APA Votes to Reverse Lows Lake Wilderness Classification
by Editorial Staff
All three of Governor David Paterson's representatives on the Adirondack Park Agency board have reversed votes made in September and opposed designation of the waters of Lows Lake as Wilderness, Primitive, or Canoe. By a 6-4 vote the APA had added most of the waters and bed of Lows Lake to the Five Ponds Wilderness in September. The rest of the lake was classified as Primitive, which would have prohibited motorized use. It was later learned that the tenure of one of the APA commissioners had expired and the vote needed to be retaken - that vote occurred today and ended in a 7-4 reversal of the previous decision.
The Almanack has just received the following press release from Protect The Adirondacks!, supporters of of the September vote:
At the Adirondack Park Agency meeting today in Ray Brook, the Department of Environmental Conservation and two other state agencies reversed their September votes, and voted against designation of the waters of Lows Lake as Wilderness, Primitive, or Canoe. The state’s inability to support appropriate classification of a lake 90% surrounded by the Five Ponds Wilderness Area runs counter to:
· the clearly articulated purpose of the acquisition of the lake and its shoreline in 1985
· the clear guidance of the State Land Master Plan to classify both state lands and waters
· DEC’s own well-publicized commitments made earlier this year
· public opinion expressed at numerous public hearings
· Their vote in September, when all three state agencies affirmatively voted to support a Wilderness classification of the waters and bed of the lake.
“All three of the Governor’s state representatives on the APA failed to classify the lake after voting for such a classification in September. It is mystifying,” said PROTECT executive director David Gibson. “This appears to be a deeply disappointing failure of will on the part of Governor Paterson. After voting to do the right thing in September, the Governor reversed and voted against public policy that is not only legally valid and highly important to our society, but also one that is very popular with the people of the state, and advantageous for businesses in the Adirondacks catering to wilderness guiding and boat building. We will be following up with all three agencies and with the Governor’s office.”
“At no time in the last few months did the Governor’s staff refute APA’s well-researched and presented facts supporting the classification as Wilderness or Primitive,” Gibson added. “The facts did not change. Instead, the political will to advance Wilderness in the Park failed, in spite of present and historic public support for such classifications across the state.”
“DEC had worked for six months with the Adirondack Park Agency to propose a Wilderness classification of the 2600-acre surface area of Lows Lake, along with important classification of new lands and waters nearby, all to become part of the Five Ponds Wilderness Area,”says PROTECT’s Director of Conservation Programs Dan Plumley. “Their backtracking today is break-taking and very disappointing, particularly because the Department has failed to justify it. The public expects its DEC to stand up for Wilderness, Primitive and Canoe areas, where motorized uses are not permitted, particularly on a lake surrounded by Wilderness where it has already regulated an end to public motorboat use, and pledged to end use of float planes by 2012.”
“In September DEC affirmed that the State Land Master defined Wilderness as both land and water, and that the state had an obligation to classify this particular lake,” Plumley added. Now, two months later, DEC has reversed course for reasons known only to itself. We are particularly disappointed in the DEC. The other representatives look to the DEC for guidance in these matters. There should be a significant burden of proof for DEC to reverse a vote taken in full cognizance of all the facts in September, after numerous public hearings and many staff presentations. They failed to meet that burden today.”
“We congratulate APA Chairman Curt Stiles and State Lands Committee Chair Jim Townsend and other APA members for reaffirming their September vote to classify much of Lows Lake as Wilderness,” Plumley continued. “We are just deeply troubled that the other state agencies that serve the Governor on the APA could not muster the same understanding of their responsibilities under the Master Plan.”
8 Comments:
We all knew this was coming back, but no one expected a 6-4 vote for the reclass to turn into a 7-4 vote against... Something tells me this isn't over...
Really bizarre decision by Paterson to make the state agencies arbitrarily reverse their vote even though no new information surfaced.
There's really very little direct consequence either way - the fuss is over the precedent, and the precedent seems to sit exactly on the gap between resident and statewide interests. The statements by both advocates have been disproportionate. I refused to panic over the first vote, and I'm not going to panic now, either.
Excellent. This was the right way to go. This is not, after all like Lake Colden, completely surrounded by forest preserve. As to the whole 'wilderness experience", BS, it is a man made lake (!); I say go to James Bay, in Canada. It is incredible. And your $3k canoe, take it up there.
John,
I am curious why do these type of articles usually have only the comments made by folks on one side of the issue. I am sure you could have found many positive comments related to the decision that was made in this case. This seems very unbalanced at times. Maybe that is what you are going for? There are many Adirondackers that are cheering this action. That is the real story. Once and a while the DEC and the APA get on the right side of an issue. Of course the rest of the re-classification stands and the folks who wanted to make some of their living flying people in and out of there are still out of luck. I also see that some groups are already getting lawyered up! Looks like this will cost the state some more money they don't have.
Hi Paul,
This was just a breaking story when I posted it. We've linked to other aspects of the story (and will continue to do so) in our latest news links (at the right).
The first paragraph was the basic reporting - the rest, as noted, came from Protect! who was the first to make a comment on what happened. I printed their comment verbatim along with the line "The Almanack has just received the following press release from Protect The Adirondacks!, supporters of of the September vote."
I believe in letting advocates speak for themselves, not through the lens of a "reporter" who puts their twist on the news. In the announcement of this meeting I posted the link to see the meeting via webcast - that was another side of the story.
Of course comments from folks here add other dimensions to the story and I encourage those who have opinions to voice them here.
I hope that answers your question.
John
Thanks. Yes, it does answer some of the question. But for example I noted that in your Nov 12 article on the Adirondack Council's opposition to the "snowmobile plan" that was written PRIOR to the APA meeting that there again you have done a good job of covering that groups opposing view, and have failed to mention any of the hundreds of comments that have come out, prior to the meeting, in favor of that policy change. How can you really argue that this is not some type of "advocacy" for groups like the Council?
You pointed to a good example. In opinion pieces, I have come out in favor of the snowmobile connector trails in the past. So obviously, that snowmobile piece was not my opinion or any piece of advocacy - it was presenting the fact that the council was opposing the plan as written.
BTW, I grew up with snowmobiles, raced them when I was a kid (as did both my parents). My father had a shop in the 1970s where their claim to fame was drag racing on the grass in the summer (back when you had only air cooled machines, so they had to be converted).
Anyway, it seems as though you're seeing these positions published from the horses mouth publicly, something that has not happened in local media, and assuming that because we allow space for them, we condone them. Each one makes it clear where the opinions are coming from.
The snowmobile piece was that the council was going to oppose the plan and here's why. It wasn't a story about the plan.
I've made several announcements about what the plan is and at the bottom of the story you're talking about, I linked to my general snowmobile resources post which includes links the plan and to those who (at the time) opposed the plan. Some apparently changed direction, which is a story I wasn't aware of. Until now, I was unaware that there were groups who supported the plan. The trail groups seemed to be the first and most vociferous against it at the beginning of the process. In part I suspect, because of the raiding of the trail funds, which I believe I also covered.
As always, I encourage organizations with differing views than those published here to contact me and add me to your media lists.
I just emailed the NYSSA and asked again to put on their media list.
Thanks for reading.
Post a Comment