Pharaoh Lake Wilderness: The Battle of Crane Pond Road
by Phil Brown
Two decades ago, some Adirondackers forced the state to back down from a decision to close Crane Pond Road inside the Pharaoh Lake Wilderness.
A few weeks ago, I went to Crane Pond Road to take photos for a story that will run in the next issue of the Adirondack Explorer.
The dirt lane became a cause celebre two decades ago when the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) tried to close it.
The road penetrates nearly two miles into the Pharaoh Lake Wilderness Area, ending at Crane Pond. Yet the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan forbids motorized use in Wilderness Areas.
When DEC placed boulders across the road at the Wilderness boundary in 1989, masked men removed them. Members of Earth First later set up tents to block the road and were confronted by local residents. The Warrensburg town supervisor threw a punch at one of the environmentalists, and footage of the encounter ended up on 60 Minutes.
Crane Pond Road was quiet on the day of my visit, but there were still reminders of the old battle. An American flag hung from a tree near the state-land boundary. I also spotted a rock with some spray-painted red letters. I scraped off the moss to reveal what they said: “Adirondack Homeland.”
On the road to Crane Pond, I saw three parked pickup trucks, including one that made it all the way to the pond.
John Sheehan of the Adirondack Council contends that DEC is obligated by state law to close the road. However, a DEC spokesman indicated that the agency has no plans to do so.
This appears to be one battle that the locals won.
Photo of "Adirondack Homeland" boulder by Phil Brown
36 Comments:
I can't wait to see the comments for this story!
Thanks Phil.
It's typical that DEC has no guts to enforce the closing of the road. I have little to no respect for the agency as a whole. That is why we need organizations to constantly monitor their actions (or inactions, as in this case).
God forbid they close that road. Then people won't be able to get their boomboxes and kegs into the wilderness.
I'd be interested in hearing more of the reasons given for not closing the road. Was the DEC's change of mind just a matter of keeping the peace? Or are there legitimate legal circumstances that have changed.
If they are not closing the road, are they enforcing the no-motorized use?
Dave, they are not enforcing the no-motorized regulation. Vehicles can drive all the way to Crane Pond. One was there on the day of my visit. As far as I can tell, DEC chose not to enforce the law in order to keep the peace. The agency's spokesman would not comment beyond an e-mailed statement.
What is the history of the road? Maybe the article will cover that. If it is a town road that was never abandoned (doesn't look like it was by the surface and the truck on it!)than it is not part of the wilderness area and is therefore a simple legal matter. This has been settled. Not to some folks satisfaction, but you win some you lose some. It's a town decision not a state decision. DEC is doing exactly what the law says they should do. Stay out of it.
The Department of Environmental Conservation is supposed to represent all New Yorkers, and not a special-interests of a couple of wealthy upper-east siders who come barrelling up the Taconic Parkway in their SUVs to visit the Adirondack Park.
The park is not worthwhile to preserve, unless people have access to use it. The resource should be carefully managed, but not the point where the public is denied access to it.
I'm sure in a few weeks, we will hearing about John Shenanigans and his Hamilton Street Cohorts will be suing to close the Adirondack Northway because it disturbs the habitat of the White Tail Deer.
John Shenanigans needs to learn that Hamilton Street is not the Adirondack Park. Hamilton Street is the road you use to cut over to get onto the South Mall Arterial, when your in a rush to leave the dumpy city of Albany.
DEC seems to have an erratic history of enforcement throughout the Park. They have no trouble issuing regulations and Master Plans, but then selectively enforce. Generally, they'll wait until abuses have gotten completely out of hand, and then they'll suddenly try to crack down. Given that the violators in these situations, with a sense of their own entitlement, have "gotten away with murder" for so long it's not surprising that a "battle" then typically ensues, followed by law suits, and the DEC backing down.
If the DEC wouild just do a moderate level of consistent on-going enforcement, it would keep the lid on and the overall level of abuses would be kept at a more manageable level.
At any rate, such a "battle" is now brewing north of Big Moose in the Town of Webb, me thinks. Too bad the DEC and law enforcement totally ignored what was going on in that area for 30+ years.
The DEC thoght that they were enforcing the law on the "old Mt. Road" near Keene. Turns out there was no law to enforce. In fact the DEC by their own addmittance (and the ruling of the courts)was actually been braeking the law when they closed some of these roads. If this is a town road that was not legally closed by the town than it is an easy one. If you want "enforcment" talk to the town not the state. Maybe the town doesn't want the road closed? God forbid we allow a little ADK town to make any of it's own decisions.
The DEC is stretched thin and needs to sensibly choose its battles - apparently this is one that they chose not to fight. As Paul said, this could be an old road that was never decommissioned, or perhaps the DEC determined that the locals had established some sort of common law easement over the road with their historic use and the DEC decided it should be grandfathered in.
Let's be careful not to lump all "locals" in the same group. I don't drive an SUV up from NYC, I live here, and I'm disappointed that DEC and APA are letting some legal battles go. I have to imagine that the economy is contributing to the decision. But, closing Crane Rd., at least not maintaining it, would be a way the state could save money rather than catering to a few loud complainers who want their private motorized access to their favorite hunting/fishing spot. Elitism?
I have never been there, but I am sure the DEC does not maintain the road. They hardly can maintain the roads they consider open! I asked the DEC recently about when they were going to work on one road in another area that was in terrible condition and they said they had not plans in the near future. This is most likely a public town road (depending on its legal status). It is not some "private access road" as described above. There is no locked gate. Any one can use it. The fact that there were a few trucks on it the day Phil was there only shows that it is serving its purpose and getting folks out into the woods. To think that the area should be blocked off to only the folks that have the ability to hike the 2 miles to Crane Pond is somewhat unfair in my opinion. There are way more hiking trails than there are roads in areas like that. Phil, I am curious. You saw 3 or 4 trucks that day. How many hikers did you see?
Hey Phil - Well here's some controversy! The State closed three roads that day in 1989, Crane Pond Rd, Old Farm Road in Johnsburg (near Garnet Hill in North River), and the John Pond Road in Indian Lake. At the time it was a hardship for the XC Ski Center at Garnet Hill. We depended on the ability to groom the road in winter as a long beginner ski trail. The Crane Pond Road was the most controversial. The original rocks were spray painted with "stones of shame" and deposited on the Governor's lawn in Albany! When the Crane Pond Road remained open and our Old Farm Road was closed I remember talking to DEC and asking if we all got out guns could our road remain open? There was no comment. I always wondered if the wilderness boundary couldn't just be redrawn to exclude the road corridors. We eventually put in a long beginner ski trail on our property to make up for the loss. Old Farm Road is now part of a network of great back country ski routes in the Siamese Ponds Wilderness Area.
Dick Carlson, North River
I really enjoy Phil Brown's writings and the Adirondack Explorer, but sometimes his take on issues strikes me as a bit myopic and selfish. Here he is seeking to restrict a long-standing form of access to public lands that he doesn't agree with, presumably on environmental grounds. Elsewhere he seeks to open a new and unnecessary route through private land for one of his preferred modes of transport, which would inevitably have a negative environmental impact on the area due to the increased traffic. I'm having trouble figuring out what underlying principle is connecting them, other than that they conform and cater to his preferred ways of enjoying the Adirondacks.
In my post, I didn't take a position. I just reported on the history of Crane Pond Road and on what I saw on my visit. Given Pete Grannis's decision in the Old Mountain Road case, I don't know what the legal status of Crane Pond Road is. It sees more use than the Old Mountain Road does, which leads me to think that, following the Grannis rationale, it is probably a town road that has not been abandoned. If this supposition is correct, DEC may not have the right to close it--at least not without taking certain legal steps set forth in the state Highway Law. However, DEC's reasons for not trying to close the road earlier had nothing to do with the Grannis decision, which came nearly 20 years after the Crane Pond Road controversy. When I asked DEC why the road remains open, I wasn't given an explanation. It was pointed out to me that previous administrations had not tried to close it, but I don't consider that an explanation, just a description of the state of affairs.
To address some of your specific questions/points:
1. I saw no other hikers that day, but if I had gone in the summer or earlier in the fall, I'm sure I would have seen some, perhaps many.
2. Let's assume I am for closing the Crane Pond Road. I don't see a contradiction in advocating for that and for navigation rights through private land. A navigable waterway is a public travel corridor, much like Crane Pond Road or any highway. If a highway goes through private land, we can still drive on it. Likewise, we have the right to paddle a navigable waterway that borders private land. Motorized access in a Wilderness Area is a different issue. By definition, a Wilderness Area is an area where motor vehicles are not permitted. So the Crane Pond Road creates a contradiction--a Wilderness Area into which motor vehicles can be driven. I concede, however, that DEC may not have the authority to close the road right now. Maybe it does. I just don't know enough about the road's legal history.
3. Yes, if they close the road, people will have to walk two miles to the pond. But they have to walk five miles or whatever to get to Pharaoh Lake. Is that unfair? No, it's just a fact. If a person can't hike two miles, he or she can hike to a pond that's closer to the road. There are many to choose from. When you designate a Wilderness Area, it will not be accessible to all. But accessibility is not the only value.
Dick, thanks for the history on Old Farm Road.
I'd like to hear more about the situation north of Big Moose.
Phil,
It is true that the recent DEC decision regarding the Old Mt. road has nothing to do with the agency allowing the Crane Pond road to remain open over the years. However I would argue that the reasons that they have allowed it to remain open are exactly the same reasons that underlie the Old Mt. road case. Just look at the way the DEC has managed other “roads” over the years. I think they may have always understood that some of these “closures” may not have been legal. If they could close a road quietly and not have a big stink then go ahead, otherwise they had to be careful or they would end up in court with a case they could not win (AKA Old Mt. road). These are not new laws that were enacted yesterday. They have been around for a very long time. They were just not being followed by a stage agency in this case. If you could be a fly on the wall at the DEC over the years I would wager a bet that they have discussed the fact that there were legal issues with what they were trying to do that might not be on “their side”. The DEC has been much better than agencies like the APA in trying to work in a way that is fair to all the different constituents that are in the Adirondacks. I applaud them for trying to deal with this in a way that would try and keep as many folks as possible happy. They understand that there are hikers, paddlers, hunters, fisherman, and on and on. Many of who have very different concerns and expectations. I would guess that the reason the DEC can’t give you a straight answer is that again they know this could blow up in their face. In Pete Grannis’s decision regarding the old Mt. Road they try and fall back on “safety” issues in saying that maybe these roads if they are to remain open as town roads need to comply with DOT road standards. Again this is another problem for the DEC. If that is true than why are so many DEC administered roads open to motor vehicles not even close to the standards he is quoting? He can suggest that the town needs to consider this, and at the same time say that his agency can overlook it? This issue is a much larger can of worms that folks can imagine. The DEC is smartly saying just live-and-let-live in some cases. Do we want the DOT to go into many forest preserve areas and start cutting trees, grading, adding culverts etc. to the point where the road corridors are up to code? The DEC can probably go ahead and answer your question but many folks may not like the answer (perhaps even yourself). The answer might go like this: “We have discussed this situation with DEC counsel. They have told us that if you look at old maps and deeds of this area you will see that this is a town road that was build many years ago, long before the state owned this land and certainly before we designated this area as a “wilderness”. When we tried to close the road we did not have the legal right to do it. This is not only the case with this road, but it is true for hundreds of miles of roads throughout the state. Now that we have admitted that we had no jurisdiction to do this we also have to, not only leave this road open, but remove hundreds of illegal barriers that have been put in place to block the use of other roads by motor vehicles”. Keep asking for an answer and you may not get the answer you like. I think that this has already happened now. Pete Grannis did not want to make it this clear in his decision but that is the writing on the wall. Phil you can keep on asking the DEC for an answer, in fact go ahead, and demand one. We would all like to hear more detail from the DEC. But I am afraid that many readers of this blog and the Explorer are not going to like the answer. The DEC has tried its best to deal with a tricky situation. Now even the folks that don’t want to hear the answer I have stated above seem to be demanding it. I don’t quite understand it. But the folks that want to see more roads open up are happy to see it working out this way.
Also,
Thanks for the other comments. Yes, I would agree that in the warmer months you would see more hikers on the road. I think it is just interesting to see the road being used by another “constituent” at that time of the year.
On number two. There may be some analogy to the public’s right of navigation. I don’t quite follow you there? One analogy that I can see is that like a navigable river the public has certain rights that supersede the rights of the underlying deed holder. In this case the road is probably a strip of land that the public had the right to travel by any legal means. When the state purchased the land they never had the right to end that “easement”. Since motor vehicles were allowed to travel the road and the state had no legal right to revoke that, then the land could not legally be designated a wilderness. In other words there is no contradiction, and the road corridor is not “wilderness”. Many readers of the Explorer would understand that the DEC blocking this road may be the equivalent of what some people see as the posters and a chain across Shingle Shanty Brook. But like you say it depends on the legal status of the road.
On number three, I also agree that accessibility is no the only value. I am just saying that if the road were closed it would shut off this area (and its other inherent values) to some individuals. Again there are many hiking trails in wilderness areas and like you say above very few roads that traverse them. The SLMP says there should be zero (with very minor exceptions). Is that fair?
BTW look at the comments and the article hasn’t even come out yet! I told you this was a hot one. I think that everyone involved would like to see this issue settled. I am just worried that even a guy like me, that would advocate to keep this particular road open, may not like the extent to which we are going to see this affect other roads in the ADKS. The cat is out of the bag now; there is no getting her back in! Many environmental advocates may be sorry they ever pushed this issue.
As Paul suggests, I don’t think the DEC gets enough credit or respect for maintaining the delicate balance between all the different (and often competing) interest groups in the Adirondacks. The Adirondacks as we know and love them are made possible because the various competing interests are willing to set aside their own self-interest to some degree out of respect for the “big picture.” The DEC (and the APA to a lesser degree) helps facilitate this and in most cases they seem to strike a fair balance. If more Sandy Lewis, James McCaulley and Phil Brown types come out of the woodwork to challenge the DEC, APA and the general status-quo in pursuit of everything they feel they are legally entitled to, I think the consequences for the Adirondacks could be disastrous. Activism is of course important to preserving and bettering the Adirondacks, but I think it needs to be tempered with a healthy dose of the cooperative and respectful Adirondack spirit, and appreciation for all that we already have (and we’ve gained a lot in recent years).
The scenario that Paul stated – that the DEC has chosen not to pursue the closure of Crane Pond Road and to not explain its rationale out of fear of exposing the fact that there are likely many dormant public highways running through the Adirondacks that could theoretically be used for motorized access – is scary but plausible. What appears on its face to be a DEC giveaway to people who want to drive their vehicles into wilderness could very well be a great blessing to all of us who want to see motorized access minimized – let’s hope we don’t find out that’s the case. To me, this looks like a sleeping dog best left alone – I’d hate to see him woken up and ride off into a long silent section of wilderness on a snowmobile or ATV.
If the Adirondack economy gets any worse you won't have to worry about the locals using the Crane Pond Rd....because they won't be there. The local towns and villages of the Park are a vanishing way of life. The recent LA Group report clearly tells the story. The Adirondacks need a balanced approach to the economy and the wilderness...hopefully this is something that all groups will get behind and support..before it is too late.
It hadn't occurred to me that DEC might have chosen not to enforce the Crane Pond Road closure out of fear that they could lose a lawsuit that would lead to opening of other roads in the Preserve. That may be a concern these days, given the uncertainty following the McCulley case. I'm not sure that it was back in 1990. My guess is that they backed down for political reasons. But I don't really know. To me, all this confusion suggests that the law needs to be clarified and perhaps changed.
I will concede that the DEC may not have been worried about the possibility of a lawsuit that might re-open other “illegally” closed roads. I may have gone a bit far, but they may have at least understood that the closure was not something that they could do legally. Politics certainly played a part I don’t doubt that. It should not have played a part. The law is very clear and it was on the books long before 1990. The UMP for the Pharaoh Lakes Wilderness was completed in 1992. I have not seen a copy of that plan. They used to be available at the DEC site but it appears that now you have to request copies. Sometimes if you look at these plans you can get an idea of what the process was at the time. You will see things like “possible right of way” or the like when they are stating the status of a road. Sometimes they just don’t know what the status is. If you requested the notes from the DEC under FOIL that went into the drafting of this UMP you would maybe see whether or not they were considering the possibility that this was a town road at the time. Also, they look at the deeds and tax maps etc. when they are drafting these plans so it is hard to imagine that they did not see that this was a town road (if it is) it would be right there on the map. Basically if it is a road on a map that precedes the designation than it is a town-administered entity. Phil, do you know when the state designated this area a “wilderness”. It could not have been that long ago. The APA actually makes the designations I think?
Like I say above the law is very clear, and any confusion or ambiguity was only “created” by not following the law. Again, all this is dependent on what the legal status of the road is, so some of what I write could be hypothetical and I could be completely wrong. Closing the road if it was illegal was a mistake. Allowing it to remain open if the DEC knows that it is a road that they have jurisdiction over it may also be a mistake if the road and its bed are “wilderness” land. There really should not be any “confusion” on this matter, I totally disagree that the law should be changed. Why? The law is clear and concise. The law that is in place allows for a town road to remain open or to be closed forever. The decision is simply one that resides with the town and not the state. Adirondack towns should be allowed to decide on their own what they want to do in a case like this. Should we in the Adirondacks be able to tell folks in Long Island what road they can and cannot use? The only reason that groups like the ADK council and others are opposed to the DEC decision regarding the Old Mt. Road is that it places the power in the hands of the town and not with bureaucrats in Albany. I think that is a good thing. The DEC has lots of things to manage, and I would argue that they are doing a pretty good job, let’s let some folks in the Adirondacks make a decision for a change.
This is something that is interesting since we are discussing the DEC and the "balance" they try to achieve. The story at the link below to WNBZ is about the DEC, under threat of lawsuit "promising" (in a letter to the ADK Mt. Club) that they will administer Lowes lake as a "wilderness" lake even though it is not being classified as such by the APA. Talk about confusion! It is amazing what the threat of a law suit can achieve:
http://www.wnbz.com/December%202009/120909/UnderThreat.htm
The DEC did legally close the Crane Pond Road under the provisions of Section 212 of the Highway Law. The supervisor of the Town of Schroon, John Kelly, sued to prevent the closure, but a 1990 ruling (cited most recently in the McCulley decision) upheld the legality of section 212 for such a purpose. The State has apparently used section 212 in two other cases in the 1970s in Altona and Wells, but has not used it since their decision to not enforce the closure of the Crane Pond Road. It would thus be surprising if the DEC decided to use section 212 to close the Old Mountain Road - especially since both towns have pretty much decided to prohibit motorized use on this "road" that has not been maintained for ordinary vehicular traffic for 60 years.
That being said, I think the better course of action would have been to leave the Crane Pond Primitive Area with the non-conforming use. Then, should the Town of Schroon voluntarily decide not to maintain the road, it would become wilderness. In my opinion the fight for this two mile piece of road has caused more problems than it was worth to add a tiny bit of wilderness.
Paul, I assume the Pharaoh Lake region was classified as Wilderess in the early 1970s. Does the state have the right to close roads in the Forest Preserve? It has the right to close roads anywhere, if it follows the law. In post above, Tony Goodwin says DEC did follow the law in closing the Crane Pond Road. However, it later chose not enforce the court's decision. Since then, the town has maintained it, apparently. Does this make it a town road again? Does this moot the earlier court ruling?
The 1990 court decision clearly affirms DEC's legal ability to close roads in the Forest Preserve. This is regardless of whether the road is being maintained, so that fact that the town of Schroon is again maintaining it does not make it any more difficult to close it should they choose to do so. I would be curious to learn if Schroon can count this mileage for the State aid that all towns receive based on the number of miles of town road they maintain.
Tony and Phil,
Thanks for the clarification. I think that puts some of what I wrote above in the circular file! It sounds like the road was not "illegally" closed as I suggested might have been the case. I agree with the course of action that Tony has suggested. I think it would have struck a better balance in this case. I also agree with the course of action in Keene (AKA Old MT. Road). I disagree with the town's decision regarding motor vehicles since I wish they could have found a way for skiers and sledders to both be able to use the road. But that is too bad for me, you win some and you lose some. Like I said I am just glad to see the decisions, whichever way they go, being mad locally rather than in Albany. Thanks. I am looking forward to the Explorer story. I do have one last question. If the state has only used this 212 law in several cases what is the legal status of all the other old town roads that have been closed by just putting up a gate or some boulders?
Tony,
I am not quite sure I follow you on the authority the DEC has here regarding all roads on Forest Preserve land. If you look specifically at the law (see below) and take it in the context of Pete Grannis's decision regarding the Old Mt. Road, which was based I am sure on the advice of legal counsel, I think the real question is who has jurisdiction. Note in the law: “with the consent and approval of the state authority having jurisdiction or control over such lands”. To close the road (or move it based on this code) you need the consent of the entity that has jurisdiction. In the Old Mt. case the ruling was that the authority lies with the town. Since many roads are under town control, unless that control is removed via official legal abandonment, they remain under the jurisdiction of the town (even if the town doesn’t want it). So the DEC could only use section 212 with the consent of the town. Was that gained for any of the road closings we are discussing? I don’t think it probably was. As you say, the state has rights under 212, but they need to follow it properly. They can’t just close any old road they feel like closing. You say that the town of Schroon sued the state over the closure. Who prevailed in that case? It is very important to this discussion.
NYS Highway Law Section 212:
§ 212. Changing location of highways over certain lands owned and occupied by the state. If a highway passes over or through lands wholly owned and occupied by the state, the location of such portion of such highway as passes through such lands may be altered and changed, or the same may be abandoned or the use thereof as a highway discontinued with the consent and approval of the state authority having jurisdiction or control over such lands by an order directing such change in location, abandonment or discontinuance. Such order shall contain a description of that portion of the highway the location of which has been changed, abandoned or discontinued, and a description of the new location thereof, if any, and shall be filed in the office of the state authority having control of such lands.
The key phrase is "...with the consent and approval of the STATE authority having jurisdiction or control over such lands...." If it's Forest Preserve, then the DEC has jurisdiction.
As for most other roads, Section 205 of the Highway Law applies meaning that if the road is not maintained for ordinary vehicular traffic for six years it is considered abandoned and the right of way reverts to the adjoining landowners. This condition applied to the Old Mountain Road except that someone dug up the fact that this route had been created by an act of the State Legislature in 1810 and was therefore a "road by law" rather than a "road by use". The former apparently requires an active decision of a State authority to be abandoned rather than the lack of maintenance test. So, most of these old roads have properly become part of the Forest Preserve if they have not been maintained or used for vehicular traffic for however many years.
As for snowmobile use of the Old Mountain Road, many parts are too steep and narrow to possibly be able to safely accommodate both uses. Additionally, it is only 3.5 miles now between plowed ends and there is no possibility of connecting these ends to any other snowmobile trail. With poor parking for vehicles with trailers at both ends, it is a whole lot of work for a very short snowmobile ride. So, no great loss to snowmobilers. For Keene snowmobilers there is Bartlett Rd. that is not plowed and offers almost the same length of a ride and is legal for snowmobiles. Furthermore, Keene does plan to permit limited ATV use on the first mile of the Keene end of the road during hunting season when it wouldn't usually interfere with skiing.
I understand all this above. But that all really applies to roads that are simply abandoned because no one wanted to use them voluntarily. In many cases the state has blocked the roads from use by installing gates or boulders to block vehicles. If you can't get on the road to use or maintain it (even if the maintenance is minimal) then it will eventually fall under this definition of abandonment. That does not seem like the law is being followed correctly to me.
There should be a simple inventory done that lists all roads "by law", and roads "by use". This should include roads that were used to the point that they were blocked from use by the state. That would clear up some of the confusion. That would save folks a lot of time and money when these issues come up.
Are there actually any roads that the DEC blocked off before the six years of non-maintenance? Just because one could still drive a road with a high clearance 4x4 doesn't mean that it had actually been maintained for ordinary vehicular traffic, i.e. kept in condition that met state standards with regard to width, drainage, etc. With the exception of roads legally closed under Section 212, I doubt you can find any road that was still on a town's inventory of maintained roads that was summarily closed.
One well-known example is the John’s Pond Road in Indian Lake. I think that one was blocked in 1982. I can get a list of others. I have seen a list of 300 roads closed by the DEC most of which are town roads. You would have to go over these case by case to verify the legal status of each, so I am not claiming they all have been improperly closed. These roads are almost never closed according to law so they are technically still “open”, and were “maintained” for use until they were blocked. As far as being maintained to DOT standards. Give me a break. What OPEN DEC administered roads on Forest Preserve land meet standards "with regard to width, drainage, etc."? You are not suggesting that we clear all the roads to 66 feet? I think the real rule is if it looks like a DUCK then it’s a DUCK. Let’s not claim that these “roads” need to be maintained to DOT standards to ever be left open. In fact some environmental groups advocate for less maintenance of roads within the ADKS. See the “Green Book” DOT guidelines supported by Protect the ADKS. I hope they are not suggesting these things in order to claim that all roads are “unmaintained” and hence should be closed under the section noted above!
Also, if there are only a few roads at issue then why are groups like the ADK Council and others so adamantly opposed to the DEC decision regarding the Old Mt. Road? They say that this could potentially impact hundreds of roads throughout the ADKS? Why is this? This shouldn’t be if only a few roads have been closed improperly? Thanks for the debate here; I am looking forward to the story when it comes out. I only get the Explorer because I joined the Wild Center (at least that is why I think I am getting it?). Maybe now I will have to pony up the extra money for a subscription next year.
Paul, if you do come up with a list of 300 roads closed by the DEC, I still say the test is whether any of those roads were on the town's inventory of maintained roads at the time the road was closed. If the road was administered and perhaps even maintained to some degree by the DEC (as opposed to a town) then why didn't the DEC have the right to close a road they no longer wanted to maintain? As for standards, it is generally 21 feet ditch to ditch, not 66 feet wide.
In the early 19th Century, the Legislature did authorize the construction of several roads across the Adirondacks. One was the Northwest Bay Road that ran from Northwest Bay (now Westport) to Hopkinton. The Old Mountain Road was part of this route. Other parts are now Route 73 and Old Military Road in Lake Placid. Some of the sections authorized were never actually built, i.e. I don't believe the Cedar Point Road was ever extended west of Newcomb to Long Lake and beyond as originally proposed.
It is thus very difficult to determine how many sections of "roads by law" still exist that could conceivably be opened using the precedent set by Jim McCulley in the Old Mountain Road case. It is that fear of the unknown that had the Adirondack Council and other groups worried. I made it clear from the moment of the decision last May that the Adirondack Ski Touring Council (ASTC) would work with the towns involved to come up with appropriate regulations for the use of what was now deemed to be a town road. ASTC, I said, did not want to become involved in a parkwide issue of old roads. O.K., so I'm writing these posts to defend much of what the DEC has done in closing unmaintained roads on Forest Preserve lands; but if someone is able to come up with an old "road by law" then let the town now decide how it will be used. I'm still convinved that the only road closed by the DEC that was still still actually maintained by a town at the time of the closure is the Crane Pond Road. And while you and many others don't like that decision, it was done legally. As I have said, I opposed the closure for the reason of not being worth the trouble for the small amount of wilderness gained compared to all the hard feelings that were generated.
"The Adirondacks need a balanced approach to the economy and the wilderness."
Yes, this is one of those mom-and-apple pie things that sounds good in theory but the devil's in the details. This is inevitably used to mean the ought to look more like Westchester.
But if you want balance, how about letting towns be towns and letting wilderness (like the Pharoah Lake WILDERNESS area) be wilderness, rather than kegger central.
Generations, both young and old, have accessed this area over this road. Not all are capable of hiking in; not all want to. No one should be denied continued access over this road now or ever. There are innumerable wilderness areas where people will never set foot. Why try to take this one away? Please do not be selfish. In the past, DEC closed existing snowmobile trails, promising to replace them mile for mile. The sad truth is, they have not been replaced and many communities are now no longer connected. While I'm at it, let's not forget how many public lean-to's have been removed, along with summit markers, prohibiting camping above 4000 feet, prohibiting fires in many areas, limiting group size, flying out rowboats and canoes, and whatever other measures are determined to do us good. I hope I or my children live long enough to see some rights restored to the local towns and residents who live here. When's the last time you think they had a real hand in drafting the Master Plan? And no I haven't forgotten the State Constitutional Amendment which prescribes the use as forever wild, but from what anyone can see, it's never been and never will be forever wild; it's solely a question of how strictly people in power and those influencing them want to interpret those words. For example, there are enough trail signs, markers, parking lots, launches, trail improvements, clearing and maintenance, campsites, and other less than supernatural signs throughout the AP, so in reality, the decision of whether or not to leave open Crane Pond Road, or others for that matter, is simply a matter of policy. In my view, the better policy would be to return some of this decisionmaking authority to the people who live here.
I was one of the Earth First!-ers who closed the road on Labor day weekend back in '91 was it? The day before we had contacted the DEC. The person I spoke to, not a spokesman, said "please do us a favor and close the road". The state police and the Glens Falls paper were also contacted. The DEC shit the bed and left it to a bunch of well meaning folks from outside the area to do their work. The State Police drove up to the scene, saw how ugly the situation was getting waved goodbye to us and drove off. So much for protect and serve. After Maynard Baker punched Geoff Elliot we decided to get out of there. By that time the guns were going off, not at us but designed to scare the shit out of us. Worked well by the way. After about 20 years I still get an uneasy feeling whenever I pass the route 74 exit from the Northway. I still visit the PLW frequently, but always via a different entrance. Crane Pond Road is a town road, never closed nor abandoned. It's a shame the DEC does not have the fortitude to do what they are legally obliged to do, nor the brains to figure out a legally binding solution.
I think the Crane Pond Road and Old Mountain Road situations are very different. Crane Pond Road was (and remains) in active use by everyone-- DEC, hunters, fishermen and hikers. It was interesting to watch the public affairs nightmare develop-- I was with DEC's counsel's office at the time. There appeared to be no stomach for confrontation, but a strong desire to find a graceful way out of a mess that had been self-created.
About a month after the confrontation I stopped for lunch in Warrensburg (the Black Bear?) and one of the "Stones of Shame" was prominently on display in the parking lot.
Post a Comment