Commentary: On Roads and DEC Conspiracies
by Phil Brown
I guess the conspiracy theorists were wrong.
When the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) announced it would not open the dirt roads in the Moose River Plains Recreation Area, some in the blogosphere suggested that DEC was using the state’s fiscal crisis as an excuse to cut off motorized access to the Plains. Supposedly, DEC was in cahoots with environmental groups.
Of course, DEC has since announced that it will open most of the roads after all. It agreed to do so after local communities offered to share in the expense of maintaining the roads.
I do find it curious, though, that the DEC will keep closed the Indian Lake Road, which forms the border between the Moose River Plains Wild Forest and the West Canada Lake Wilderness.
Several years ago, I attended a meeting at which DEC discussed a proposal to close this five-mile road permanently to motor vehicles. The rationale for the closure was that it would safeguard the West Canada Lake Wilderness against motorized incursions and the negative impacts of overuse along the border.
Interestingly, DEC argued that the closure would be a boon for floatplane operators as it would make Indian Lake, which is located at the end of the road, an attractive destination for their customers. As long as people can drive to the lake, it makes no sense to fly there.
I need to clarify that we’re not referring to the big Indian Lake associated with the hamlet of the same name. The Indian Lake in the Moose River Plains is an eighty-two-acre water body on the edge of the West Canada Lake Wilderness Area. It once held brook trout, but acid rain killed most of the fish. DEC’s intention is to restock it with trout once the lake’s pH improves.
I don’t know what became of DEC’s proposal, but it seems like a good idea. A few years ago, I visited Indian Lake during a four-day backpacking trip from Forestport to Lewey Lake. Indian is a beautiful, wild lake, but its shoreline has been damaged by overuse. By closing the road, DEC would be limiting use and keeping out most of the litterbugs. In time, Indian Lake would recover its pristine appearance.
Incidentally, the purpose of my backpacking trip was to trace part of the proposed route of the North Country National Scenic Trail. When finished, this trail will stretch 4,600 miles from North Dakota to Crown Point. The trudge along Indian Lake Road was the most boring part of my trek. This section of the Scenic Trail would be more appealing if it were allowed to revert to a motorless pathway.
No doubt some people would oppose closing Indian Lake Road. If you’re one of them, let us know your thoughts.
Whatever you think of the proposal, it shows that DEC recognizes that environmental groups are not its only constituency. In this instance, the department was looking out for the interests of floatplane operators—just as it did during the controversy over Lows Lake.
Yes, DEC listens to environmentalists, but it also listens to pilots, hunters, fishermen, snowmobilers, business owners, and the list goes on. The department can’t please everyone all the time, least of all conspiracy theorists.
Photo of Indian Lake Road by Phil Brown.
18 Comments:
"Yes, DEC listens to environmentalists, but it also listens to pilots, hunters, fishermen, snowmobilers, business owners, and the list goes on. The department can’t please everyone all the time, least of all conspiracy theorists."
I agree - they certainly do try to be fair in most circumstances. They tick off every interest group at some point in time, but that's the way it has to be.
You say they listen to motorists. To prove your point answer a simple question:
When, in the past 20 years, has the DEC or APA EXPANDED the amount of miles open to recreational motor vehicle traffic? Please be specific.
Phil, again I really didn’t see any large scale conspiracy theorists out there beyond the face book page comments you listed in your other posts. Did you see anything more substantial? But yes it is fair to conclude that this re-opening would debunk any of that. You had commented in your earlier post that you could see the possibility of a “conspiracy” on some level yourself:
“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.”
Do you think that this re-opening also debunks the second theory that you thought might have some validity? I think it probably does, an agreement like this between the DEC and the town seems to give the impression that the budget cut would maybe be a good thing.
Anon 3:30. You have a fair point. With the exception of some small increases in snowmobile trial mileage in an effort to put a final cap on those I can't think of a single road that has been opened in decades. I would not really consider failed efforts to close roads, or road re-openings as any real evidence that the DEC is catering to this particular constituency, maybe. To see what the other constituencies have gotten maybe we should look at the statistics. According to the APA between 2000 and 2009 the DEC and the APA placed 23,949 acres of land into a Wilderness classification. Between 2000 and 2009 the state added 21,012 acres of land to the Forest Preserve with a Primitive classification. During that same period there was a decrease of 2920 acres of land that was designated as Wild Forest. During that same period (roughly speaking) close to 700,000 acres of easement land was added to the park. Motorized use on that land is mostly prohibited. Phil, you really see these actions as “listening” to all the different constituencies? Regarding this road perhaps, but in general I just don’t see it.
I agree with Solidago. The DEC has proven itself to be a pretty fair entity given what they have to deal with at times. I think that the DEC probably feels that its hands are tied at times by the SLMP.
Phil, the only conspiracy theory I saw was that DEC was using the closure - and refusing to let the towns of Inlet and Indian Lake to maintain the road - to generate political pressure to save/keep it's budget. It wasn't in the blogosphere, either, it was in the Hamilton County Express as an editorial.
What I do know is that that particular road and area is very important to the economy of the area. It's been my experience that when one doesn't live here, it's easy to blithely wave aside those considerations, since the consequences aren't experienced directly.
Phil, I am sorry to criticize this post but some of this other reasoning that the DEC is "listening" to other constituents is also suspect.
"the department was looking out for the interests of floatplane operators—just as it did during the controversy over Lows Lake."
Phil, you are kidding here right? You mean because they tried to give the planes a few more years? I don't see how you can define the DEC BANNING float planes on Lows lake as "looking out for the interests of float plane operators". It was the DEC's plan that recommended classifying the lake as Wilderness and banning the planes (or any motors) wasn't it? The APA just made them speed up the process. If you are not sure about who the DEC listens to here read this quote in a letter sent by the DEC commissioned Peter Grannis to Neil Woodworth, the Executive Director of the Adirondack Mountain Club:
“"Effective immediately, the department will manage Lows Lake as a wilderness lake, subject only to existing riparian rights and the limited floatplane access recently provided for. I am writing to reconfirm the department's commitment to establishing a wilderness canoe route through Lows."
The DEC may be "listening", but they are ignoring what they are hearing from some folks.
One consequence of DEC budget cuts is not simply that they don't have the money to maintain these roads, but they don't have the resources to fully explore alternatives to complete closure, such as some sort of collaboration with municipalities or private organizations.
I will address some of these comments sometime soon. Meanwhile, anybody interested in the Moose River Plains will want to see this:
http://adirondackexplorer.org/out-takes/2010/06/08/changes-planned-for-moose-river-plains/
Phil, I saw this. It is quite unbelievable. Like you I did not feel that this "conspiracy" theory held much water. It appears that it does. They want to close 2 more roads and classify 15,000 acres of wild forest as wilderness (if you note above my earlier comment, that is close to what they have added to the FP in the last 10 years). Anyone who doubted who the DEC was "listening" to now has their answer. This is a very sad turn or events. So I wonder how long it will take to re-classify the remaining 35,000 acres as a wilderness as well? It is just a matter of time I guess.
Paul, they are reclassifying a good portion as an Intensive Use Area so they can keep the campsites they have, and add more - the result is likely more people, but concentrated in a smaller area. It seems pretty balanced to me.
The Moose River Plains is one of the most unique places in the Adirondacks, because you can DRIVE THERE..!! The road network originally developed by Gould Paper was given as a gift to the State of New York at the time the property was sold. The roads were specifically exempted from inclusion in the Forest Preserve...Gould did this so the area would always be open to motorized access by sportsmen. So the issue of restricting access or closing the roads is all nonsense...the State has no legal right to do so. As for the floatplanes....they have been systematically regulated to point of extinction. There are only a hand few of places left for the two remaining pilots to use. In Alaska and Canada floatplanes are considered an important part of the wilderness experinece...but, in the Adirondacks they are considered poison by the environmemental groups. One of the reason that some lakes and ponds get over used and degraded is the lack of other places for people to go. Only a very few have the time and physical means to hike to remote locations...most folks need some kind of motorized access. The floatplanes leave no tracks, do not harm the wildlife (contrary to some reports) and are a real asset to the people of New York. When a search or rescue is needed or a forest fire threatens, the pilots have always been there to help. Once they are forced out of business..who will we call..?? They also stock fish in many ponds and lakes...New York State is ill equipped to handle this chore with the scarce resources at their disposal. So, just keep closing the roads and closing the lakes and soon the north woods will be a perfect place...there just won't be any people left to enjoy it.
Solidago, I think you need to look at the overall picture and see if there is balance. The state continues to add more and more primitive and wilderness land to the Forest Preserve and take away wild forest land and the roads that are used to access the land. Where is the balance? I think that anon 3:30 from yesterday deserves to have his/her question answered. The answer is NONE, so let’s not pretend that the state “listens” to those that advocate for motorized access, especially when it comes to roads. And where is the balance in this proposal? In exchange for designating another 15 thousand acres of land as wilderness we will take away another 20 miles of roads that give sportsmen and women access to that area. And further to that we will crowd the remaining road access folks into some areas that will eventually be less inviting than the areas that Phil described along the Indian Lake road. This will eventually discourage many folks from coming to the area at all. Then I suppose the only thing to do is close the remaining roads and designate the rest of the area as wilderness. That may not be the aim at this point but that will probably be the result.
Personally, I don’t have a problem with this proposal I have decided that only on private land in the Adirondacks will you ever find a truly wild experience. All these actions will increase the value of surrounding private lands for recreation. So as a landowner I say, have at it. I just think that when you look at the overall picture you see very little balance and the state and others should stop pretending that it exists. The state should be honest with the folks in the Adirondacks for a change. The state is doing it’s bidding for folks like me and Phil, and perhaps you Solidago, but there is no balance. The Adirondacks is slowly becoming an area of Wilderness interspersed with very expensive private parcels of land that only a few people can afford to enjoy. This proposal and others like it slowly advance this dynamic.
Closing the Indian Lake road in the Plains will also cut off road access to Squaw Lake, one of the best brook trout fisheries in the entire Adirondacks.
Closing the Indian Lake road in the Plains will also cut off road access to Squaw Lake, one of the best brook trout fisheries in the entire Adirondacks.
How has DEC listened to those who advocate motorized access?
1. It has purchased easements on hundreds of thousands of acres of timberlands. Many roads on these lands are now open to vehicles & snowmobiles. Efforts are under way to establish ATV trails on easement lands as well. These lands are also open now to all hunters and fishermen, not just those who belong to a club.
2. It spent a lot of time and money working on a snowmobile trail plan that grants snowmobilers much of what they were asking for. It has OK'd several new snowmobile trails in recent UMPs.
3. They argued strenuously for allowing floatplanes to land for another 10 years--despite opposition from green groups.
4. They have opened up many Forest Preserve trails to ATV use by the disabled.
5. Region 6 once opened up trails to ATVs, but the trails were so trashed that ATVs are now banned from all trails in the Preserve.
6. Whatever you think of the Moose River Plains proposals, the creation of an Intensive Use Area is an attempt to accommodate motorized use. Without this unusual step, DEC would have to reduce the number of campsites in the region.
No. 3 in the list above refers to the Lows Lake debate.
Paul, in terms of the overall picture, I see the Adirondacks as a relatively wild oasis in the midst of the densely populated Northeast. Within this context, it makes sense for the balance to be skewed towards motorless areas. Where else can you find similar quiet, wildness, and at night, darkness, in the Northeast?
Also, as a simple budgetary matter, the more easy access, the more people, the more maintenance and the more money that must be spent by the DEC. The proposal allows the DEC to focus their time and energy in a concentrated area.
On the back of the Adirondack Explorer's "2010 Outings Guide," there's a great ad from Hornbeck Boats - "A thriving business because of a wild Park."
I will start from the bottom and move up:
6. Whatever you think of the Moose River Plains proposals, the creation of an Intensive Use Area is an attempt to accommodate motorized use. Without this unusual step, DEC would have to reduce the number of campsites in the region.
This is not accurate. Look at the DEC documents, there were several other proposals that could have accommodated the number of sites they want to have without having to do it this way. There are always other ways, but there is little “will”.
5. Region 6 once opened up trails to ATVs, but the trails were so trashed that ATVs are now banned from all trails in the Preserve.
Roads rather than motorized trails are a far better way to access some areas. This MRP proposal works against that idea. You would not even need ATV access if there were more ways to “drive” into some areas.
4. They have opened up many Forest Preserve trails to ATV use by the disabled.
This is really grabbing for straws. Under a TRP (which is probably pretty embarrassing to have to go through) you could do this before any of these changes. This is a very minor concession but significant if it affects you. I would imagine that the AWD act would probably force this issue on the DEC anyway. I would concede that this is one very tiny action that the DEC has taken to accommodate a very tiny fraction of users.
3. They argued strenuously for allowing floatplanes to land for another 10 years--despite opposition from green groups.
This is ridiculous. The DEC is the state entity that BANNED float planes on that lake. Just arguing for delaying their own proposal is in now way a concession for motorized access.
2. It spent a lot of time and money working on a snowmobile trail plan that grants snowmobilers much of what they were asking for. It has OK'd several new snowmobile trails in recent UMPs.
The DEC has recently permanently CAPPED the amount of trails available for snowmobiles. The new trails are simply ones that re-route trails that already exist, or add a few connectors while removing other trails. Again, really nothing here, with the exception of a permanent cap, not a good thing if you are a sledder. Environmental groups are working diligently to try and reveres some of this. Check out Protect’s(!) site when you have a chance. Remember the key DEC proposal is “no substantial increase”. That says it all for snowmobiles, you basically have a policy that says NO MORE.
1. It has purchased easements on hundreds of thousands of acres of timberlands. Many roads on these lands are now open to vehicles & snowmobiles. Efforts are under way to establish ATV trails on easement lands as well. These lands are also open now to all hunters and fishermen, not just those who belong to a club.
This is incorrect. Here you are just throwing out the talking points that environmentalists used in an effort to get approvals for these deals. ATV use on many roads on easement land is banned or is being banned. Many of the roads on these easement lands (with the exception of a few that are used to access fee parcels) have been or are being closed permanently to the public. I don’t have a problem with this, I would just not use it as an example of where the DEC has done anything to improve motorized access. Any roads or trails on easement land are open to the public at the discretion of the OWNERS of that land the DEC has really nothing to do with the issue. Also, the development restrictions on this land will eventually lead to all this land falling into state ownership in the distant future. This land simply can’t produce timber fast enough to make it very marketable give the restrictions it is under now.
Phil, cut to the chase. Answer the earlier bloggers question. On state land, how many miles of roads have been opened to public use in the last decade. We know that thousands of acres of land has been added to the FP and hence motorized use has been banned, but what is the other side of the coin? Again, I don’t have a problem with closing the roads but it is disingenuous to pretend that there is any real efforts being made to improve road access in the park, quite the opposite is true.
So when you have chance ask the DEC (in the last say 20 years) how many miles of roads have been opened for motor vehicle use? How many miles of roads have been closed to motor vehicle use? Remember to ask them specifically about state OWNED land, not somebody else’s land. Thanks.
Post a Comment