Commentary: Finch Deal Would Help Newcomb
by Phil Brown
A few days ago I went paddling with two other guys in Newcomb. We started at Rich Lake and canoed through Belden Lake and Harris Lake to the Hudson River and then down the Hudson for a mile, turning around at the first rapid.
We took out at Cloudsplitter Outfitters, conveniently located at the Route 28N bridge over the Hudson. Click here for a detailed description of the route.
It’s a fun seven-mile excursion, but paddlers will have more to do in Newcomb if and when the state buys a tract of former Finch, Pruyn & Co. lands from the Adirondack Nature Conservancy. The purchase would lead to more tourism for Newcomb.
This is something to bear in mind when you hear people say the Forest Preserve hurts the economy or that the state can’t afford to go ahead with the Finch transaction (see “Finch deal on hold” in the July/August issue of the Adirondack Explorer).
The conservancy tract includes a large stretch of the Hudson south of Newcomb as well as the Essex Chain of Lakes in the timberlands west of the river—both of which promise exciting opportunities for wilderness paddling.
Although it’s possible now to go downriver from Newcomb on the Hudson, you can’t legally exit until after the Hudson Gorge. Not only is the gorge far downriver, but it contains class 4 and class 5 rapids—much too difficult for the typical paddler.
If the state buys the conservancy land, however, flatwater paddlers will be able to exit the river well before the gorge. One possible takeout will be the Gooley Club property at the mouth of the Indian River, about twelve miles downriver from Route 28N. In this case, paddlers may need to shuttle between the hamlet of Indian Lake and Newcomb.
The owners of Cloudsplitter Outfitters are hoping paddlers also will have the option of taking out near the mouth of the Goodnow River, about five miles from Route 28N. This would require a much-shorter shuttle back to Newcomb over dirt and paved roads. This option will be possible only if the state allows motorized access, which will depend on the classification of the land.
On either trip down the Hudson, paddlers will encounter rapids, but nothing like those found in the gorge. What’s more, the state could construct carry trails around the whitewater sections.
The purchase of the Essex Chain of Lakes would offer the opportunity for flatwater canoeing and camping on six interconnected waterways, stretching about six miles. You could spend a few days exploring the region by boat and on foot trails.
How would the addition of these lands to the Forest Preserve benefit Newcomb? Paddlers would rent canoes, kayaks, and other gear from Cloudsplitter and/or pay for shuttle service. While in town, they might stay at a bed-and-breakfast, shop at the general store, eat dinner at the local tavern, or even play a round of golf at the municipal course.
Newcomb already offers several canoeing and kayaking opportunities. With these new trips, the town could transform itself into a paddling destination, the home of the Hudson headwaters. All it will take is a little more state land.
Photo by Phil Brown: canoeists on the Hudson near Newcomb.
Phil Brown is the editor of the Adirondack Explorer newsmagazine.
78 Comments:
Or you could have another private firm buy and develop the land with a few lodges for hunting and fishing and paddling. That would really help the area. It sounds like the Gooley club has some great hunting. I am sure that more folks will continue to pay to hunt and fish in there. If it was a for-profit enterprise the town would get a piece of the revenue.
I feel bad for the club but I would prefer this to just adding more Forest Preserve unnecessarily.
The state could just buy what is needed for put-ins and take outs. We have had plenty of discussions here about how the paddlers already have the right to carry so why bother buying those rights when the state already owns them?
Phil,
Can you envision any way that would allow public access and keep the Gooley Club intact? I think that would be best for everyone. I'm sure the club wouldn't mind sharing the water with a few paddlers.
If the land is added to the Forest Preserve, would the paddlers walk in from the Goodnow road, or would the dirt roads be classified to allow vehicular access?
Keep in mind also that this is the tract that was logged last year and nearly 1,700 truck loads of wood were harvested sustainably.
I think a better shared-use plan should be developed.
I see that the author is the Editor of The Adirondack Explorer.
Just two issues ago, I read four articles about remote paddling and hiking areas and they were referred to as "boring" and that some trails in prized forest preserve were not maintained and went unused.
If this land is purchased by the state, it will also become unused and unmaintained. It would be a sin to eliminate the valuable forests from production, and the clubs who are excellent stewards. A fee purchase by the state would be one more nail in the coffin for Newcomb.
I think that more people probably enjoy that land as part of the club than will enjoy it once the club is gone. It is really too bad. I am glad that they saved the other clubs that are not on what could become forest preserve. But I suspect on those it is just a temporary reprieve till the 20 year contract with the mill expires. All this land will eventually fall into state ownership given the right circumstances. For some the right amount of Forest Preserve will be what many suggested years ago - everything within the Blue Line (save a few small towns here and there). For others (I have seen recent suggestions here) they think the Forest Preserve should extend even beyond the Blue Line.
I disagree with the "it'll hurt the economy" argument (and don't think the economy should be the top priority in the Adirondacks anyway), but not "the state can't afford it" one.
Perhaps it's time for a major Adirondack land trust to be created to pick up the slack from the state. In some Connecticut towns, privately financed land trusts own large percentages of the land (like 10-20%) and open it to the public.
Paul, the Nature Conservancy bought the Finch lands to preserve them in a wild or semi-wild state. Except for a few parcels set aside for community purposes, the land will be added to the Forest Preserve or protected by conservation easements that allow logging. Most of the land will NOT go into the Preserve, but the Hudson River corridor and the Essex Chain of Lakes are among the lands that will. The towns signed off on the TNC plan. Your idea of opening private hunting lodges is not on the table. As I mentioned, paddlers do have the right to paddle the Hudson now, but they can't camp or picnic on the banks or take out until after the gorge. Effectively, this stretch of the Hudson is closed to all but expert whitewater paddlers. That will change if the state buys the river corridor.
Anonymous 4:06. It would possible for the Gooley Club to remain if its leased lands were designated for conservation easements rather than the Forest Preserve. As things stand now, those lands are earmarked for the Preserve. The club would have to persuade TNC and the state to change the plan. As far as public access ... I understand there are good dirt roads in the area. If the land enters the Preserve, the state would have to decide whether to allow the public to use the roads. I imagine this would lead to a debate over the land should be classified as Wilderness (no motors) or Wild Forest (motorized access allowed).
Phil,
George Cannon, Newcomb's Town Supervisor, passed a resolution to keep the clubs in operation. Newcomb opposes with the Fee Acquisition plan.
What about Anon 4:06's question about a modified plan? What sort of plan would keep the clubs intact, and how far a carry will it be into the Chain Lakes?
Anonymous 4:18 ... what hikes and paddles were referred to as boring? In any case, I don't think paddling the Hudson and Essex Chain of Lakes would be boring. I think people would be attracted to these waterways, and this would boost local tourism. In addition, the lands added to the Preserve would be open to the public for hunting and fishing. So the town may see more sportsmen as well.
Phil,
There are a lot of interesting comments here.
I am a member of The Gooley Club and have been going there for over 45 years, since I was a child. Finch Pruyn did open some of their lands to the public, and there was abuse, hence the recreational lease model. I do not speak on behalf of our Board of Directors, but I am sure our club would be happy if the general public could use the Rock River, Cedar River, and Hudson River. The Essex Chain of Lakes is a nice area, but we'd hate to see campsites be built, but I personally would have no problem with some kayaks plying past me while I fished. I hope we can maintain hunting and fishing rights; we have spent a lot on fish & wildlife management, and are great stewards.
I see someone has mentioned a different plan for shared-use, and I support that. I understand the public's interest in this land, but I also find it highly unlikely that you'd want to paddle on the Chain more than once or twice.
Forest Preserve is a permanent deal. We should work together on this, so everyone would be satisfied, keeping in mind the local economies too.
Peter H.
Maybe the Gooley Club should have bought the land from Finch when it came up for sale. As a TNC donor and NYS taxpayer, I hope every will be able to recreate, hunt and fish these valuable lands.
Anonymous 6:44 ... I'm not sure what kind of modified plan he has in mind. As I mentioned earlier, clubs could stay if the land were protected under easements rather than bought for the Forest Preserve. But more than half of the former Finch lands will go into easements. I assume TNC had its reasons for divvying up the land as it did. I don't know if they'd want to modify the plan. As far as the carry to Chain of Lakes, that will depend on what roads, if any, the state keeps open.
Peter, I have seen only pictures of the Essex Chain. Why do you say people would not want to visit it twice?
The whitewater in the Hudson Gorge is not class V. It is class II and III during most of the paddling season, and only reaches class IV, and maybe class V in certain rapids, during spring run-off and other high water events. In fact, in the low-water summer months, you'd be hard-pressed to paddle through the gorge without a following a dam release down the Indian to the confluence with the Hudson.
The old Fred Sullivan documentary, "Of Rivers and Men", features some great footage of guys running the Hudson (before dam releases on the Indian) in aluminum canoes. If someone did venture down the Gorge in a canoe during low water, much of their time would be spent trying to avoid getting stuck on rocks and/or becoming submerged.
But you are correct Phil, no matter what the water level, this is not a run for novice paddlers or those with ultra-lightweight canoes.
I got the whitewater ratings from American Whitewater's website and Adirondack Canoe Waters: South Flow. The latter said up to class V. I will take your word for it that class V rapids are rare.
"I assume TNC had its reasons for divvying up the land as it did. I don't know if they'd want to modify the plan."
Let's be perfectly clear on this point. TNC is operating under DEC's directive. DEC is making the decisions, not TNC. If DEC released TNC from their illegitimate agreement, TNC would be able to find a private buyer within a week.
I'm sure the Gooley Club would have purchased the land if they were invited to do so. This deal happened years in advance, behind closed doors and in secret, because of the wilderness paddler's pressure on DEC. The same exact thing has happened time and time again. DEC should stop wasting taxpayer's dollars to satisfy a small, wealthy, influential group of kayakers.
why can't we all get along to enjoy this beatiful land. The state and their avocates want everything to themselves, with no regard for others. If the Gooley Club is willing to allow easements, and the sportsmans club can stay intact,the state would save millions of dollars and everyone would benifit from this beautiful forest land.
"I understand there are good dirt roads in the area. If the land enters the Preserve, the state would have to decide whether to allow the public to use the roads. I imagine this would lead to a debate over the land should be classified as Wilderness (no motors) or Wild Forest (motorized access allowed)."
Let's not fool ourselves here. The state has no money for more roads these will be gated and or blocked. Also the state has a large lobby telling them to close roads anyway, the budget gives them the perfect excuse. The best case scenario would be that they are initially classified as Wild Forests with the roads open and then they will be reclassified as Wilderness at a later date.
"Your idea of opening private hunting lodges is not on the table.". TNC holds the deed to all that land now, they can do whatever they want. If they want to put the option on the table they can do it. This is not unprecedented. Look at the Elk Lake Lodge. The model seems to work very well there. The TNC can raise considerable money if they do this and use that money for their other environmental efforts and have deed restrictions that protect the land. The state doesn't always have to be a player, they don't have the money to close the deal anyway. TNC can't wait forever.
Peter H.,
Has your club spoken with the TNC? It seems that you have many of the same objectives as the land owner, and you have a track record of stewardship. There is also apparently a record of public abuse when the land was opened up in the past. Now the state is broke, the TNC as a Not-for-profit can't continue to spend their money on tax payments they are not required to make for too long. This is your big chance try and negotiate a deal. Forget about this blog talk to the owner!
Gooley Club should have bought it from Finch when Finch decided to sell. How can you say "The state and their avocates[sic] want everything to themselves, with no regard for others."???
If the state buys it, the Gooley Club members will be able to use it, just not exclusively like they have been.
And Paul, as a member of TNC, I do not want a private lodge there. I think their current plan will accomplish their mission. TNC divvied it up based on their habitat survey and recreation opportunities.
I am always amused when people talk about wealthy kayakers vs poor motor enthusiasts. These rich folks with their expensive "paddles" and "skis" vs. the poor working class with their simple "motor boats", "float planes" and "snow machines".
I own nothing with a motor because I cannot afford it. I recreate on my used skis and used canoe. I hope to buy a motor boat someday when I am more wealthy.
What I'm suggesting is that a plan be established to allow the Gooley Club to remain in existence with traditional and historic usage rights, then allow the public to access the area within normal Forest Preserve guidelines. The working forests should remain in production.
The Gooley Club appears throughout Adirondack history and is an important social, cultural, and economic component of the park, much like many other clubs.
Can anyone find fault with this idea?
The Essex Chain and Boreas Ponds hit the state acquisition priority list in the Open Space Plan because of why? Who made the decision? It was a completely subjective decision made without public input, on behalf of a special interest.
These places should not be acquired by the state. Period.
Phil,
Here's a breakdown on possible canoe / kayak opportunities on the Essex Chain of Lakes: It is a six mile hike on a dirt road to a put-in spot, between 4th and 5th lake. If you put in on 5th, you can cross it in less than ten minutes, then head up to 6th through 1/2 mile of weeds and obstacles. You can cross 6th in less than 10 minutes. 7th is at the top, and you can literally paddle across it in less than 2 minutes. You can not access any other bodies of water from there.
If you put in on 4th, you can cross it in less than 10 minutes, then head 1/4 mile down through a channel to 3rd, which is the largest lake. Two guys in a canoe can traverse 3rd in 20 minutes; kayaks are faster. You can enter 2nd at the bottom of 3rd, and cross it in less than 5 minutes. You can not access any other bodies of water from the Chain of Lakes. All in all, you can cover the entire Chain in a kayak in about an hour. There are no campsites, and it is too far a hike for a weekend trip.
There are a couple small ponds in the area, but they are another 3 miles or more to hike.
Someone put this area on the acquisition list with romantic notions about it from aerial photography. I think paddlers would be sadly dissatisfied; Peter Hornbeck dropped his membership after only one season.
I think the state should purchase access areas on the Rock, Cedar, and Hudson rivers, and should purchase development rights and limited recreational rights only on the rest of the tract.
The club should remain in business and so should the logging.
I find fault with allowing Gooley Club to remain with exclusive rights on land they don't own. I cannot afford the $2k a year to be a member of this elitist organization. I can muster up $50 or so a year for TNC and I pay my state taxes. I want to use, and camp, on Essex chain.
DEC and TNCshould not wasting taxpayer's dollars to satisfy a small, wealthy, influential group of kayakers.
Can anyone find fault in this: If everything goes as planned, everyone will have access to this area, including Gooley Club members.
Peter, thanks for the description of the Essex Chain. Perhaps it's not the paradise some imagine. Still, I bet paddlers could easily spend a few hours, perhaps several, exploring the ponds. The idea is not to paddle across them as quickly as possible. I'd love to get in there and see for myself.
If it wants to stay, the Gooley Club needs to persuade TNC and other stakeholders that the plan should be modified. Has the club made a formal proposal? If so, I'd like to see it.
Peter H: You are crazy if you think the Essex chain doesn't have good paddling opportunities. I have paddled it as a guest of a Gooley member and we spent a full day. I measured it to be about 5 miles from 1st lake to 6th lake if going the most direct route. We ended up going a leisurely pace and didn't even see everything we wanted to before having to turn around. There may not be campsite on the water now, but there will be when it becomes public land.
The Gooley Club likes the area for good reason, and soon we will all have an opportunity to find out why. If it was a dud for recreation you wouldn't be scrambling to keep it for your own elite club,
If TNC wants to change their plan, they'd need to drop more $$$ on surveys and APA permits and the state would need to spend more on the work they've done: not likely.
"Has the club made a formal proposal? If so, I'd like to see it."
If the club wants to make a proposal to the owner why should anyone that is not involved see it? The TNC as the owner still has the right to make any changes that they want without any public input. The state has yet to keep its part of the deal and pay up. To get any outside party involved would be a mistake, even if just to scrutinize the idea on a forum like this. It is my understanding that the TNC has retained some parcels potentially to sell for development in an effort to raise funds. They could easily be open to a similar idea here especially since the land could have similar deed restrictions.
Paddlers have plenty of good territory to explore they can live without this one. Phil, I am sure if you want to take a peek the Gooley Club would give you permission.
With all that said it is true that a lease like this is no guarantee that you will always have exclusive use of land. Times change, and if you want to be sure of something than you better get the deed. (Then some day the state will come in and say they need the land through eminent domain for the "greater public good for the people and the economic argument that Phil raises". This is the shopping mall in the mountains!)
I know some members of The Gooley Club, and if you guys think they are "elite", then you're bonkers. They are mostly retired public servants, like school teachers, and there are a lot of first responders, contractors, and small businessmen.
They are not elite by any stretch of the imagination.
By the way, do you really think you will hike in 6 miles? I doubt it.
Do you want to see the forest products industry have more problems?
Anonymous 10:38, where do you think the bulk of the $2000 a year dues for this "elitist organization" ends up? Do you think the Gooley Club, or TNC are feathering their nests with it?
It ends up paying the property taxes and other maintenance costs, so you don't have to - either via your state income taxes, or your TNC dues.
The TNC seems to be promising a bit too much if you have members here feeling like because they pay modest dues they are entitled to have access to every parcel TNC owns, and have a say over the decisions they make.
Motorhead, as for Gooley buying it from Finch, I think it is safe to assume Finch never offered it, opting to go the "wholesale" versus the "retail" route. TNC is the one that usually handles the "retail" aspect, and they may or may not decide to offer it to the Gooley Club.
I donated to TNC after seeing a map of their plan for what they are selling to the state vs easements. So, Yes, i do feel entitled to eventually have access to those parcels, as long as the state is willing to buy them. Otherwise I want my money back.
Anon 11:58 I can see where you are coming from, but how long should your TNC wait before it can do something else? The TNC is not obliged, nor would it be wise financially, to hold out forever.
If the club were to offer sometning that accomplishes the same goal as what the TNC set out to do in protecting the land then why not consider it (especially if it saves the state money at the same time)? What some of these post clarify is that part of these "environmental" deals is not all about wilderness and habitat protection but also about getting access on the cheap.
"i do feel entitled to eventually have access to those parcels.... Otherwise I want my money back."
"Let's be perfectly clear on this point. TNC is operating under DEC's directive. DEC is making the decisions, not TNC. If DEC released TNC from their illegitimate agreement, TNC would be able to find a private buyer within a week."
Absolutely correct.
"DEC is making the decisions, not TNC." Anon 1:27 why do you think this is the case?
The TNC, not the DEC, hold the deed to this property. It is true that the TNC and the DEC do work very closely. I think they have shared offices for some staff and the TNC does advise the DEC on land acquisition decisions from the "inside" but I don't think the DEC is acting on some state directive. I don't know how it works exactly but I would guess that the TNC board probably makes land acquisition decisions on behalf of its membership.
Paul,
It's pretty well known that TNC made this purchase on behalf of the state, under DEC's direction, for the Open Space Plan.
There are more questions than answers, and DEC won't disclose any information.
"There are more questions than answers, and DEC won't disclose any information."
What questions are there?
For example: How much land does the State want to own in the Adirondacks and why?
What will DEC do to control invasive species in the Forest Preserve?
Why does DEC want to take valuable forests out of production in an area where the economy is dependent upon forest products?
Simple questions like those.
Anonymous 11:58, most people donate to non-profits without expecting something in return. I don't think TNC was exactly selling tickets to their land, although if you shifted the decimal point a few places to the right on your donation, you'd probably get a personal invitation and a tour. Good luck getting your money back. Next time you donate to a charity or non-profit, be sure to ask "what's in it for me?" and demand specifics.
Sounds like we have a new conspiracy theory on our hands - TNC is a puppet of the DEC! I nominate the mountain lion to be the mascot of this illegitimate arrangement.
Anonymous 1:27, who are these private buyers, and where were they when Finch, IP and every other timber company were bailing out in the last decade or so?
Timber Investment Management Organizations are buying land in the Adirondacks. TNC sold a large parcel last year through LandVest to RMK Timber who purchased it on behalf of a Danish company. Seehttp://www.rmktimberland.com/investing_risk.html
Apparently, the bidding was quite active for those 90,000 acres. Other TIMOs own land in the park and there is large demand for large tracts.
TNC is duty bound to the DEC agreement and can not sell the land until they are released from their agreement.
Am I understanding that you think there are no Mountain Lions in the Adirondacks? Ask anyone on the North Hudson Road. They weigh around 200 lbs. and the tail is quite long. One has been spotted on my farm near the Finger Lakes.
What will DEC do to control invasive species in the Forest Preserve?
Obviously you have not put a lot of thought or actually ASKED ANYONE. But then again why ask when you can spread misinformation?
There has been considerable public discussion about this and the DEC has a work plan addressing invasive on forest preserve that is freely available on the web with very little effort searching for it.
I've read DEC's information on invasive species for prevention, but not for control. What will happen if the Emerald Ash Borer infests the Adirondacks next year, since cutting is not allowed on Forest Preserve land? Would they resort to insecticides?
What is the link to DEC's invasive species control plan for the Forest Preserve please? I think it's an informed and valid question.
Commissioner Grannis skirted the issue in an interview last year.
Anon 4:47,
Hi John S.
Thought you'd show up sooner or later. Thanks again for the ugliness on an otherwise civilized discussion.
If you have anything positive, informed, important, or beneficial to add, we'd all like to hear it. Otherwise, there's really no need...
Adirondack Daily Enterprise (Oct10,2009)
DEC official says "the DEC could fight tree-killing pests with the current laws...there is enough legal precedent to cut trees and take other measures on the Forest Preserve in cases where it is necessary to save the forest."
That took about 2 minutes to find. Yahoo!
Pretty vague and ambiguous.
Citing "legal precedent" doesn't sound like a good control plan, especially when cutting or harvesting timber is expressly forbidden in the Forest Preserve under the state constitution. If it were a private forest, you better believe management plans would be firm, like the Spruce Beetle problem that happened years ago in northern Maine. State forests were decimated while private forests thrived.
While you're on Yahoo, have a look at forest mortality or forest die-off, and when you see the millions of acres that are dying out west, then we will have something to discuss. Forest Preserve is flawed policy and state acquisition should cease and desist.
Let's see a valid plan.
The fact that the TNC has staff working at the DEC in Albany and advising state officials on land acquisition from the "inside" is part of the reason that we see all these "conspiracy" theories. With this setup they seem quite valid. Is this the proper way to work with a special interest, especially when one of those parties is bidding on the land that the DEC hopes to one day buy? I don't know. Would groups like the Adirondack Council be happy if the "property rights foundation" had staff in an office next to the TNC in Albany and they were advising the DEC staff to allow for more motorized access etc.? I think not. Unfortunately the 'investigation' into these land deals is being done by the state who may not be able get any real answers.
Going back to the original question regarding economic impact. Is there more likely to be more users (and hence more dollars in and around Newcomb) if there hunting clubs with rather large memberships are there, or if the paddlers are there? Let’s say that on a fall weekend there are probably close to 300 people in and around those clubs now (maybe more). Now I am speaking of the clubs that will be eliminated by Forest Preserve, not the other clubs that have the option to remain. How many more paddlers will be in the area based on the addition of these tracts to their repertoire? The argument that there will be more hunters in these areas once the clubs are gone is not a good one. The numbers of hunters on other easement parcels is fewer after the clubs leave so I think it is safe to say the same will happen here once the camps are gone. Folks on these clubs are looking for the “camp” experience not only the hunting. Most of them will stay home where there is more deer once the camps are gone. So if Phil’s argument is one of economics the most obvious solution is that all the land should be treated as easement land and none of it should be added to the Forest Preserve. It is the only solution that will satisfy almost everyone. The hunters – they keep their camps. The paddlers and hikers – they get access. The timber industry – they get to keep logging. NYS – an easement is much cheaper than a simple fee purchase. What am I missing? The “preservationists” (for lack of a better word) don’t get their wish and have yet more land added to the Forest Preserve but they still have millions of acres to play on so they’ll get over it. The rub is that even if NYS had enough money to buy the easements, which they don’t, they still need to manage the land as the easement owner. To do that they need money, that they again don’t have.
The fact that the TNC has staff working at the DEC in Albany and advising state officials on land acquisition from the "inside" is part of the reason that we see all these "conspiracy" theories. With this setup they seem quite valid. Is this the proper way to work with a special interest, especially when one of those parties is bidding on the land that the DEC hopes to one day buy? I don't know. Would groups like the Adirondack Council be happy if the "property rights foundation" had staff in an office next to the TNC in Albany and they were advising the DEC staff to allow for more motorized access etc.? I think not. Unfortunately the 'investigation' into these land deals is being done by the state who may not be able get any real answers.
Going back to the original question regarding economic impact. Is there more likely to be more users (and hence more dollars in and around Newcomb) if there hunting clubs with rather large memberships are there, or if the paddlers are there? Let’s say that on a fall weekend there are probably close to 300 people in and around those clubs now (maybe more). Now I am speaking of the clubs that will be eliminated by Forest Preserve, not the other clubs that have the option to remain. How many more paddlers will be in the area based on the addition of these tracts to their repertoire? The argument that there will be more hunters in these areas once the clubs are gone is not a good one. The numbers of hunters on other easement parcels is fewer after the clubs leave so I think it is safe to say the same will happen here once the camps are gone. Folks on these clubs are looking for the “camp” experience not only the hunting. Most of them will stay home where there is more deer once the camps are gone. So if Phil’s argument is one of economics the most obvious solution is that all the land should be treated as easement land and none of it should be added to the Forest Preserve. It is the only solution that will satisfy almost everyone. The hunters – they keep their camps. The paddlers and hikers – they get access. The timber industry – they get to keep logging. NYS – an easement is much cheaper than a simple fee purchase. What am I missing? The “preservationists” (for lack of a better word) don’t get their wish and have yet more land added to the Forest Preserve but they still have millions of acres to play on so they’ll get over it. The rub is that even if NYS had enough money to buy the easements, which they don’t, they still need to manage the land as the easement owner. To do that they need money, that they again don’t have.
Sorry about the double posting. The thing told me that the first time it was too large.
Annon 8:56
What exactly do you want to see?
As with any forest pest, control is a case by case situation. Writing down exactly what you want to do is a waste of time. While you are chasing this red herring, researchers are evaluating new methods and determining some accepted methods are not as effective as we thought. Basically you treat based on best available info at the time.
Integrated pest management plans are essentially a plan on how you will monitor for pests and diseases.
I'm quite familiar with IPM.
Let's see the written plan for monitoring, prevention, and control options. I have a background in forestry and have done control work including prescribed burns, and if thinning, removal, and slash elimination is necessary, let's see the approved plan for it now, so we don't have a roomful of lawyers arguing while tens of thousand of acres of pristine forests die.
What's wrong with planning in advance, and having those plans approved. Remember, there are constitutional hurdles here that could take years to sort out. This is one of the several flaws in Forest Preserve policy.
Paul,
We should talk. How can we connect?
The "Paul" that commented at 12:43 isn't the same Paul that left the earlier comments.
Someone's being a wise guy.
The Adirondack Explorer looked into what DEC might do if the Asian longhorned beetle or emerald ash borer shows up in the Adirondacks. Here's the link:
http://www.adirondackexplorer.org/stories/insects.php
What's with yahoo's insulting remarks and what purpose do they serve?
Administrator, can you filter that?
Trees may not be removed from Forest Preserve land.
From the article referenced by Phil:
DEC has the authority to take steps to deal with an invasion on private land. In most cases, Davies said, landowners are eager to cooperate to protect the health of their forests. Ironically, DEC has less of a free hand to deal with an infestation on the state-owned Forest Preserve—due to the forever-wild clause of the state constitution.
Consider this: the federal protocol for eradicating the longhorned beetle calls for destroying all potential host trees within a half-mile of an infestation. In one hypothetical exercise, DEC assumed the beetle was found at Putnam Pond State Campground in the eastern Adirondacks. To follow the protocol, state officials determined that they would need to destroy sixty-three thousand trees in the Preserve.
Such extensive cutting would seem to run afoul of Article 14, the clause in the constitution mandating that the Forest Preserve in the Catskills and Adirondacks “shall be forever kept as wild forest lands.” It goes on to say that timber in the Preserve shall not be “sold, removed or destroyed.”
The ban against cutting timber is not absolute. State courts have countenanced limited cutting in the Preserve for building trails, parking lots, and other facilities, but these decisions offer little guidance for the situation now facing DEC. “The extent to which Article 14 allows the cutting of timber to deal with invasives is not at all clear,” said Kenneth Hamm, a DEC associate counsel.
Hamm also raised a philosophical question about the forever-wild clause: “Does that mean we’re supposed to let nature take its course? Or are we supposed to preserve the type of forest that’s there now?”
The legal question would be moot if the state were to amend the constitution to give DEC the authority to cut as many trees as necessary to protect the Preserve from invasive insects. But even if such a measure were desirable, Davies said, it takes a long time—at least three years—to get an amendment ratified, and DEC needs to be able to respond at once to an infestation.
“Waiting for a constitutional amendment is not a viable way to proceed,” he said.
Nevertheless, John Davis, conservation director of the Adirondack Council, said such an amendment should be adopted prior to any large-scale cutting. He argues that only a small number of trees can be cut without violating Article 14. “If the DEC must do a strategic emergency cut and can’t wait for an amendment,” he said, “then we’d want them to sit down not only with foresters, but with ecologists and conservation biologists, before any action is taken.”
Yup, Forest Preserve policy is flawed and...
Yahoo is a yahoo.
one of pauls comments is the best. everyone can have an opportunity to enjoy that land. the gooley club has expressed to the tnc that they are interested in allowing easements if thats what it takes to save their club, so whats the problem. everyone can then paddle, portage and hike the lands and the oldest club in the adirondacks can have a few more generations of family enjoyment as well!
But could the public camp there?
I am the Paul who had been posting before the impostors started having their fun. Its too bad a mature discussion got dragged down with childish behavior.
Anonymous 12:18 - I do not want my children meeting anonymous people online and have no intention of doing so myself.
Paul,
The administrator stepped in and cleaned up the trash.
I never saw the bogus posts.
This topic is important, and should remain active somehow. Any ideas on a common ground where it could stay active?
How about the land become public and the Gooley Club, and their descendants can continue to use it as they always have.
Huh?
Anon 6:17,
The only way that could happen is if TNC sold the land where the cabins are located to the club, and deeded access to the club before the land was sold to the state, which sounds like a great idea. Would DEC allow TNC to do this? That's the big question.
Then the general public could access the wilderness Forest Preserve land accordingly.
Mostly, from what I understand, the public wants access to the Hudson and Cedar rivers without being considered trespassers. The public can already use the rivers, but it's "illegal" to use the river bank to take a break, or have lunch, or anything like that.
We should support the club and DEC should allow them to make a purchase from TNC, and we should push DEC for wilderness classification on the balance of the land in Forest Preserve.
Sound good to everyone?
Can anyone become a member of this club?
If TNC wants to change their plan, they'd need to spend more money on surveys, get new APA permits and the state would need to spend more on the work they've done to appraise the land. This should have been worked out a long time ago when the towns were passing resolutions to support the deal.
You also have to factor in that this is productive forestland. 8 logging contractors worked there last year to supply Finch with wood. It's important to the local economy.
I'm sure the club and a timber company could offset any additional management expenses. I wouldn't think that would be a new deal breaker.
The club has a decent looking website.
Good ideas. If they did cut out the camps TNC would be wise to offer them to the highest bidder to get as much money as they can to do more projects.
It would probably be better to keep Adirondackers in the Adirondacks instead of selling to the highest bidder. These club members are guys you work with everyday. We should try to keep the tradition in tact.
This club is restricted to Adirondack residents?
Maybe they would sell it to me. I am an Adirondack park resident.
It looks like some of the people who made posts have a dislike for the recreational clubs in general.
I have a friend who is a club member, and he drives into a nice area with his wife and two young sons. They have a cabin, boat, and motor, and he says his club dues costs him less than a third of of sending his sons to summer camp for one week on Lake George. His family spends a lot of time there together, and he went there with his dad when he was a kid. Apparently his club spends a lot of money and the local businesses love it. He also told me it's safe and he doesn't ever have to worry about criminals or obnoxious folks. I was in a state park once and felt threatened by a group there, so I'm thinking of joining a club.
It would be sad to see good clubs close because of stupid politics. They seem good for families and local businesses, and you couldn't find even one scrap of litter in my friend's club.
These private clubs keep you from having to deal with the undesirables who use public recreation areas. That's a pretty elitist point of view.
Dangerous undesirables. I was in a state park once and I wish I had my side arm with me. DEC can't be everywhere at once. At least the kids had a safe place to go.
I agree with 12:26 - private property is inherently elitist and bad for society, and therefore should be eliminated.
It's funny how some people seem to think that the Adirondacks should be a socialist utopia, where what is yours should be mine and the noble public is constantly doing battle with nefarious private interests. I'd like to see these types offer up their homes, land and other property for public use. I predict that'll happen at about the same time Tea Party activists start voluntarily giving up their Social Security and Medicare entitlements.
Post a Comment