters have many outings, the main club has by necessity ramped up it's efforts in lobbying for land in the Adirondacks and Catskills - land your grandchildren will enjoy.
Totally with you Peakbagr.

It's so easy to crap all over whatever organization is sticking its neck out for we who prefer self-propelled recreation. Speaking for myself, I have been privy to many of the ADK's efforts on behalf of those of us who prize those clean open spaces. Net result: the ADK Mountain Club gets my check every year.
__________________
The best, the most successful adventurer, is the one having the most fun.
Neil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2010, 08:04 PM   #9
DSettahr
ɹǝqɯǝɯ
 
DSettahr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peakbagr View Post
Likely we wouldn't have the Whitney Preserve, Tahawus purchase, Domtar, Follensby, the Finch Pruyn land( when it goes thru) and thousands of other acres if it weren't for the behind the scenes work ADK has done with DEC and various governor's offices. ADK has testified before congress on behalf of clean air and clean water issues, and at the same time been a tireless advocate for paddlers and hikers.
While the ADK's 25 chapters have many outings, the main club has by necessity ramped up it's efforts in lobbying for land in the Adirondacks and Catskills - land your grandchildren will enjoy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
It's so easy to crap all over whatever organization is sticking its neck out for we who prefer self-propelled recreation. Speaking for myself, I have been privy to many of the ADK's efforts on behalf of those of us who prize those clean open spaces. Net result: the ADK Mountain Club gets my check every year.
All excellent points. Without organizations like the ADK, the RCPA, the Association for the Protection of the Adriondacks, etc., things might look a lot different in the Adirondacks than they would otherwise. We might have fewer places to play in the great outdoors.

However, just because we (the users of this forum who enjoy wild areas in the Adirondacks) owe these organizations a debt of gratitude, doesn't mean we need to agree with every action these organizations take, nor agree with every stance they take on important issues.
DSettahr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2010, 08:13 PM   #10
top Ramen
Member
 
top Ramen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Northeast Ohio, raised in Maine, NY
Posts: 169
Well, I guess a few mountain bikes will not create any more damage than the decades of logging that created the road. I guess we should consider ourselves blessed that this property is no longer being logged and now ours.

I would feel sorry for the poor soul who injures themself on their bike back this far in the woods.
__________________
Backpacking: An extended form of hiking in which people carry double the amount of gear they need for half the distance they planned to go in twice the time it should take. ~Author Unknown

Last edited by top Ramen; 11-16-2010 at 08:14 PM.. Reason: didnt meen to swear
top Ramen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2010, 09:10 PM   #11
nutmeg creeker
Member
 
nutmeg creeker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New Haven Ct & North Creek
Posts: 403
I have been a member of ADK for a number of years and i also do not have a great love affair with the High Peaks, but I like the idea of having them there. Remember that "Willy the Actor" Sutton robbed banks because, in his words, "that's where the money is." Constituency building is what advocacy needs to be successful and support comes from all sources. That ADK is tilted toward the "City People" does not mean that it has been detrimental to those of the rest of us who have other preferences than High Peaks issues. It means that they are building a base of support which can be instrumental in serving the other agendas as well. Either.. or can just as well be both... and: the city slickers have the revenues and they should be courted--just as long as they don't build the McMansions!!
__________________
"Days in the woods are days beyond time"--Paul Jamieson
nutmeg creeker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2010, 07:12 AM   #12
daxs
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: South Jersey by the beach
Posts: 272
It sounds like that trail would be perfect for mountain bike riding. I've gone riding in Moose River Plains. I did not see any other bikers. But then I did not see any other people or vehicles the day I was there.
daxs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2010, 07:19 AM   #13
dundee
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSettahr View Post
It does bother me that they are using a trick with zoning to achieve this, however. I'd much rather see a system similar to what was done in the Catskills, with certain corridors in wilderness areas that are open to bike use. (Also, where was the ADK when that was done?)

PS: Post #1000!
ADK actually supported those corridors. Yup, "Working for Wilderness".
dundee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2010, 07:30 AM   #14
fisher39
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peakbagr View Post
Likely we wouldn't have the Whitney Preserve, Tahawus purchase, Domtar, Follensby, the Finch Pruyn land( when it goes thru) and thousands of other acres if it weren't for the behind the scenes work ADK has done with DEC and various governor's offices. ADK has testified before congress on behalf of clean air and clean water issues, and at the same time been a tireless advocate for paddlers and hikers.
While the ADK's 25 chapters have many outings, the main club has by necessity ramped up it's efforts in lobbying for land in the Adirondacks and Catskills - land your grandchildren will enjoy.
I'm all for land acquisition, trail maintenance and the "working WITH" part.

What I've got a problem with is how these groups shrilly denounce every good faith decision of the APA or DEC that they have a slight disagreement with, saying that it is the first sign that the sky is falling... when it isn't.

To quote Curt Stiles in a piece from Adirondack Almanack "Our biggest challenge is not allowing differences to undermine the combined interests we share and distract from the very real urgencies facing the Park."

Their objections are often backed up by lawsuits against the APA or the DEC. The APA and the DEC need to balance demands from the full spectrum of interest groups, and do their best with their limited resources. Its a tough job and it really irritates me that these groups are ready to second guess and denounce every decision they disagree with.

ADK and PROTECT! are both in the midst of a lawsuit with the DEC and the APA over the classification of Lows Lake, because they feel the agencies haven't moved fast enough. It is a complete waste of scarce resources for all involved, which include the taxpayers of NYS. Note that PROTECT! recently laid off all of its paid staff, and we all know the DEC has been slashed.

In contrast, time and again, the Adirondack Council consistently seems to take reasonable, common sense positions, wisely picking its battles. I can be confident that they aren't going to get into a fight "just because" and my donations, and my taxpayer dollars aren't going to be squandered on a fight over a relatively inconsequential issue.
fisher39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2010, 09:14 AM   #15
DSettahr
ɹǝqɯǝɯ
 
DSettahr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by fisher39 View Post
Of course the solution to this particular issue would be to ban MOTORIZED transport in wilderness areas, rather than MECHANIZED transport, as was discussed in another thread.
Land used regulations in NY actually do differentiate between bicycles and motorized transport.

Quote:
1. Bicycle shall mean a vehicle with two or more wheels, a steering handle, a saddle seat, or seats and pedals by which it is propelled.

8. Motor vehicle shall mean a device for transporting personnel, supplies or material incorporating a motor or an engine of any type for propulsion, and with wheels, tracks, skids, skis, air cushion or other contrivance for traveling on or adjacent to land, water or ice. It shall include such vehicles as automobiles, trucks, jeeps, all-terrain vehicles, duffel carriers, snowcats, bulldozers and other earth-moving equipment, but shall not include snowmobiles.
I think it's the federal wilderness system that doesn't make that differentiation.

As for the ADK: Again, they've done a lot of great things when it comes to advocating for environmental protection and preservation of our wild areas. I think it's also worth remembering that all the ADK has done here so far is objected to the proposed plan in a written letter. None of us really know that the ADK is planning on putting forth time, money, and effort to fight the plan.

I find it interesting, however, that the ADK is against zoning this trail as Wild Forest to facilitate access, and they state (from the article):

Quote:
Spot zoning is tantamount to allowing a prohibited use in a Wilderness Area.
Yet apparently spot zoning is ok when it comes to fire towers? Here is the ADK's formal position on the Wakely Mountain Fire Tower, which is currently in a primitive area:

Quote:
ADK has formerly and will repeat its preference for a cleaner solution, transferring the tower and cabin with associated acreage to the adjacent Moose River Plains Wild Forest, with the balance of the primitive-zoned acreage incorporated into the Blue Ridge Wilderness.
I wonder- does the ADK ever poll it's member base before choosing a stance on issues like this? (Serious question) Sometimes I get the sense that opinions expressed by the ADK might not accurately reflect the views of the members of the organization as a whole.
DSettahr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2010, 10:19 AM   #16
Neil
Kayak-46
 
Neil's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5,829
I have to admit I have no idea whether the ADK is essentially a High Peaks/Urban type organization or not.

However, I do know they have taken the US govt. to court regarding the Clean Air Act, with the result of reducing Mercury poisoning within the Blue Line. I would think that fishermen, duckhunters, birders and paddlers can all appreciate the results of that.

Here's an example.

Someone mentioned closing the road to Lake Lila. Now that would cause a stir! I can just imagine the thread we'd have here.
__________________
The best, the most successful adventurer, is the one having the most fun.
Neil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2010, 11:10 AM   #17
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,932
As concerns the ADK.

The threads here area microcosm of what any organization of government bureau has to deal with.

look at the back and forth, sometimes contentious that takes place when you talk about opening up or closing something, allowing or banning something. It all depends on what are particular interests or passions on.

So for each of us, our opinions of the ADK, the DEC, The APA, The Sierra Club, the NRA, etc has to do with what they are doing for us as individuals. 75 - 80% may favor us, but God forbid they come out on the other side of an issue that we have a passion for, and they no longer have our support. And when I say WE, I certainly include ME.

Unless you have a group that favors everything you believe in and opposes everything you don't, then it will never get 100% support of it's members and certainly not a lot of support from it's non members. The reason that an organization like the NRA has such a large and loyal member base is because it's 100% pro gun. That's why it is so successful. (The reason I cite the NRA is because it's the most visible of all the specialized self interest groups, there are hundreds of others not as well known). But of course there is a great deal of Polarization between it and various people who support different types of legislation that limits guns, ammo, or people who for whatever reason oppose hunting, etc.

So in other groups where there is a cross section of people who have their own interests, as someone said, "You can't please all of the people all of the time". So it's really a no win situation for the groups.

I support neither the Sierra Club nor the ADK because in my opinion they have skirted some issues and advocated others based solely on how they think it will effect their membership and the financial support that they receive, as opposed to the principles of the issues. Some of those choices have been counter to what I as an individual would have wished so I choose not to support them with my membership or dues.

In the case of government bureaus, etc all too often they are opposed solely because people do not like being told what they have to do. of course they fail to realize that the regulation became necessary because a number of people failed to do the right thing or , knowingly did the wrong the things. It then gets compounded when some groups, rather then speak out against and condemn the behavior of one of their own, circle the wagons and make excuses or claim they are being unfairly singled out.

In most cases it's not an organizational problem, or a government problem, it's a human problem because we want everything we want and are not willing to compromise or sacrifice anything to get it.

Look at how many times individuals here will agree on most things and yet certain topics will turn them against each other.

It's Americans nature.

Hawk
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2010, 11:22 AM   #18
DSettahr
ɹǝqɯǝɯ
 
DSettahr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,363
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post
In most cases it's not an organizational problem, or a government problem, it's a human problem because we want everything we want and are not willing to compromise or sacrifice anything to get it.

Look at how many times individuals here will agree on most things and yet certain topics will turn them against each other.
Well said.
DSettahr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2010, 11:42 AM   #19
Wldrns
Member
 
Wldrns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil View Post
Someone mentioned closing the road to Lake Lila. Now that would cause a stir! I can just imagine the thread we'd have here.
Sounds like a great idea to me. Did anyone go into Lila when it was first opened to the public? The road was not open to vehicles, but you could hike it. My wife and I did that, the spring that Nehasane Great Camp Lodge was razed. We had made plans the previous season to hike in during the spring to see the camp, only just before going did we learn that the camp had been destroyed. We counted 13 chimneys with multi-floor fireplaces still standing amongst the charred rubble. It was a spooky sight. It was a bit of a walk to get there, but why not?
__________________
"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 11-17-2010, 12:26 PM   #20
stripperguy
Hangin' by a thread
 
stripperguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Schenectady, NY
Posts: 3,418
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wldrns View Post
Sounds like a great idea to me. Did anyone go into Lila when it was first opened to the public? The road was not open to vehicles, but you could hike it. My wife and I did that, the spring that Nehasane Great Camp Lodge was razed. We had made plans the previous season to hike in during the spring to see the camp, only just before going did we learn that the camp had been destroyed. We counted 13 chimneys with multi-floor fireplaces still standing amongst the charred rubble. It was a spooky sight. It was a bit of a walk to get there, but why not?
Wldrns,
Not to stray too far fron the topic, but my wife and I and some friends drove in to the Lake Lila parking area and camped on Lila there the summer before the camp was razed!! The year was 1983. Our friends were too tired to paddle from our site to the lodge, saying they would check it out the next time we visited Lila. My wife and I paddled across and checked out every single building...
We also went back the following year, and the scene was as you describe...but just one chimney and much rubble.
stripperguy 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 02:50 PM.


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.