Monday, July 24, 2017

Ticket Issued For Drone Usage In Adirondack Wilderness Area

A man who allegedly flew a drone in the High Peaks Wilderness in June is headed to court in Keene next month.

The man allegedly flew and landed a drone on June 17th near the state Department of Environmental Conservation’s Johns Brook Outpost. The man was issued a ticket after the incident was observed by a forest ranger.

The ticket was first of its kind for operation of a drone on the Adirondack Park Forest Preserve. It alleges the individual operated motorized equipment within land classified as wilderness.

The ticket is a violation that carries potential fines up to $250 with a $75 surcharge to the court. Despite requests to the DEC, no further information was about the incident.

Drone usage in the Forest Preserve has become an issue of debate in recent months, in part because the DEC’s regulations don’t specifically address drone usage.

The DEC told the Almanack earlier this summer it is currently working on regulations that would address usage in the Forest Preserve. DEC says operation of drones are currently not allowed in primitive, wilderness and canoe areas.

Mike Lynch reported on drone usage on the Forest Preserve recently for the Adirondack Explorer.

Photo of drone by Mike Lynch.

Related Stories

Mike Lynch is a staff writer and photographer for the nonprofit Adirondack Explorer, the regional bimonthly news magazine with a focus on outdoor recreation and environmental issues. Mike’s favorite outdoor activities include paddling, hiking, fishing and backcountry skiing. In 2011, he paddled the 740-mile Northern Forest Canoe Trail from Old Forge to Fort Kent, Maine. From 2007 until 2014, Mike worked as an outdoors writer and photographer for the Adirondack Daily Enterprise in Saranac Lake. Mike welcomes story ideas and can be reached at

185 Responses

  1. Geogymn says:

    Good! Can I shoot one down that hovers over my land?

    • adirondackjoe says:

      That came up down here. A drone was over the guys deck while his daughter was sunbathing and he shot it. The whole thing was taped and he got in trouble for the firearms discharge. I don’t know what happened to drone guy.

      • Charlie S says:

        A drone over someone’s property while his daughter is sunbathing is very intrusive and I would have shot it also and felt very good about it! There ought to be a law! Things sure are going in strange directions and at a very rapid pace. It wasn’t too long ago when the thought of unmanned craft hovering in public or private space was a far-fetched thought. I’ve been saying this for a long time….we’re getting way too ahead of ourselves and we’re going to pay dearly for it.

        • Paul says:

          unmanned satellites that have resolution down to feet have been over us for decades. Not far fetched in the least.

          • Charlie S says:

            Drones over rooftops Paul. They’re new!! Where did you get satellites from in my post?

            • Paul says:

              They both do the same thing – fly over head and take pictures. One is just closer to the ground but they both do the same thing. One is controlled by the NSA they other by another kind of peeping tom! We are always being watched nothing new.

              • jono says:

                In this case, the guy who shot the drone was lying. Flight logs showed it never flew over the guys property and only went by it while taking pictures of a house near there for a realtor ad. And it was late in the day with the sun low before sunset. Not sunbathing time.

            • Patrick says:

              I would recommend educating yourself further on drones and what they can actually do. Most drones do not have the capabilities of shooting close-up photography and videos. Technically the FAA governs all airspace above the surface and it belongs to none of us including the space over our homes etc. The problem with drone usage is that people just assume and don’t really take the time to find out what they are all about, what they can and can’t do. Most drone operators are taking scenic pictures of the landscape and not trying to pry on people like you and I. I feel that drone operators whether doing it for hobby or commercial use, should be expected to apply for a UAS part 107 pilot certificate. Only drone operators using them for commercial business use are required to take this test currently. I hope the DEC takes a good hard look at what most people are using a drone for, taking beautiful pictures of the wilderness and most are not out to scare or harm animals in the wild. I don’t feel tickets should be issued without a warning given first unless you are operating near posted areas that clearly state no drone usage. Its the minority of uneducated drone users that ruin this for others that do operate responsibly.

      • Smitty says:

        From what I understand, it’s public airspace above 500 feet and FAA has jurisdiction. So if it’s lower than that and above your property, you ought to be able to shoot it down provided your in an area where it’s legal to discharge firearms. I’d be interested to hear a knowledgeable legal opinion though.

        • Geogymn says:

          Goose hunters – What is the effective range (height) of a shotgun shell? What is the best load to use? I just heard this past weekend that there were three drones over my property,…… I mean I am just asking for a friend.

        • Paul says:

          Since when can you shoot down a trespasser? Human or controlled by a human. Nonsense.

        • Paul says:

          So you can kill a guy in an ultralight at 400 feet?

        • zach says:

          thats not true according to the court case US vs Causby 83 feet above the property is no longer owned by the landowner and therefore drones are permitted to fly.Shooting one down and having it land on your property could be considered grand theft larceny if its is a drone that costs over $1000.

        • Swind says:

          Two things – FAA has jurisdiction from the ground up. The 500 foot rule is a misnomer. Property rights stop at the height above the property that can be used and enjoyed. As for privacy, the FAA does not cover that and most local jurisdictions have laws against “peeping tom”, voyeurism, etc.

          • Bruce Robbins says:

            In New York State If you own property outside of a city, you own down to China and up 84 ft. From that point, you need permission to build or erect any thing.

        • Patrick says:

          FAA has jurisdiction from the ground up. Drones can only be operated below 400 Above ground level (AGL). It is illegal to shoot any kind of aircraft down (manned or unmanned) at any altitude and if found you can get into a lot of trouble for doing this. Its never a good idea to take the law into your own hands.

    • Paul says:

      No, call law enforcement like any other possible illegal activity. What is this shoot it down nonsense? You are kidding right?

      • Geogymn says:

        Of course I’m kidding. I’m not going to damage someone’s property. It is just a visceral reaction to the infringement of my privacy.
        If I found a vehicle parked under one of my No Trespassing signs I wouldn’t damage that either but I will display my wrath to the owner of such.

    • Swind says:

      That would be a violation of Title 18, subsection 32…however to my knowledge no drone shooter has been found guilty for that violation, though many have been found guilty in civil court and have had to pay for the drone.

  2. John Jongen says:

    Drone operation over public lands needs to be defined and properly circumscribed and regulated. Drones operating in public and private airspace raised a number of issues for me and my family recently when one was discovered crashed in our garden. It raises issues of damage, safety, security, privacy and waste for any children, pets, and guests on our private property. Just extricating this unknown vehicle from the garden produced anxiety about the origin and purpose of the device: was it military, commercial, or just a toy? And since it was unmarked who do we call to report the crash? Who are the authorities to take possession and prosecute the owners and perpetrators? Are there local ordinances or state laws that apply to these areal vehicles? Was it even safe to handle it in case it contained unknown chemicals or munitions?

  3. Steve says:

    How about the photos from the Adirondack Explorer article on rock climbing at Moss Cliff? They were taken using a drone in the McKenzie Mountain wilderness…

    • Phil Brown says:

      That drone was launched and controlled from a public highway.

      • Tim says:

        That doesn’t make it any less noisy or intrusive.

        • Phil Brown says:

          The drone bothered no one. The photo shoot was set up in advance with the climbers.

          • Jeff Mattioli says:

            It would still be in violation of the same law this thread is about, just because you have the climbers permission doesn’t change the law. So please don’t defend your actions with nonsense replies

      • Paul says:

        So it’s where the operator is not where the drone is? Good luck with that.

        • Phil Brown says:

          The FAA has jurisdiction over airspace. So, yes, it matters where the operator is. DEC says you can’t launch a drone from a Wilderness Area. But the photographer was not in a Wilderness Area.

          • Paul says:

            This is interesting it raises a neat legal question. What sort of mechanized things are okay in a Wilderness area? Is this just like a more complicated camera than the ones we have been using for years? It certainly isn’t transporting a person. If I got this ticket, for the fun of it, I would plead not-guilty and try that line of reasoning.

          • M.P. Heller says:

            I think you are splitting hairs. I didn’t think about it at the time, but Steve makes a salient point. Explorer needs to get ready to defend their own case. I smell a ticket coming.

        • Taras says:


          My understanding of the situation is that it is like aircraft flying over a Wilderness area. They took off from an airfield outside of the Wilderness area and fly over it in FAA regulated airspace. It may be “motorized equipment” but it wasn’t, technically speaking, being operated *in* Wilderness area.

          In addition, there’s a requirement for non-commercial drone operators to maintain line-of-sight when flying the drone. This makes it challenging to legally fly any significant distance into a Wilderness zone. You may be able to launch it from outside the area but you can’t fly it very far into the area (and maintain visual contact).

          From the few incidents I’m aware of, the issue has been launches of drones within the bounds of the High Peaks Wilderness area, like from a summit, clearing, or shore. That’s in direct violation of the “no motorized equipment” regulation.

          • Greg says:

            And you would be correct. I’ve also contacted the DEC regarding this question. They contacted their own DEC Drone operators who stated the same thing. If you launch from Private property and in this case inside the ADK Park, as long as you are follwing FAA LOS rules there is not an issue.

  4. Paul says:

    I think that FAA airspace starts at the surface and goes up in different classes from there. I don’t think you own the air over your land. I know that the city of Boulder has been fighting the feds over this. They want to regulate drones but may not have the authority to do so.

    • Jamie says:

      That is correct. As a licensed drone pilot I must follow FAA laws which define airspace. There is no such thing as “private” airspace. Just classified airspace based on air use, usually defined by airports and military use.

      • Boreas says:

        “There is no such thing as “private” airspace.” I wonder if this will change due to this new technology..

      • Bruce says:


        It seems to me that flying drones is one thing, but what about the photography aspect? Aren’t the same rules in effect for drone pilots that apply to photographers about photographing activity on private property that is not visible from public property? Can drones legally fly over private property for the purpose of photographing private activities.

        • Swind says:

          You’ll be surprised to learn that there is no expectation of privacy, even if your own backyard as the airspace above you in public. Think of Google Earth. But if you want more detail, there is case law with regards to law enforcement use of aerial surveillance without a warrant.

      • Roge r says:

        The issue of who owns the airspace above your property is an interesting one. My neighbor cannot build a massive balcony extending over my property, even though it is not touching the ground on my property. Property owners must have some rights to the airspace over their property, which I would assume would permit them to exclude private drones.

  5. Geogymn says:

    OMG! Are people going to use drones to scout for deer?

    • Jim S says:

      Arm the drone and you can hunt from your living room

      • George says:

        The DEC has already banned the use of drones for deer hunting and other wildlife. Many states have done the same action. In Alaska, most hunting id one by people being brought in by bush planes. The state does not allow you to hunt the day you are brought into your campsite.

      • Bill Ott says:

        Arm your drone to shoot down enemy drones.

    • Greg says:

      That’s one of the issues. Only problem with doing that is the FAA rule of LOS, line of sight. DEC has already snagged people for doing this.

  6. Peter Klein says:

    Love all these people who want to shoot someone’s private property. Maybe start shooting the cell phones people take on a hike? Why not shoot down SP copters flying over the Adirondacks?

    • Boreas says:


      If my private property is on your property without your permission, is it your property or mine? On state land it would be different. OVER state land – different yet. Shooting down drones is a visceral reaction to a novel privacy intrusion. We are not accustomed to this. This is similar to when automobiles first took to the roads. They weren’t at all welcome. It’s gonna take some time to sort it all out. Perhaps we will be riding drones to work some day.

      • drdirt says:

        when the autos first came down your road and scared your horse, did you want to shoot at it? was it a Model T, Boreas? Also, do you remember your reaction when you saw your first wheeled vehicle?

  7. Boreas says:

    Quite a unique technology. I considered getting one, but couldn’t figure out where I could fly it that wouldn’t be pissing someone off – other than my postage-stamp property.

    It will be interesting to follow the legal battles that certainly will ensue. FAA has never really had to deal with an issue of private citizens essentially being able to spy on others – not really part of their charter. Widespread use of unmanned drones is also probably not their jurisdiction. After all, “aviation” is broadly considered a technology to get people from one place to another – not a means of video surveillance.

    Perhaps part on the solution would be to restrict camera motion to keep it from pointing down very far. After all, it is the hovering/surveillance issue that seems the most intrusive. Or even limiting the drone’s ability to hover. I wouldn’t be terribly upset to see a drone passing over my property if I knew it wasn’t looking down watching me scratching my ass. The camera angle seems to be critical to determining how intrusive the technology is. Vistas – good. Nude beach – bad.

    How much privacy are we entitled to? We have become accustomed to aircraft PASSING overhead, but when they linger, it becomes a different issue. I am totally ignorant of restrictions involving helicopters. How long are private choppers able to hover over private property without permission? Law enforcement obviously is an exception.

    And back to the intention of the article. Surveillance over public property is another issue. How much privacy are we entitled to on PUBLIC lands? What are the aviation restrictions over the Park? If there is a required minimum altitude it would help. But then state and private helicopter delivery of materials becomes problematic. Is this currently addressed by individual flight permits?

    Personally, I feel drone usage over state lands should be restricted to emergency DEC/law enforcement use or photography or land-study usage by LIMITED permits with specific flight plans and limits on time over target. But it should be a lively discussion. Turbulence will be a certainty!

    • Bruce says:


      There are few rules covering photography of people on public property, that’s how the Paparazzi get away with what they do. The basic rule of thumb while on public property is be on your best behavior, you never know who’s watching.

      I’ve noticed that the Google Earth people who drive cars up and down our roads taking 360 degree photos have figured out a way to eliminate most people from the photos, and the few I’ve seen are generally unrecognizable. I first noticed this in a Google Earth satellite photo taken in the middle of the afternoon during fair week at the New York State Fair. Lots of cars, booths, and animal trailers, but no people!

      This is new technology, and I believe at some point the feds will come up with some new definitions and rules, because the photography aspect of people engaging in activities on their own property is troubling.

  8. Linda Galentino says:

    Does this rule also apply to planes flying overhead????? This is crazy, what kind of damage do they think a drone is going to make, people hiking are worse with what they leave behind. What is this world coming to. Film from a drone could increase tourism in the Adirondacks!!!

  9. James Bullard says:

    Let’s separate this from drones for a moment. I am perplexed over the expectation of privacy is a public space. If you are in a public place you have to expect that someone else may observe you or even take a photograph that includes you. I have photographs that were taken off high points and from fire towers that include people I don’t know. No one objected.

    I concede that the use of drones (like anything else) can be abused. For instance, the nosy neighbor that spies on you with binoculars. I suspect a lot of the animus toward drones is because they are new. But if you watch TV or go to movies you are seeing a fair amount of drone footage. It is a relatively inexpensive means of getting low altitude aerial shots that might not even be possible with a helicopter. I think (aside from the ban in wilderness areas) that most problems are the result of a lack of common courtesy by drone users. Let people know what you are doing and when so that they don’t feel intruded upon.

    • Bruce says:


      as far as nosy neighbors with binoculars goes, so long as your yard and your outside activities are visible from my house, it’s largely legal so long as I don’t step onto your property. If such things bother you, it’s up to you to correct the situation through a privacy fence or some such. The law is clearer when it comes to viewing activities inside your home.

      Case in point: we have a neighbor who was busted for making meth and went to jail for awhile. Myself and a couple of other neighbors are keeping a much closer eye on him than previously. Right now it looks like he’s building privacy panels to block his activities from our view.

      I think the big question in view of the subject matter here is, does someone else’s drone flying over your property, especially that part which cannot be seen from a public area, and recording your activities constitute an invasion of your privacy? I believe it does, but so far has not been adequately addressed as a matter of law.

    • JohnL says:

      Great point James. Most issues in general are the result of a lack of common courtesy.

  10. John Jongen says:

    It would seem like common courtesy/sense that an valuable device would be identified with the name and cell-phone number of the pilot/owner.

  11. NYS Tax Payer says:

    The problem is that the state is NOT communicating what is allowed and not allowed in designated areas of the Adirondacks. There have been NO OFFICIAL press releases from the DEC regarding this, other than ” We are working on it”…..sounds familiar with other things out of Albany.

    The temporary (and they are) regulations the DEC are currently confusing as MOST people don’t know the differences or types of motorized equipment or a motorized vehicle. Most don’t even think a drone has a motor or what is characterized as a motor. The DEC has floated BOTH terms around in articles and both get confusing. Most common sense Rangers know this but there are a few that want to get a nod from our dear beloved emperor for some reason. Maybe these Rangers should do their job and COMMUNICATE via press releases or SIGNS at trails as to what is allowed, instead of trapping people for their own benifit. Maybe a Forest Ranger here can EXPLAIN why they can’t do a simple job as to post signs since we PAY them to hike trails anyway. I mean how hard is it to put a “NO Drone Sign” up. Well, any Forst Ranger care to explain the laziness here since I PAY your salary?? Maybe stop and think for once.

    So, this ticket the hot heading forest ranger issued will get likely be pleaded down in court, so I am not sure why this is a big deal. The state doesn’t want the headache of trying to defend something they screwed up on in the first place and they don’t want the publicity as you can see….hello. Due to the nature of obscurity of this temporary regulation right now until real regulations are put in place, there isn’t much of a way to really defend it.

    It’s the JOB of the state DEC to effectively communicate what is allowed and not allowed in state designated lands and they have DROPPED the ball on this numerous times. I and many residents PAY taxes to make sure things are communicating effectively between the state, residents and all the tourists (foreign and domestic) and they have failed.

    Why is it, that the National Park Service and other states CAN put out effective Public Service Annocuments regarding where drones are allowed and not but NYS can’t? I mean come on, there are tons of ways to get this done so that people know not to bring drones to areas where they are not allowed. Signs at trailheads are the first line of defense and relatively cheap. The DEC has sings EVERYWHERE else, so what’s the problem?

    Oh yea Cuomo, let’s just dispense with the bull and get right to the heart of it. This goes further back to Albany and our dearest beloved emperor whom the people voted back into office again, again and probably again. So, this is your fault, to THOSE that vote people like Cuomo back into office. Secret dealings, lack of communication, corruption and just plain BS have become the staple of democrats lately and some republicans. However, the majority of corruption has been democrats because they rule the roost here in NY and have show little but lining their own pockets instead of spreading the money towards something like this.

    So, thank for nothing voters, you get what you pay vote for. Afterall, you can’t even get a designation for Boreas Ponds from Cuomo, you except anything else? Give me a break

      • NYS Taxpayer says:

        Yea So? That should not stop them from posting a sign that would take 5 mins or less. Give me a break. If I pay a Forest Ranger to hike, then they can spare 5 mins to post a sign.

        No excuse other than laziness

        • Taras says:

          I guess State Troopers are equally lazy because they’ve failed to post every rule of the road.

          You wouldn’t be the owner of a sign-making business, would you?


          • NYS Tax Payer says:

            I guess you and I pay taxes for nothing except to make democrats in Albany richer. Apparently you support that notion.

            Thanks for nothing Tara

            • Taras says:

              I tell you, if I hear my tax dollars are going to *Albany*, I’m going to give an earful to my MNA!


              Politicians! Amiright?


              • NYS Taxpayer says:

                Why are you posting a link to Canada? This happened in NYS in the USA?

                Hello. Relevance, I know it’s a hard thing to do but work with me here. Good Grief

                • Taras says:

                  Because in direct contradiction to what you wrote, my taxes *don’t* go to Albany.

                  Nor to anywhere else in the USA.

                  ¿Está claro?

                  • NYS Taxpayer says:

                    So why are you here commenting on my comment and others when you pay no taxes or even live in this country?

                    Are you just a trolll that’s bored and has nothing better to do?

                    • Taras says:

                      Because none of what you said is a prerequisite for participation here.

                      In fact, the bar is set very low for participation, as your many posts have demonstrated.

                      Free speech and all that.

                  • NYS Taxpayer says:

                    The bar is set low? I guess I now know why you’re here. Makes sense, I figured you would hint at why you’re here. Your arguments make little to no sense and when you can’t back them up, as yo have shown, you just write more nonsense in hopes it will stick. Sad

                    • Taras says:

                      You’ve written time again about how only you have a grasp of the facts and all others are wrong or make no sense. Perhaps a moment of honest introspection may reveal the reason for it. I doubt it, but it’s worth a try.

                    • NYS Taxpayer says:

                      Introspection? Pot calling the kettle black. I am not the one obsessed here, you are especially on a work day…just saying.

                      Besides, your ramble sounds like a call for help, I suggest you seek it.

        • Boreas says:

          WOW! This must be some sign you have in mind! Where would you put a sign that would be visible throughout the Park? Seems to me it is gonna take a lot of signs and a lot of time to put them up. Would that mean an increase in your taxes? Careful what you wish for… There are a lot of Park regulations – that would be a lot of signs.

          If I bought an expensive piece of equipment I would do a little research on where I can legally use it.

          • NYS Taxpayer says:

            The signs are relatively cheap, maybe you should learn to do a little research yourself before making a ignorant comment. Google is a wonderful tool to search things with, I suggest learning how to use it PROPERLY.

            Also read the comment again, where I said how the signs are to be put up, you apparently don’t know how to read. Skipping sentences that have already been made apparent by me and then you trying to pretend I didn’t say it, well look who ignorant now……oh you are!

            Lastly, your emperor had no problem spending tons on tax payer money making new signs for roads and at state campsites and trails, so your point is irrelevant.

            • Boreas says:

              I read this rant: “I mean how hard is it to put a “NO Drone Sign” up. Well, any Forst Ranger care to explain the laziness here since I PAY your salary?? Maybe stop and think for once.”

              “A” is singular Bud, not plural. As for ignorance, You are putting on a great show of it today. I don’t need Google to figure you out. I know what a troll is.

              • NYS Taxpayer says:

                Apparently you don’t be use I had to school you on research. Tha being said, you being an expert on English but can’t do any research to prove your point.

                Sheesh. Talk about being a pathetic troll but since you can’t really bring any real facts to support your argument, go with the English lesson I guess.

                • Boreas says:

                  I wasn’t making an argument – I was pointing out the silliness of your post as it would be impossible to put up signage for every regulation in the Park. It doesn’t make the Rangers lazy. If you ever need their assistance, you’ll soon find out how lazy they are

                  You keep bringing up research – what am I supposed to research?? How many signs it would take to properly inform the world about drone regulations in the Park?

                  • NYS Taxpayer says:

                    DEC has signs up all the time for regulations. Do you even hike or go camping at State Campgrounds? DEC has sinage everywhere in the Adirondacks and throughout NYS. You need to get out more apparently.

                    The signs for drones are small much like the signs they put up for tick or bear warnings. You need to get a grip because now you’re not making any sense. A Ranger can take one with him or her and post it on a sign in kiosk on their way up the trail. It’s that SIMPLE but you see NONE of that. You also have not googled anything as I can basically find these signs on line EVERYWHERE.

                    How many signs? Well, where are drones not allowed? Wilderness, Primitive and Canoe. So it’s not all that many as you suggest, I think your over exaggerating and that makes sense.

                    So, let’s dispense with the bull. After all you challenged me on a mislead fact that people were not leaving NYS and it took me to do YOUR research to prove YOU wrong.

                    So stop acting like you know it all, apparently you don’t.

              • NYS Taxpayer says:

                Oh one last thing, how is the Boreas Pond designation working out for you?

                Oh wait, Cuomo doesn’t care either. Lol

    • Taras says:

      “Most don’t even think a drone has a motor or what is characterized as a motor. ”
      I’d like to ask these people what they think is making those rotors rotate at high speeds? Electrically powered rubber bands? Perhaps this should be part of the qualification process for flying a drone.

      We’re all ignorant about something but one can’t blame government for not protecting us from our own ignorance. “Ignorance of the law is no defense, etc” Somewhere along the line one has to take personal responsibility for having failed to become less ignorant.

      • NYS Tax Payer says:

        You didn’t make any sense in this comment. In fact, you seem to play ignorance yourself. Must be something that you excel at in my opinion because you’re certainly giving excuses for others.

        Lastly, saying one can’t blame government for not protecting us from our own ignorance is a red herring. In fact, doesn’t the government so this with tons of laws and regulations already and they add more on top of that? Oh Yes they do! Apparently, you must of forgot that.

        Let’s dispense with the bull Tara, NY loves to over regulate and we pay the price. It’s one the MANY reasons people are leaving his state in droves, there is no denying it, it’s well documented. These people vote for more regulation only to leave it to a state under no democrat control with LESS taxes and less regulation. Go figure.

        Your comment is irrelevant but I think deep down you knew that. You seem to just want to chit chat about nothing in order to feel you did something to feel good about yourself.

        • Taras says:

          When all else fails, revert to *ad hominem*?

          That’s a measure of last resort and the sign in all discussions that your bag of ideas is empty. Please come back when it’s refilled. Maybe you should take a nice hike (like a real one, not the ‘buzz off’ kind).

          Be well.

          • NYS Taxpayer says:

            Lol. If you say so, seems to me you can’t even argue any points but just dance around the subject and make no sense.

            I guess if that is all you have to come up with, go with it I guess. When you can make real arguments against me, you kindly come back to me too.

    • Charlie S says:

      NYS Taxpayer says: “Secret dealings, lack of communication, corruption and just plain BS have become the staple of democrats lately and some republicans.”

      ‘Some’ republicans? A very partisan and erroneous view of course which we come to expect.

      • NYS Taxpayer says:

        Why? Are you in denial?

        Shall I list them (indicted and convicted democrats) all for you? If I do, I may embarrass you. I meN look at Cuomo and the people indicted in his inner circle. Lol

        So, are you trying to look smart or make idle chit-chat?

        • Charlie S says:

          You can list them until the next blue moon Taxpayer and I wouldn’t disagree, but I don’t get your point. You come off as if the one party is going to be the doom of us all whereas I truly believe the people you seemingly support are the devil in disguise and who think we’re all stupid. They wrote the book on denial and if you deny that think global warming. I rest my case!

          • NYS Taxpayer says:

            Global Warming is not the issue here. The issue is drones.

            You can debate me on Global Warming if you want on another site.

            The point I was making is how bureaucracy in Albany has not helped agency’s communicate new laws and/or regulations bring temporary or permanent. There has been NO communication from the state to the public regarding dronecusage from the DEC.

            Why? When federal and other state agencies have no problem doing so. Nobody here wants to answer the question. No one here can even give me a answer to why NYD Rangers can’t put up signs as I have explained time and time again here.

            Why is this a problem for everyone? Rangers put out fliers and signs for evasive species, ticks, bears, etc. I don’t see why a small sign for drones allowed or not is so hard for NYS to do or even a PSA?

            Apparently this is rocket since or denial. Take your pick I guess.

          • NYS Taxpayer says:

            You can think all the conspiracies you want, that’s the beautiful thing about America. Speculate and conspire all you want about whatever party floats your boat. I will just ignore it.

            However Global Warming isn’t the issue here, its drones and this article. No more and no less. This problem is about Albany and the issues that stem from its corrupt bureaucracy holding up things. Agency’s are hurting because of it. Public Secice Announcements are coming out a lot, Foil Requests are slow to non existent, a lot of secrets. Republicans don’t really run Albany as you should be aware by now. Cuomo and the democrats do. So, their is no denial on my end. This is all I am going to say further in this, I am just constantly reinventing the wheel here with you.

    • scottvanlaer says:

      NYS Tax Payer,
      I personally appreciate your interest in the Forest Ranger force. We are public servants protecting both public lands and the public using them. We do work for you and have a concise clear mission statement. We publish an annual report and you can read them at this link.

      We also occasionally do “Rde-Alongs”, more correctly characterized as “Hike-Alongs” to give the public an opportunity to more closely see what we do. I am also available to meet more informally as work permits. With your proclivity for research and Google I am sure you will be able to find my contact information.

      • NYS Taxpayer says:

        Unfortunately, this isn’t answer my question. While I am glad someone from the state forest rangers responded, I am sure you have read my comment. So, with that in mind, can you please answer my concern. If you are here to comment, then you can respond in kind to this issue in lack of communication.

        There is no reason for the lack of signage for drones in areas not permitted. There is signage for everything else correct? So why is it hard to out a quick sign up for those not in the know? Unless the state wants to entrap people.

  12. Earl Bowman says:

    I love the wilderness. I see no harm in using a drone in the Adirondack forest preserve. Some of the users put their videos online for others to enjoy, that may not ever be able to get to the Adirondacks. Quote, ” It alleges the individual operated motorized equipment within land classified as wilderness.” Are the rangers now going to walk everywhere and not drive their vehicles within the preserve? I think not. Stop getting ridiculous.

    • Phil Brown says:

      Rangers do not drive vehicles in Wilderness Areas unless there is an emergency.

    • Taras says:

      I love the wilderness as well which is why I’d prefer to see and hear hawks and ravens soaring overhead on an Adirondack summit and not the whining of multi-engine drones.

      Two weeks ago, on Reddit, someone posted a video of Cascade lakes they had recorded with their drone. Aside from it being problematic because it was launched from within a Wilderness area, the individual reported the drone was attacked by a hawk and he thought he would lose the device.

      Even wildlife disapproves of drones.

      The individual removed the video shortly after being informed of the illegality of launching within a Wilderness zone.

      • NYS Tax Payer says:

        So bulling people is how just fix the problem? Is that all you guys have to address the problem as a whole is to act as keyboard warriors.

        I would have told all you clowns to take a hike.

        • Taras says:

          I don’t recall anyone bullying him to do anything. He was informed of the DEC regulation and that launching the drone from within the HPWA violated the regulation. He subsequently deleted his own post.

          I imagine that’s what most law-abiding people would do if they publically admitted to doing something that they later discovered turned out to be illegal.

          • NYS Taxpayer says:

            No, because they have already posted it and if they weren’t charged with a crime, what’s the big deal?

            You do believe in Freedom of Speech and Expression….right?

            Maybe you keyboard warrior bullies should remember that.

            • Taras says:

              The video was posted on YouTube and so the author could be traced. It could serve as incriminating evidence. In fact, the DEC has already used images posted on Facebook to serve as evidence of illegal activity (and charged the perpetrator).

              I imagine the video’s author understood this possibility and so did the rational thing and deleted the post.

              • NYS Taxpayer says:

                No they have not and you have no proof of this. There has been no tickets from a Facebook posts.

                Unless YOU can find it, your making it up just to prove a point that isn’t factual.

                So if you are stating fact, back it up.

                • Taras says:

                  For someone who insulted Boreas for being too lazy to use Google, you aren’t exactly demonstrating any initiative.

                  Let me help you. It was the much-discussed Keg Part incident atop Phelps. It was even written up here in the Adirondack Almanack. Here’s the relevant excerpt:

                  “A hiker who posted photos on Facebook of a keg party on top of Phelps Mountain over Columbus Day weekend has been ticketed by the state Department of Environmental Conservation.

                  DEC says the charge was based on the photos and on an interview with Bhatt”

                  Here’s the article:

                  • NYS Taxpayer says:

                    I was referring to DRONES…..hello! We are NOT talking about a keg party, we are talking about drones in THIS article. This doesn’t backup YOUR claim about getting a ticket from a Facebook post from drone flying in a wilderness area the Adirondacks. Period.

                    I asked you to find a article based on illegal drone usage. Why is it you can’t stay on topic?

                    Oh I know,it appears you can’t argue against facts, so you throw anything you can to try to make it appear relevant. Sad

                    • Taras says:

                      Your astounding ability to read things that were never written is becoming legendary.

                      If you bother to reread what I wrote, as opposed to what you think I wrote, I stated the DEC has used Facebook images to serve as evidence of illegal activity.

                      The nature of the illegal activity isn’t germane, it’s the precedent it has set. The author of the drone video understood this whereas you have not.

                    • NYS Taxpayer says:

                      Astounding ability? Wow getting desperate with the big words I see. I am sure it took you some time to look up these words, so I will give you that credit, at least. Make you feel you had an impact. Lol

                      Lastly, I dont care about OTHER illegal activities on Facebook that have gotten attention to DEC. I asked you EXPLICITLY to find evidence pertaining to drone and illegal activities where it resulted in a ticket. This article is about drones and illegal activities regarding them. You apparently can’t find any or you would of done so. So, instead you throw up more smoke and mirrors instead of taking on the subject ( u know drones). It’s seems to be your MO to veer off topic when you can’t make a valid argument. So this makes sense, you just can’t do it.

                      So, just say it. You can’t find squat! Let’s dispense with the bull. Stop wasting my time, apparently you have a ton of it on a work day!

                  • James Bullard says:

                    NYS Taxpayer is a troll. Stop feeding the troll.

                    • NYS Taxpayer says:

                      Vitriolic comments I see again.

                      Are you mad I bring facts to this forum, so far nobody can argue against what I have said.

                      You can’t either I guess.

      • James Bullard says:

        Cascade Lakes is classified as wilderness? News to me. There is a (very busy) highway along the shore of both lakes and a day use picnic area between them with parking for your car. I have a photo from that day use area of a light plane flying low (500-600 ft.) over lower Cascade Lake.

        • Taras says:

          They lie next to the northern border of the High Peaks Wilderness Area and just south of the Sentinel Wilderness Area. Highway 73 runs right along the border line past the lakes.

          • James Bullard says:

            So, according to the line drawn on that map, the parking and day use area is located within the wilderness. So cars are okay there but drones aren’t? Does anyone besides me see an inconsistency there?

            • Bruce says:


              The map Taras made reference to has to be interpreted using the actual SLMP regulations covering Wilderness areas. The day use and parking are not inside the Wilderness, simply because it’s not allowed. I see it as more part of the highway right of way, with the actual Wilderness boundary going around it.

              • Taras says:

                I like your theory and it makes a lot of sense to me. However, I’m having difficulty finding supporting evidence. For example, here’s how the DEC’s State Land Interactive Mapper depicts the area. The green line represents the border between the two Wilderness areas.


                Now I’d be the first to say the map isn’t sufficiently accurate and fails to show the zoning is different along the highway and the picnic area. However, darned if I can find a better map. I checked the APA’s many maps and could not find any zoning that accommodated the highway and picnic area.



                Very curious indeed.

                • Bruce says:


                  I feel confident that if we were able to look at the boundaries drawn with a finer eye, such as by seeing the actual surveys, we would find many differences between the lines as drawn on maps for public consumption, and what is actually on the ground.

                  My property, for example, has a small bobble on the survey that doesn’t show on the recorded plat, which consists of lines drawn by someone on an aerial photograph. The bobble involves a corner of someone else’s family cemetery.

  13. NYS Taxpayer says:

    What’s wrong MIke, hate publishing FACTS? Deep down you know it’s true. Stop using your own biased thinking

  14. The DEC is a FARCE ….. They dump BILLIONS of Gallons of SEWAGE into PUBLIC Waterways every year. THE STATE being They. DEC should be HORSE WHIPPED. I am hoping Trump will disband DEC and the Adirondack Council / APA. The Communism is OUT OF CONTROL in the EMPIRE

    • Taras says:

      Marketing Tip: Credibility on the Internet, for better or worse, is closely tied to the proper use of words and their presentation.

      When your message cannot be conveyed without resorting to all-caps, all credibility is lost regardless if you may have anything valid to say.

      I gave you the benefit of a doubt and checked out your blog. However, it’s written in the same style and discouraged me from reading it.

      In addition, misusing the word “Communism” is another red flag (pun intended). Perhaps you meant a “Byzantine bureaucracy” because having *true* communism within a US governmental organization would be a pretty impressive trick.

      Lastly, you don’t remove the taint of lunacy when demanding archaic punishments like ‘horse whipping’. Demand something plausible, like serving time in prison, instead of something from yesteryear like, say, the pillory.

      Good luck to you.

      • NYS Taxpayer says:

        Like you have room to talk regarding communication? Afterall, you think the government shouldn’t communicate their laws and that everyone should soak them in thru osmosis… right?

        • Taras says:

          Osmosis? No, just reading will do. Kind of like the Constitution. People know it through reading, not osmosis, or from signs posted everywhere.

          • NYS Taxpayer says:

            The constitution? Since when does Canadian like you know of that document?

            • Taras says:

              Oh, the average Canadian knows a thing or two about its neighbor to the south. More so lately.

              • NYS Taxpayer says:

                I wouldn’t talk about leaders, you guys don’t have a real political genius.

                Many have regrets on that vote from province to province. Lol

                • Taras says:

                  I regret to inform you that you’ve described the situation in your own country.

                  • NYS Taxpayer says:

                    Sure, whatever you say. ” eye roll ” lol.

                    Honey, give it up, you suck at facts, debates and even trolling.

                    I do get a good laugh from you and even from Boreas from the feeble attempts to prove me wrong here.

                    That’s a FACT!

  15. What makes Me SICK is the ARROGANCE of the idea that PLASTIC CANOES and PLASTIC Kayaks are fine but using the Air Space some how THREATENS the ZEN of the UNICORN CROWD. Disbanding DEC is coming APA and that Gaggle of SOCIALISTS at the Adirondacks Council ….. They Gotta Go

  16. John Tiernan says:

    I hope they do outlaw drones in the parlk (and elsewhere). I’d rather tolerate being buzzed by snowmobiles than these nasty little spyplanes that can easily fall out of the sky.

    • NYS Taxpayer says:

      I don’t care fir motorcycles or snowmobiles. We need to ban them. Ban them all. We also need to ban democrats because of the corruption they have caused in Albany.

    • Aaron says:

      That’s just a silly thing to say. So no drone inspections of infrastructure in the Park, or crop analysis for the hundreds of small farms we have, or search and rescue, or any videography of various sporting events? Drones are used for a LOT more than YouTube videos.

  17. Paul says:

    If you want to see a good one go on you tube a search for “drone almost crashes on wc skier”. Marchel Hirsher (sp?) from Germany had a drone crash right behind him (like a foot) during a world cup ski race last winter. Now the drones have to fly to the side when filming!

  18. Larry says:

    Having the part 107 test fresh in my mind, the FAA rule is you can not fly from or land a drone in a wilderness area, technically you can fly over one as long as you are not standing in the area with the remote. You MUST keep visual line of sight with the bird. Amd the high peaks area is either class E near the airports which begins at 700 feet above the ground and is controlled airspace, or class G which is uncontrolled airspace from the surface to 699.9909 feet amd bordering class E. now it all makes sense doesnt it. Dont fly from or land in Wilderness areas and stay under 400 feet and away from houses. Use your God given brains and common sense

  19. Larry says:

    And as far as shooting one down, does anyone know the law about not discharging a firearm within 500 ft of a dwelling???

    • JohnnyV says:

      Your own dwelling is fine, as long as it’s 500 feet from a dwelling you don’t own. Also legal if you have permission from the owner of the land to shoot closer than that to his dwelling.

  20. Charlie S says:

    NYS Tax Payer says: “NY loves to over regulate and we pay the price. ”

    Who loves deregulation the most? Industrial capitalist pigs. Big business. Tories! Why? Because there’s money in pollution…or shall I say money saved if there are no costly barriers to keep them from polluting. Deregulation encourages industrialists to ignore the damage they do to the environment because money is more important to them. It has created recessions which has been proven over and again. Just weeks ago I recall reading a story about the problems some country was having due to the deregulation they allowed. The snakes come out of the woodwork wherever deregulation is allowed.Bubbles burst, fraud rises and crises occur whenever deregulation is allowed. Rural communities and places where no profits are being made suffer the most when there’s deregulation.But let us deregulate anyway! You want deregulation? Vote republican.

    • NYS Taxpayer says:

      Is that why the population of ny is decreasing and everyone is moving to states NOT under democrat control for LESS taxes and less regulation?? Oh yea, that is happening and has been fully DOCUMENTED by major news outlets ?. Maybe that is why nationally democrats are losing elections, I mean you guys can’t even WIN special elections (Georgia) lol. I mean a guy that body slammed a reporter even won against a democrat, ?.

      Your comment is nonsense and full of off topic rants that have no relevance to this article. However, since you can’t seem to bring any real discussion to this forum, I guess you have to go with what is in your brain, regardless of how idiotic it sounds.

      If I was you, stop wearing the tin foil hat and come back to earth.

      • Boreas says:

        “…fully DOCUMENTED by major news outlets.”

        I wouldn’t have taken you for one who subscribes to the Fake News. Now I really mistrust you.

        • NYs Taxpayer says:

          Fake news? That didn’t come from CNN there genius. There are more credible ones out there, then the ones you think.

          That being said, since you aren’t that great at research (U know Goggle), I am not going to hold my breath for you to find it. I don’t take you as someone who can do something so simple. Sigh

        • NYS Taxpayer says:

          Here Boreas

          Let me help you since you don’t have a clue how to do research. This is a learning lesson, so PAY attention. See all I had to do is put WORDS in Google to find articles relevant. This is just ONE of MANY I found. Now, try it yourself and if you need help, let me know. I can work with slow people, you included.

          • Jim S. says:

            Have you researched paying taxes in one of those states that other New Yorkers are flocking to? Maybe they will let you fly a drone wherever you want or they may have rangers that hang signs.

            • NYS Taxpayer says:


              The Saratoga Battlefield has signs up and the National Parks Service have done great and I mean great public service annocments informing the public about not flying drones at National Parka via online, media outlets and at their intreptive centers. Park Rangers are there for those who still ignore all those warnings and that’s on those who decide to still ignore them and fly. Other states have their own PSAs and the public is adequately informed with signs and such by law enforcement or agency representatives. Signs are small and can be found online and don’t cost much.

              Here in NY Forest Rangers and other state representatives put out signs about invasive species, ticks and bears at trail head kiosks and at Campgrounds. Putting another small sign about drone use permitted or not should not be not be a large feat. Especially if a Ranger is checking registers at trail head kiosks anyway. Right? I don’t think it’s hard or costly to quickly put up a small “no drone sign” on their way up a trail on patrol. If they can put other sinage up, this should be also part of their job.

  21. hikerva says:

    What if a drone hits and kills a bird that’s endangered?

    • Boreas says:

      Good question. It actually doesn’t matter if the bird is endangered or not. With the exception of invasive species, most birds are protected by international agreement. You can’t even disturb their nests. Even game species are protected with the exception of hunting. Some exceptions are made for nuisances to agriculture or private property by special permits. I also believe many other forms of wildlife have some protection against harassment as well, but I doubt these protections are enforced much.

      So a drone collision with a bird, an active nest, or even disturbing a nest would likely be considered a violation – even if the bird was attacking the drone. But unless the pilot was posting video of an active eagle’s nest or something similar it would be pretty hard to enforce and prosecute.

  22. Sad day when we have to compete with a drone for the “solitude” of the High Peaks region. As a amateur photographer, I understand the temptation to “get the shot”, but not at the expense of everyone else’s enjoyment – the pilot was selfish, and got caught. I hope this discourages any other drone pilots – but I doubt it…

    • NYS Taxpayer says:

      Solitude is getting harder in those areas when you got hundreds of people up there daily. Drones are the least of the problem right now.

      • Boreas says:

        NYS Taxpayer,

        Wow! It took a lot of typing, but this is the first statement you have posted in this thread that hits the nail square on the head. Kudos! But I think you would agree that drone usage is in its infancy in the Park. As prices come down and usage increases, this is probably not the last infraction that will be documented here.

        Hope you got a good night’s sleep! Have a great day!!

        • NYS Taxpayer says:

          You forgot portability, drones are getting smaller.

          Yes it did take a lot of typing on your behalf to agree with me. I am impressed.

          Yes, I do agree it’s in its infancy and I am in agreement that this will not be the last as DEC can’t effectively communicate to those that don’t know the temporary regulation. That’s why signs are useful just like those use to communicate about evasive species or ticks or bears. It’s not a hat hard but the state thinks it is.

          You have a great day too

  23. I don’t know about anyone else, but I vote to ban NYS Taxpayer from the Adirondack Almanack comments for life (including all future aliases). His insulting attitude and obtuse manner should be enough for a good stiff banning. Is this possible?

    • NYS Taxpayer says:

      Why because I speak the truth and you don’t like it? Why Dan how Unamerican of you.

      I guess Freedom of Speech isn’t something you’re familiar with Dan? Maybe you should step back and think about those who died to give you that comment. It’s sad

      The Adirondack Explorer is a publication for those who love and live the Adirondacks. Do you live in the Adirondacks ? I know I live here.

      • 19 minutes? That’s not bad!

        • NYS Taxpayer says:

          Back at you as well. Your reply is just as fast now isn’t it?

          Also, I have a great job that affords me all the time I want. It’s great to be able to work how you want and get paid nicely. Plus I am able to respond to the vitriol comments who started the attack on me FIRST. So, apparently your emotionally hurt by all the facts I have presented like some of the others. Makes sense, it does, it does.

          Why Dan? Why your hurt over my main argument? Oh I live in the Adirondacks and have hiked and camped them all my life. Have you?

      • John Warren says:

        No NYS Taxpayer, it’s because you’re being hostile. Please stop. Take a breath and recognize that you’re an anonymous commenter on the internet. Even if you win an argument, it means exactly nothing, so you lose nothing in being pleasant when expressing your views.

        John Warren

        • NYS Taxpayer says:

          It goes both ways John. Maybe you can tell that too others as well. Debates do get heated as you know and others don’t know who to quit either.

          We can both agree to that notion I think.

    • John Warren says:

      There is, we’ve only had to use it twice I think in 12 years.

      • NYS Taxpayer says:

        If others like Tara and Boreas can stop being condescending, I can too. This should apply to everyone and I am sure you agree. You guys posted this online to get attention and you did.

        That being said, You can see the division as usual and it’s division that has made debates even more heated. Right John? Banning doesn’t serve the purpose like Dan seems to enjoy. Especially when it’s one sided. Just saying

        • Taras says:

          You are vocal about perceived attacks against you, yet all the time-stamps here clearly demonstrate you were the first to attack, condescend, insult, mock, demean, jeer, and generally behave in a manner that brands you an irritating bore, at best. At worst, it paints you as being quarrelsome, petulant, and petty; none are laudable qualities.

          You probably have valuable opinions but you fail to express them without excoriating others. When presented with contradicting evidence you pivot, prevaricate, and generally behave in a derisive manner. Perhaps this activity serves as some form of catharsis for you but it’s as welcome as a dead rat at the dinner table.

          I have no doubt Daniel’s request has been a thought that has crossed the minds of many. This place has seen it’s fair share of heated debates but your behavior has set a new low for discourse. It would come as no surprise to anyone if John’s ban hammer was poised to strike.

          • NYS Taxpayer says:

            You should practice what you preach. Don’t paint yourself a saint as you indulged in the salad bar of the negativity yourself. If you think you are innocent think again, especially since you could of stopped yourself as well, but didn’t.

            The qualities you commented about fit you as well, I mean you have already started in again with a new rant when you could of just stopped like a mature adult but not you.

            Again practice what you preach and move on, if you can’t, then it’s you being the instigator. Hint Hint

            I am done dealing with a little girl throwing a tizzy fit, go bother someone else now. Bye Bye

            • Taras says:

              The majority of your posts here serve as a clear record of your reprehensible behavior towards others. Your insulting commentary is plain as day.

              Be well, tax-paying geologist.

              • NYS Taxpayer says:

                I rest my case with you being an instigator.

                Maybe John should ban you as you are not mature enough to stop or you are the real troll.

                • Anon says:

                  We may as well pull the veil of anonimity from NYS Taxpayer. This is Stephen J. Lemieux.

                  • NYS Taxpayer says:

                    If you want to pretend that to feel good that you have Solved a mystery, go with it.

                  • John Warren says:

                    It’s often the case that people with clear conflicts of interest do not identify themselves in comments here. It’s disgraceful, immature, and cowardly.

                    John Warren

                    • NYS Taxpayer says:

                      I disagree John but that’s your opinion. It is what it is.

                      If you felt that I am all those things, then why do you did allow my comments and OTHER anonymous posters like Taras and Boreas ( not real names BtW) to comment? I am sure they have their days as well, let’s not kid each other here.

                      Lastly, if you didn’t want to attract more commenters and that includes anonymous ones who you believe have these qualities. What’s the point to post articles on line or on Social Media in a public setting? These article are not confined to the social media profile of this media outlet, it get shared and passed around to many many others. You know quite well it will attract MORE than the usual visitors having vastly different opinions, in some shape or form.

                      I have my own theories as to why and it’s not unlike blogs and forums on other media outlets like the Times Union, Saratogian, Post Star that do the same. I am sure you know what I am getting at.

                      This article and forum for it has run its course I believe now. I won’t be responding to any more comments,let them conspire and speculate as to who I am till the cows come home, I don’t care. I however will not continue to bring in more attention to a complex issue already so that it garners more views on the ticker.

                      Yes, I am well aware of how it works. I do know people in media.

                      Anyway, take care. Have a good weekend and can’t wait for the next complex issue I am passionate about debating. If it’s worth it or not.

    • adirondackjoe says:

      Daniel, you asking for taxpayer to be banned is outrageous when it’s YOU that should be banned for insulting me personally, most of my family and all of my friends in one of your articles but I doubt that’s going to happen. At least man up and apologize.

  24. Richard V. Villeneuve says:

    Then air plans also can not fly over wilderness areas.

    • Paul says:

      They can. Apparently they cannot take off or land in a Wilderness area or be controlled from the Wilderness areas. The DEC could ban that from anywhere in the Forest Preserve if they wanted to. We saw this in Boulder CO. They came up against the FAA when they wanted to ban drone use in the whole city – including Boulder owned parks. They couldn’t do it. But they did ban launching a drone from city owned property. They say that you can’t fly a drone over Folsom field during a game. That one is probably not a legal restriction.

    • NYS Taxpayer says:

      They can. They just can not land and/or take off from there.

  25. Paul says:

    If the drone operated by flapping its wings would that be allowed? To be a motor it’s gotta spin right?

  26. Charlie S says:

    NYS Taxpayer says: “Maybe that is why nationally democrats are losing elections, I mean you guys can’t even WIN special elections (Georgia) lol.”

    >> Elections have always swung one way or the other Taxpayer and maybe nationally democrats are losing elections because people are getting dumber. Sure seems that way… sadly I say. Racism is pure ignorance Taxpayer and look what (not coincidentally) came out of the woodwork and supported our new billionaire in chief who many seem to think is going to be their savior little do they know evidently. And what do you mean ‘You guys?’ As if I fit some model which I deny.

    Taxpayer also says: “Your comment is nonsense and full of off topic rants that have no relevance to this article.”

    >> I don’t go off topic and your bullish political comments aren’t exactly relevant if you wish to raise that horse.

    Taxpayer goes on: “I guess you have to go with what is in your brain, regardless of how idiotic it sounds.”

    >> Idiotic people are generally dull, moronic. This doesn’t fit me I have multitudes of handfuls that will attest. Tell me Taxpayer, why is it so much discord and animosity comes out of you?

    • NYS Taxpayer says:

      I should say the about you? You answer things like someone is also full of discord and animosity. Besides, republicans don’t run Albany, democrats do and apparently it’s not been fruitful with high taxes and over regulations and so fourth. Wether you like it or not bureaucracy is holding up agency’s in this state, including DEC.

  27. Charlie S says:

    Judson Witham says: “I am hoping Trump will disband DEC and the Adirondack Council / APA. The Communism is OUT OF CONTROL in the EMPIRE.”

    They’re working on the DEC Judson. Are you really for this? If so why?

  28. Charlie S says:

    Dan Crane says: “I don’t know about anyone else, but I vote to ban NYS Taxpayer from the Adirondack Almanack comments for life (including all future aliases). His insulting attitude and obtuse manner should be enough for a good stiff banning. Is this possible?”

    I know you’re a good man Dan. But you’re way off on this comment. Let Taxpayer roll away with his comments even if you or I or anyone may disagree with what he has to say (I don’t totally disagree with every thing he says by the way.) If he were to be banned from this site because we disagree wouldn’t that be the same as what FOX and all of the other conservative talk show hosts almost always do…cut people off who don’t agree with them. We shouldn’t stoop so low! We’re better than that.

  29. Charlie S says:

    NYS Taxpayer says: “I wouldn’t talk about leaders, you guys don’t have a real political genius.”

    There he goes with ‘you guys’ again. Partisan. Part of the problem. Tell me Taxpayer. Genius being defined as ‘The highest degree of intellectual capacity’ would you say this ‘guy’ you evidently support, this ‘guy’ who often wears a goofy sports cap on his head, this ‘guy’ who during his campaign was so divisive with racial overtones, this ‘guy’ whose sole form of communication with his base is by tweeting…. is this your definition of genius? Just curious!

    • NYS Taxpayer says:

      I was referring to Tara who is from Canada BTW. “You guys” refers to the Canadiens and their PM Justin Trudeau whom she elected. I don’t care for him but that is not the point anyway. Also wether you care or not for President Trump is inconsequential to me and I am sure vice versa. So both of us are at a standoff on this one but should clarify I wasn’t speaking to you.

      Lastly, you’re bring up irrelevant topics that can be debated elsewhere if you choose. I am sticking to the subject at hand, this article. Just saying

  30. Charlie S says:

    Taxpayer says: “Maybe you should step back and think about those who died to give you that comment. It’s sad.”

    >> I don’t get this ‘those who died while fighting to protect our freedoms’ attitude. Oh yes I do. It’s called patriotism. Patriotism being ‘the last refuge of a scoundrel’ as Rodney Dangerfield would say.It’s about being proud as in loving the American way of life, ie football, capitalism and the ‘What can I get out of this’ mentality, etc… It’s not about loving the country as much as it is about loving the American way of life is it not Taxpayer? It’s not about the history here or the culture or all of the good things that have real meaning in life… it? Yes sad. Sad how much ignorance there really is in this country.

    • NYS Taxpayer says:

      Patriotism is not up for debate here on the this article. Everyone is about banning these days. Ban drones, ban guns, ban cameras, ban freedom of speech unless he/she agrees with me. This seems to be the recurring them here in NYS and around the country.

      Ban this and ban that, where does it end?

      Ban humanity, next? Hmmmm, that might be the next problem.

      I agree much ignorance on BOTH sides. Also IF you think I am conservative that is a wrong assumption. I never said, I was. Just a FYI.

  31. Charlie S says:

    NYS Taxpayer says: “Global Warming is not the issue here.”

    >> “Global warming is not the issue yes I was just distinguishing between what you put out and what reality is …tis all. I’m not a fan of the establishment Taxpayer but what do we do? You, like the rest of your base…and I don’t say this to be stereotypical or mean-spirited or however partisan way you take it….come off as if the Republicans are going to be the saviors that rescue us from our misery whereas I see quite the contrary to be so. We have different values Taxpayer and I would guess that the beauty I may see you wouldn’t even become cognizant of. Which is okay it’s just the way it is but…..

    You say, “The issue is drones. The point I was making is how bureaucracy in Albany has not helped agency’s communicate new laws and/or regulations… There has been NO communication from the state to the public regarding drone usage from the DEC…..Why? When federal and other state agencies have no problem doing so. Nobody here wants to answer the question.”

    >> This drone usage topic is new to me. Maybe they don’t have an answer Taxpayer! Maybe they’re just as curious as you. Maybe there’s more serious issues than signs at trail heads regarding drone usage. Surely this will work itself out. Surely the DEC will eventually give us their take on drone usage in the Adirondacks. I’m in hopes they are futuristic and think carefully in how they handle this matter and i’m in hopes they don’t allow all-out anything goes.I see the value in drones so far as photography goes as now we are able to go where man has not gone before to capture images but we must be careful how we go about this.So many things are all so new to us and I feel oftentimes we get too far ahead of ourselves regards technology and how we apply it and there are so few sacred things left on this planet how much more do we take away?

    . We are a complicated mess Taxpayer and we’re paying for it. There’s much we can do without but wilderness, tranquility, simplicity and spirituality…. without those there’s no hope I am convinced.

  32. Charlie S says:

    I’m with you on the ‘ban’ issue Taxpayer. I was totally against Cuomo’s ‘Safe Act’ and and i’m all against banning cameras from public use which has been an issue for quite a number of years now meanwhile the corporations can put camera’s anywhere they choose to keep an eye on us, etc… Ban this ban that if we disagree…wrong! I have lots of conservative in me Taxpayer but i’m my own person and though I may lean a certain way more than another I oftentimes disagree with what comes out of both bases and I suppose I don’t need to explain myself I’m just here releasing like everyone else…a healthy thing. I do have my passions and I’m all for the little guy and flowers and trees and bees and the air we breathe, water…

    • NYS Taxpayer says:

      I understand your opinion and I am THRILLED we see eye to eye on the Safe Act. To be honest, I am not all thrilled with Trump, I didn’t even think he was going to win. I had other more qualified candidates in mind but the two I wanted didn’t win the primaries unfortunately. It is what it is and I certainly didn’t care for Hillary and her anti gun crusade. That right there blew me off.

      Unfortunately, partisan politics is a real thing now and has caused division I have not seen since time times of Bush Jr. I didn’t care for Bush at the time. He stopped lossed me and sent me to Iraq when my contract was up, seeing that mess was something else but that’s another topic.

      You would be surprised on my views of Global Warming. As a geologist my view is quite and in between both ends of the spectrum. As I don’t want to go off tangent as this isn’t the topic of this forum. That being said, I see where both sides have some good and and bad points. Science has different viewpoints like anything else and sometimes biased viewpoints can get in the way of interpreting data. Many are interpreting this is my Curt Stager at Paul Smiths is so gungh ho on that topic and others are not jumping on his bandwagon. Time will tell.

      The drone issue is a confusing and complex mess that nobody can get right. Hence why the state in my opinion needs to be more transparent. I have not seen any transparency and as you know, the Cuomo Administration shows lack of it and he definitely has his claws into all the agencies dealings. It’s unfortunate. That being said, the FAA is also reeling from the recent court order that Hobbists don’t have to register their drones anymore. This doesn’t help with a lot of things. I was for registration actually. It’s not a right like owning a gun, drones are not in the constitution and therefore not under any protection of the Bill of Rights much like a vehicle. People have been using them irresponsibly but others are using them in good ways. The issue is that one bad apple spoils the bunch and this article is another testament of the ammunition to be used against them.

      I can never have anything nice in this state. Yes we will not see eye to eye on everything but that’s life. I mean a girlfriend/wife is like and so I am not a stranger to long lasting arguments that go nowhere. Lol. Sometimes a standoff is all that we get before name calling and whatnot. It’s tiring and annoying but emotions get the best of everything these days.

      Lastly, I commend you on a VERY thoughtful and logically argument. This was what I was looking for and not the back and fourth games I have gotten from others. When you read things, they get taken out of context as their is no person to talk with face to face. A much different experience as you know and probably a better way to debate but that’s not life in this day and age. Go Figure

  33. moosebeware says:

    #1. You all need to go hiking.
    #2. I’m glad they issued a ticket…maybe it will discourage others from bringing drones into the High Peaks. Not sure if you’ve experienced one on a peak, but I have. It sucked.
    #3. You all need to stop **** measuring.

  34. says:

    I agree some rules yes but places like moose river plains thats wrong .Families can use drones to alert them about bears in the camsight area give a heads up. Drones can let parents know kids are ok mainly teens when out walking areas like mooses river plains.When we kayak unknown areas we check ahead be sure no rapids my husband dont swim but we still kayak .My husband was a trained in service to search and rescue drones are useful for public use before first responders can arrive to aid in finding lost people or injured.DEC needs to think before they place a ruling down the benifits of public help with drones.

    • NYS Taxpayer says:

      You hit the nail on the head with your points. Very thoughtful argument and you’re correct on both sides of the spectrum.

      Maybe someone can answer this question

    • Geogymn says:

      I understand your concerns and consider them valid….however.

      A lot of tools can be used to improve safety/ reduce fear in the woods but then it will be like you never left civilization, no?

      One is drawn to the woods due to its primitive nature. Let’s keep it as primordial as possible. Maybe it can then be a place of reflection, of healing our anxious souls. I say so sincerely.

    • Bruce says:

      The Moose River Plains is not Wilderness, so it would seem that for the present at least, operating drones there is legal.

  35. frogilama says:

    I’m coming in this discussion kind of late-but I’m getting a distinct pigtails in the inkwell vibe between NYS Taxpayer and Taras-maybe something could be done to get these two lovebirds together?

    • NYS Taxpayer says:

      I don’t do long distance relationships as she lives in Canada.

      Thank You for the consideration thou!

  36. frogilama says:

    Thou art quite welcome! Glad to see the mood lighting a bit.

    • NYS Taxpayer says:

      I try to believe it or not. That being said, she won’t leave me alone now. I think she is obsessed with me. I guess my 15 secs of fame has consequences.

      Oh well.

      Thank you for brightening up my mood thou. I enjoyed your comment.

      • Stephen Daniels says:

        After a painstaking read of this entire thread, I think Dan ought to stick to camping equipment reviews only!