Phil Brown: The Moose River Plains Conspiracy
by Phil Brown
The state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is catching flak over its plan to close the roads in the Moose River Plains, and according to some conspiracy theorists, this is exactly what it wants.
The thinking goes like this: DEC must have known it would spark an outcry, so it must be hoping that the controversy will garner more money to keep the roads open.
However plausible this may be, it appears to be at odds with the other conspiracy theory to emerge since DEC announced its proposal last week. This one holds that DEC is using the state’s fiscal crisis as an excuse to shut the roads not just this year, but permanently—in deference to the wishes of environmental groups.
Both theories were raised in the public discussion that followed my posts last week (here and here) on the Adirondack Explorer website and on our publication's Facebook page.
Of course, DEC says it’s closing the roads to save money—a necessity required this year by state budget cuts—but many people seem unwilling to take this explanation at face value.
That state officials always harbor ulterior motives seems to be embedded in the ideology among certain Adirondackers. Usually, they claim that DEC and the Adirondack Park Agency are in cahoots with environmental groups such as the Adirondack Council and Adirondack Mountain Club (ADK) and act against local interests.
I won’t dispute that officials sometimes do have hidden motives, but the idea that DEC and the APA merely do the bidding of the greenies is manifestly false.
For one thing, the Adirondack Council, ADK, and other environmental groups have taken DEC and APA to court on numerous occasions when they disagreed with the decisions of officialdom.
For another thing, both DEC and the APA have shown a willingness to bend the rules to give local residents what they want.
Take Lows Lake. DEC went to the mat to keep Lows Lake open for floatplanes even though the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan had for years called for banning planes from the lake.
Take snowmobile trails. The State Land Master Plan says snowmobile trails must have the character of a footpath. Yet the DEC and APA approved guidelines that allow some snowmobile trails to be up to twelve feet wide, with most of the rocks removed to create a smooth surface.
Take fire towers. The State Land Master Plan calls for removing the towers from Hurricane and St. Regis mountains, but the APA board recently directed its staff to find a way to allow them to remain.
In short, DEC and the APA do not always take the side of the environmentalists. And they do try to appease local interests.
As a journalist, I’ve learned that you sometimes have to take what officials say with a grain of salt. So it can be a good thing when the public questions the motives of its government. But when people accuse the state of engaging in dark conspiracies whenever things don’t go their way, they poison the political atmosphere.
What is the evidence that DEC wants to permanently close all the roads in the Moose River Plains? Those who are making this claim should set forth their case. We’d all like to see it.
Photo by Phil Brown: the main road in the Moose River Plains.
36 Comments:
I will admit that I was one person who questioned the justification of closing these particular roads. Not that I see yesterday that many roads in region 9 are also slated for closure I feel differently. Perhaps this is a more wholesale approach. One thing that would be useful is for the DEC to tell us what it is that they spend on maintenance of a particular road like the MRP so that this can be put into perspective. A recent DEC press release which specifically had “fiscal impact” in the title, had no impact described?
Phil, this post seems to indicate that comments on the Explorer articles are suggesting some sort of conspiracy between the DEC and environmental groups?
“But when people accuse the state of engaging in dark conspiracies whenever things don’t go their way, they poison the political atmosphere.”
I re-read all 38 comments to date and it appears that none are making any suggestion that the DEC and environmental groups conspired on these closures. Also, I don’t see any reference to closure of the roads permanently either? What are you getting at with this post? There seems to be more "poison" in this post than in any of those comments?
I'm pretty sure I saw Phil's conspiracy theory put forward at the Adirodnack Daily Enterprise, but I couldn't find it. I think it went something like this comment from a guy named Paul:
"This is clearly a political ploy. They know that a very vocal group of Adirondack sportsmen (like myself) use these roads. These are closures that will be cheered by “non-motorized advocates”. This is a win-win move by the DEC."
Paul, you are correct. I posted a link to my Explorer blogs on the Explorer's Facebook page, and that's where the comments I had in mind were posted.
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Adirondack-Explorer/94228611655
And the latest comment on my first blog on this topic takes a similar point of view.
I welcome all comments on my blogs, but I also reserve the right to comment on the comments. It's all part of the same dialogue.
btw, I don't dismiss the possibility that DEC hopes publicity will stir up money for the roads. I am more dubious of the second conspiracy theory.
As to the cost of maintaining the roads, I asked that question, but DEC didn't have an answer. I'm still hoping to get one. But it's not all about money: I imagine that patroling 40 miles of roads and 100+ campsites takes a lot of man-hours, and DEC is short staffed.
The article references the Adirondack Park State Master Plan. Here is an excerpt from the Plan. Why aren't these guidelines being obeyed?
11. Due to the importance of the forest products industry to the economy of the Adirondack region, bulk acreage purchases in fee should not normally be made where highly productive forest land is involved, unless such land is threatened with development that would curtail its use for forestry purposes or its values for the preservation of open space or wildlife habitat. However, conservation easements permitting the continuation of sound forest management and other land uses compatible with the open space character of the Park should be acquired wherever possible to protect and buffer state lands.
Phil, I was kind of surprised that you had folks from THAT fringe making THOSE kind of comments on your blog. Just goes to show you have a broad reach.
Anyway, I'm still trying to figure out how some people can feel so entitled to government services, yet be so angrily anti-government. Ulterior motives? The state is broke and can't borrow its way out of this hole! It is as simple as that!
That said, like Paul, I wish the DEC would have provided more facts and figures (to give me some more ammo to shoot back at these people).
I feel like if anything this was the DECs cry for help. They have been unfairly targeted by Patterson, a downstater with urban roots, for budget cuts. Yeah, I suppose the DEC in theory can handle the cuts better than police, fire and education. When I read the Moose River Plains was closed, I said, this is going to piss a lot of people off.
Many might know I am a staunch conservationist, but I don't consider myself radical in my thoughts, and I don't see a major benefit to closing the Moose River recreation area (which this basically does). Most of the impact is confined to the road or a few hundred feet of the road, so I am actually surprised if there is a grand movement to close the area to vehicles.
What I don't understand is NY States desire to cut off the hand that feeds it. 1) they are potentially canning the I Love NY compaign 2) they are shutting down campsites, parks, and recreation areas, all of which 1) provide low cost but ever popular recreation to working people of NY 2) actually bring back more revenue than they cost.
I said this on Twitter but isn't NY's reaction to this monetary crisis a lot like taking a pay cut and immediately cutting back on your 401K contribution? I mean sure you save a few bucks this year, but what about 2,3,5,10 years down the road. Someone else pointed out it's the equivalent of eating next years crop seed.
Tourism in NY is a multi billion dollar industry, tourism is the chief income for many areas in the Adirondacks, and recently the comptroller put out a report stating how important open space and recreation areas were for this state and rural communities (and this clearly goes against many of the development minded rhetoric I often see on these threads as a solution).
The bottom line is while in theory all the cuts to the DEC and tourism will have no significant short term impact, it's been shown that cutting funding to these areas does have significant long term consequences, and rarely is funding ever restored to appropriate levels (look at the National Park service as an example). I'm glad the DEC is potentially taking a very public stand on this issue, kudos to them.
Phil
Here in Inlet we do not see a conspiracy but true facts. There are thousands of users to the Moose River Plains who have come every year to really get into a primitive setting. They are a part of the fabric of our everyday eco-tourist family. We do understand the NYS fiscal crisis, it is glaringly important that this park is a free of charge place for families during these economic times to see and use the Adirondack Park with minimal impact. The area itself is so large and perfect for so many users with little or no trail reparations or hard-scaping work to the many ponds and lakes. The trails are for the most part kept open because of the efforts of local people under trail stewardships. Because of the soils there are no herd paths. The NYS DEC fisheries have kept wonderful stocking programs for many native fish available to anglers for years. Previous to 2010 the DEC has kept an Assistant Ranger program in place to monitor camping and littering. But genuinely the users who go into the park are of a caliber that they take good care and are great stewards of the entire 50,000 acres.
This closure is unique because it affects not only the recreation of thousands of users for brook trout fishing, tent camping, hiking, backpacking, bird watching, hunting and mountain biking, it also dampens the local economy of two communities that depend on the eco-tourism that so many people go to "The Plains" for. One of New York States and America’s largest primitive recreation areas
The Moose River Plains Wild Forest was created around a core of some 50,000 acres purchased from the Gould Paper Company in 1963 to be used as a primitive recreation area. 140 sites are available to primitive free camping along the 48 miles of hard dirt roads that wind through the Plains.
Add to that more than 27 miles of trails that lead to hikers to beautiful remote ponds, some with primitive sites. The terrain varies from flat grassy plains filled with berry bush and beaver vly’s along the south branch of the Moose River to forested mountains with spectacular unspoiled views.
Some of the best Adirondack brook trout fishing can be found at Ice house Pond & Squaw Lake and more good fishing is to be found at Lost, Helldiver, Mitchell, Sly & Whites pond as well. Beaver Lake, the largest body of water in the Moose River Plains, is one of the best mountain bike & camping destination rides in all of the Northeast. The five rivers that cut through the park have become home to a growing moose population. And great for a moose watch drive.
The loss of use and access to these 50,000 acres would be a great sacrifice to so many visitors who are looking for a primitive experience like no other in New York and devastating to a local economy built on eco-tourism. No conspiracy for us nor a debate for us over motorized or non motorized access. It is a shameful loss of an important place for everyone.
A hand written note that expresses your concerns using the above information in your own words or with a testimonial of your usage will be seen as the best return of real responses in this crisis.
Forward that note expressing your concern over the loss of the Moose River Plains to these contacts:
New York State Senator Elizabeth O’C Little 5 Warren Street Glens Falls NY 12801 518-743-0968 little@senate.state.ny.us
New York State Assemblywoman Teresa R. Sayward 140 Glen Street Glens Falls NY 12801 518-792- 4546 saywart@assembly.state.ny.us
David A. Patterson NYS Governor State Capitol Albany NY, 12224 518-474-8390
NYSDEC Lands and Forests Forest Preserve Mgmt 625 Broadway FL 5
Albany, NY 12233 518-473-9518
NYSDEC Region 5 PO Box 296 1115 NYS Route 86 Ray Brook, NY 12977
518-897-1310
AnonymousGuy, how does my comment you reference suggest any conspiracy theory? I was simply commenting that perhaps this closure might be done in an effort to sway the legislature to restore DEC funding. That is not a "conspiracy theory". Phil admits the possibility in his comment above. There are many other alternative things that can be cut, or cut along with this, decisions are made for many reasons. I didn't say that environmental groups had anything to do with it. I was simply pointing out that these closures could also satisfy another constituent, one that is always advocating for less motorized use of state land. That is a fact that cannot be denied. You close something that everyone likes and everyone is angry here you make some folks happy and others not. That could play into the decision. It makes perfect sense to me.
As far as the cost, if the DEC doesn’t have an answer that is pretty pathetic. When you make decisions that affect people such as the small business owners in Inlet (an the folks who commented about what they were missing this summer), you should at least have done a small amount of homework.
Growing up Adirondack: I am not very familiar with MRP, but if you are correct about there being 48 miles of roads, its no wonder why they chose to close these roads.
Why on earth should the state being maintaining nearly 50 miles of roads to remote ponds and primitive sites when the state is struggling to maintain the thousands of miles of roads that get people to and from work?
Everyone wants THEIR park or recreation area to be the exception, but our state is in a financial crisis.
NotPaul, yes and there are hundreds of miles of hiking trails in the Eastern High Peaks that are expensive to maintain and patrol. There are many back-county rescues that take place each year in that area that are paid for by the state. Should those be eliminated as well? Perhaps. If the DEC does not know what the costs (as Phil said regarding the road closures) that I would like to know what the decision process is.
Point 1: This area is not being closed. You can still access the land, you just can't drive to it.
Point 2: It is much, much more expensive to grade a road for cars, and patrol and police its usage, then it is to do occasional trail maintenance on a hiking trail.
Phil, I took a look at the comments on the face book page. Yes, there are a few "conspiracy theory" suggestions, like two. You maybe should have had that specific link in this post. But I also saw this:
"Wish it were PERMANENT - should have never been a road to begin with when it was acquired - it disects what would otherwise be the largest wilderness area in the Adirondacks - if you combined the MRRA, the West Canada Lakes Wilderness and the Blue Mountain Wilderness."
I think this is a good example of what I mentioned in that this is a move that will please some constituents. As we all know in the Adirondacks once the gate is closed getting it open is not as easy as you might think. This commenter may get what he wants. Phil, do you think a permanent closure is a good idea? What other DEC cuts would you support? Anyone else?
I am always suspicious of a conspiracy involving anything dealing with state land policy in the Adirondacks, thirty years of watching such shenanigans has thought me this.
The McCulley case showed collusion between high ranking officials within the DEC and one green group and the Mr. Diamond's federal law suit will also show collusion was taking place between the APA and one green group.
I will not go into specifics, but the closing of the roads in the Moose River Plains does indeed have implications on three separate UMPs in that area, along with fulfilling an ideological desire to limit motorized access into Forest Preserve lands, and no one on this blog has touched upon these hidden motives.
Paul, I did add the Facebook link after your initial post. I'm mot surprised that some people would like to see the roads closed. I doubt this is DEC's goal, though DEC has talked about closing the Indian Lake Road, which forms the border of the West Canada Lake Wilderness. As far as I know, it has no plans to close other roads in the MRRA. I suppose if the economy doesn't improve, anything is possible.
“Point 2: It is much, much more expensive to grade a road for cars, and patrol and police its usage, then it is to do occasional trail maintenance on a hiking trail.” Anon 9:55, are you sure? What are the costs to maintain and patrol 40 miles of hiking trails in and around Avalanche Pass as compared to the costs to maintain and patrol this 40-mile stretch of road? You could be right, but I would like some numbers before I am convinced.
“no one on this blog has touched upon these hidden motives.”. Bill, you are not going to see Phil blog about this. I suspect that Phil (correct me if I am wrong Phil) sees no issue with the DEC and certain groups (what you call “green groups”) working together. It obviously puts other constituencies at a disadvantage but that is fine with some people. There are less “hidden” motives. The DEC has, on several occasions, directly sided with some groups. Here is one example from NCPR: “New York DEC sides with environmentalists in Adirondack Club and Resort lawsuit” (http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/archive.php?id=12516). Phil in earlier posts has described the case where the DEC joined a suit with the Sierra Club in an effort to limit landowner’s rights. You don’t have to wait for a federal case; the evidence is right out in the open. Phil is correct in his post; some of these groups have also sided against the DEC. Usually in an effort to make sure that the department understands that the environmental groups are not going to tolerate any “leniency” on the part of their usual partner. It’s like a marriage squabble that ends in court.
Paul, maintaining dirt roads requires lots of heavy equipment, fuel, etc. As for patrols, a huge problem are trees coming down, which is something that isn't an issue on trails. I assume that the DEC does (or should) drive the roads daily. If someone with limited mobility is a way out and a tree comes down, it could end very badly.
Phil, perhaps you should follow up on this with a FOIA request for the MRP budget - I think we'd all like to see some hard figures as to how much money is involved here.
Solidago,
Phil, should not have to file a FOIA to get the number. The DEC should just tell him what it costs. There is no good reason they don’t have, and are willing to share, that answer. If this is really how they operate I am surprised they can actually “manage” anything. All they have to do is look at the spreadsheet and give Phil the number.
I hear where you are coming from. Perhaps this road receives better maintenance than the DEC administered roads I am familiar with. They are rarely graded, the washouts usually go till they are impassible, and downed trees are cut out by the first "locals" that can't get through.
In the UMP that was drafted in 2006 it projected $56,000 dollars for road maintenance. So that is $1500 per mile (per year?). The question is how much has it actually cost per year? The budget is pretty basic and provides little detail. But it looks like (assuming this is correct) that you save 1200 per mile per year in road maintenance. It supposedly costs 300 per mile to maintain a hiking trail in the same unit and I assume we can now consider these roads as hiking trails. If you let folks in at all you have to do the other stuff much of the costs remain. Now the poor ranger (without an any assistants) has to hump all the garbage out on his/her back. Maybe these areas should be shuttered completely?
It would be better to know the actual costs involved. Given these numbers above it would also be interesting to know what the estimated holding costs involved with the acquisition of the TNC (Finch Pruyn) lands will be? They must be considerable. This should give any reasonable person pause when they are thinking of adding another hundred thousand acres of maintenance to the DEC plate.
I received a reply from Dave Winchell, a DEC spokesman, on the cost. He told me that the main reason for closing the roads is that DEC doesn't have the staff to do the patrols and the work. "We aren't looking at how we can save money at this point, we are looking at what we can and cannot accomplish with the resources that are available to us," he said.
I have been looking at these UMP budgets and it is pretty clear that we spend way too much money maintaining these units. You can't just lock folks out completely (the only way to avoid the cost altogether), so our options are limited. For example in the High Peaks Unit it appears that we are spending about 200K per year to use and maintain about 250 miles of hiking trails or 820 per mile. In the MRP we are spending about 20K to use and maintain about 60 miles of trails so about 350 dollars per mile. In both places it's too expensive. We don't have this money. The underlying problem when you look at this is that the state has way more land that it can afford to own or maintain. First thing to do is to stop adding land to the Forest Preserve. We have a temporary moratorium that must be made permanent. Second we need to have a serious discussion about getting some of this land back into private ownership. It is the only long-term viable solution. Allow special interest groups to interfere with these tough decisions (the same special interest groups that dug us into this hole) and you can be assured that NYS is on the fast track to disaster. Until I looked at these UMPs I had no idea how dire the situation was. Forget my other comments regarding the road closing, that is all totally tangential to the real discussion we should be having.
Phil,
Thanks for the info from Dave. If this is purely a staffing issue that we can be assured that these roads will remain closed for a very long time or permanently. We can also be assured that this will also affect much more than these roads. The "non-motorized" access folks should be celebrating tonight. I think this is potentially a huge victory for them.
Phil, thanks for the follow-up and update. That justification makes sense as well... not that it will do anything to counter the skeptics.
Paul, I certainly agree that the DEC (and heck, absolutely every agency, person or business taking something away from someone), should be crystal clear about the justification and back it up with facts and figures.
I just posted on the Adirondack Explorer site a letter from Bill Osborne, Hamilton County's economic development/tourism director, to Governor Paterson. He says future land purchases should be tied to availability of funds for maintenance. The link is below.
http://adirondackexplorer.org/out-takes/2010/05/12/county-official-protests-to-governor/
$200k a year for the High Peaks seems like a good deal if you consider how much money people who use the high peaks bring to the area. I don't know how many people use the high peaks every year (Paul, you seem like you have plenty of time on his hands to look it up, thanks). Whenever I travel and people ask where I am from, the most common response is "oh, I been up there - I hiked in the high peaks.
Restaurants in Lake Placid and Keene are full of hikers in on nice weekends.
Phil: Has either the Adirondack Council or the ADK taken a position on the closing of the roads?
Charlotte, I don't know that the council or ADK has taken a position on the road closures.
Paul ... the greenies are just one of DEC's constituencies. Others include hunters, fishermen, snowmobilers, etc. It talks to these groups, too, and sometimes does their bidding, sometimes not. The agency cannot please everyone all the time.
“$200k a year for the High Peaks seems like a good deal” I agree. I also think that 20K for the MRP is a good deal. Problem is we don’t have the means to pay for either. If we buy all the “good deals” out there with money we do not have it gets us stuck right where we are now.
There are 2 very good stories on NCPR this morning related to this topic. The take home message is that our current model for the Adirondack Park is one that is unsustainable. If we continue on this path more than just these roads will be closed. Like the DEC told Phil these are staff issues apparently. I agree with both stories that staff levels will not change for the foreseeable future. So that means that these closures and others will be for a very long time or permanent.
As this mad rush to buy more Forest Preserve land has been going on many people have been trying in vein to get people to understand that there was a looming disaster if we carry on like this. Now it seems that even the groups that lead this charge understand that it might have been a mistake (they seem to indicate in these interviews that they understand that the model was critically flawed anyway). I am not sure why Brian Mann is trying to get answers to the problem from the folks that helped create it but fine. What bothers me is that the director of the OSI that helped broker the Tahawus deal and the TNC Finch Pruyn deal seems to understand what the issues are, then he goes right ahead and says that we have to go through with the TNC deal on the table even though it will exacerbate the problem? He seems to suggest that we rely on groups like TNC and other NFPs to “manage” the problem. Please, I think they have done quite enough, thank you.
The AMC director says that he is hopeful that we can return to something that Brian describes as “business as usual”. He hopes that given what he calls a “recovery of the stock exchange” we can get back to where we were. Anyone who thinks that getting back to a unsustainable model where we dig our own financial grave is a good thing really should step aside and let reasonable people have a shot at it.
Time for an "outdoors license"? I payed a boatload of money for my sportsman's (hunting and fishing) license last fall. We all view it as a fact of life, a price we've got to pay to do what we want to do. Why can't hikers and paddlers chip in as well?
Excuse me while I run for cover.
Who says the new acquisitions needs roads and trails? Don't put in (or maintain) that infrastructure and suddenly you don't have to worry about doing patrols, etc.
Solidago,
You might have to run for cover on the license suggestion. You don’t even need a registration for a canoe in NYS. But the folks at the Almanac would probably run and hug you for your second idea. Keep those back-county tracts open for just the guys that want to hike in 20 miles. That is most likely the solution that will get some pretty solid support from most environmental groups. The ruse of a big public recreation opportunity with these big FP additions was that a ruse to garner support to close the deal. Like you say, now let's lock it up! These parcels should never have been purchased (or be purchased in some cases) by the state. I think some of the conservation easements should be cancelled since we can’t follow through. Re-lease that land to the clubs that used and cared for it for generations.
Paul,
"The folks at the Almanac[k]" are seventeen (will be 20 soon, BTW) and I think are a more diverse bunch in terms of their opinions on land purchases than you give them credit for.
And few of them, in fact I'm thinking just three of them, could probably make the 20 mile hike, FYI.
I think paying a nominal fee for the right to take game goes back to the middle ages. Walking in the woods has always been free, provided you owned woods to walk in.
Thanks to the Forest Preserve we all own some forest to walk in.
It looks like you guys have demonstrated that roads, snowmobile and ATV trails, are expensive higher-maintenance routes that probably make a lot less economic sense in most cases than maintaining hiking, trail running, mountain biking, horseback riding, paddling, and backcountry ski trails.
Also, I think you assume to much about the real feelings of members of "environmental groups". I suspect most are not interested in strict wilderness classification (the fire tower fight seems to show that). More likely they are a diverse group, many of whom want to ride their snowmobiles, atv, jeeps, etc in vast woods with scenic vistas, hike in quiet spaces, paddle lonely routes, and hunt and fish unmolested by crowds. Mostly I think the disagreement lies in where those motorized places and trails should be. You might be surprised to learn that I'd own a snowmobile and a four wheeler and a boat if I could afford them all (and they were more environmentally friendly - ie less noisy and polluting).
The thing is, although plenty of folks like to claim environmentalists are elitist, most simply can't afford to take part in those expensive activities - and apparently the state can't afford to provide them free opportunities to do so on public land.
John,
You are correct. I should not have made any assumptions regarding the views of the all the folks at the Almanack. I only have a general idea of the ones that I have followed based on their writings I understand that some are staunch supporters of non-motorized use of the FP, certainly Phil is. I don’t think he would deny that. I don’t own an ATV or a snowmobile. I probably never will. But I will defend the rights of those that want to use them responsibly. If they try to bring either one on my land I will make sure they are arrested if I can. I own a motorboat, I need it to get to a camp I have that is several miles from the closest road. I see boats like others see cars or buses or trains. It is just how I get around. I switched to a cleaner and quieter 4-stroke motor as soon as the came on the market. At another camp I own on a river I only have a canoe and I get along well with the motorboats that I see in there all summer. I wish they were not there sometimes but they have a right it’s not my place to change that. And BTW some of these guys are dirt poor but they are doing their best to have a good time and I respect that.
Someone else suggested here that we consider a fee for hiking; it wasn’t me. I could potentially support the idea. Not sure why a motor boat needs to pay a registration fee when the groups of 20 canoes I see head up the lake each summer get it all for free. But either way, I don’t think it is a big deal or would do much to solve the problem.
Not sure what you define as an elitist, but I don’t doubt that some “environmentalists” fit that bill and some do not. Their views regarding these issues are all that matter for the discussion. I personally consider myself as an environmentalist, but I don’t think the way to do it is to deny other folks the kind of outdoor experiences that you or I have.
I can hike for many miles into a remote spot to hunt or fish, and I do it often. The older man that I hunt and fish with cannot get back in as far anymore. If you don’t have better access to the woods for him he will just have to call it quits early I guess. I guess some folks think that he should just wait in the car, or at camp till I get back. I am sad that some folks feel that way, but again, I guess it is their right to try and deny him that access.
Solidago, one problem with an outdoors license is that it might discourage tourists from coming here--and tourism is the region's bread and butter. There probably are other issues as well. How do you enforce it if you have no staff?
Paul, recreation is not the only or, in some people's view, even the primary purpose of saving land. It's to preserve the last remnants of wilderness. So even if the state lacks the funds to "maintain" the Finch, Pruyn lands, it shouldn't hesitate to preserve them. Wilderness doesn't need maintenance. The lands would still be open for recreation. No doubt people could access the land via existing dirt roads and trails.
When the economy improves, DEC could expand the recreational facilities.
I received another email from Dave Winchell on the Moose River Plains roads. Here it is:
"In regards to your questions on the cost savings and assistance from municipalities, I provide the following:
In the past 2 assistant forest rangers and one operations staff were assigned full time to patrol and maintain the Moose River Plains corridor. There is no assistant forest rangers program and regional operations staff has been significantly reduced such that DEC can not assign someone to that position. As stated in our conversation, New York State, and therefore DEC, do not have a budget at this time. The budget extender bills do not include funds for non-personnel service. DEC has no fiscal year 2010 funding for work. These factors clearly underscore the fact that at this time DEC does not have the resources to maintain a high use areas such as the Moose River Plains Road System and the other roads that we announced will remain closed.
DEC welcomes discussions with the affected municipalities regarding possible means for maintaining the Moose River Plains Road and other roads in a manner that will ensure the safety of the public and the protection of the resources."
"Solidago, one problem with an outdoors license is that it might discourage tourists from coming here--and tourism is the region's bread and butter. There probably are other issues as well. How do you enforce it if you have no staff?"
Phil, This is a good question. The regions "bread and butter"? I think it was Mike Carr from TNC that made the claim in the NCPR interview that 75% of the region’s economy is tourism based. Assuming that is right, the question is what constitutes that 75%? Is it mostly based on folks that are coming to enjoy a backcountry camping experience on these large FP parcels that have been added to the states portfolio of public land lately? Are they the basis for the 75% that is spending the money that makes up the region’s economic engine? Or is it the folks that are skiing at Whiteface and Gore and enjoying the fishing and motor boating on places like Lake Placid and the Saranac Chain? The ones that are buying motors and boats at the marinas and staying at the hotels in Lake Placid or buying and renting the second homes on the Saranac chain and other places that are really bringing that money into the area? I think that we should look carefully at what the true economic impact of the remote paddling and hiking experience is before we make claims that may or may not be true.
If the "bread and butter" is not coming from these back-country parcels than we need to reconsider what is the right way to go moving forward don't you think? Especially when it might be helping to sink the state economically.
BTW, Phil only ECOs and Rangers, neither of which have been cut yet, can enforce hunting fishing (or “outdoor licenses”) so that would not yet be an issue. Also, licenses don’t seem to discourage fisherman from coming, they swarm to the area. Maybe the eco-tourists you describe are less enthusiastic. That is possible. But an analysis should be made before doing anything.
Also, thanks for the comments from the DEC. It sounds like they are open to a solution that would include the local municipalities and perhaps exclude state involvement and yet keep these roads open, that is a very positive comment. I hope they are serious. I think given the local hunters and fishermen, and snowmobile and perhaps ATV users that would like to utilize this area that they could garner the necessary resources to reopen these and maybe other roads using local dollars and volunteer labor.
I am one of the oraganizers of this Saturday's rally. I and my family have been hunting, fishing,hiking, trapping and leaf peeping the MRP since the 50's and I know first hand how the preservationists would love to lock the gates and let the harvest of wood ROT! I have Gould's paper agreement in hand that any court of law would reckognize( outside of the Governor's appointee's) This closure was targeted because of the tree hugging mindset of the region 5 DEC office and thier friends. Dec employees are as angry by the closure, but at the top they see no harm in the decision. I am in regular contact with the legislature and DEC and as of this date the gates will be closed. This is "our" land, not the tree hugging environmentalists from Long Island. I will continue to fight every day on my own dime to keep the MRP open to "all".
Another nut-job crawls out of the woodwork.
And actually it is "the tree hugging environmentalists from Long Island" who also own the land!
Doesn't that just get your goat? That people from Long island have just as much right to that land as you do?
You are a fool.
Post a Comment