View Single Post
Old 04-22-2010, 09:35 AM   #15
DSettahr
ɹǝqɯǝɯ
 
DSettahr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by adkman12986 View Post
Might want to be a little careful about trashing anyones boat or canoe. I do agree with turning them in to the DEC but if the owner happens to come around you might not like the results.
I definitely agree with this. Even if you have an issue with the boats, let law enforcement personnel deal with them. There's no need to create a potentially dangerous confrontation. I doubt that the majority of these boat owners would react violently, but you never know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by adkman12986 View Post
You said "Also, while we're at it, perhaps we should bulldoze the high peaks into shorter mountains with gentler slopes! Some day we'll be old and not able to climb those either. "

It would be interesting to see in time when you are no longer able to enjoy what you do in the wilderness what your opinon is.
I agree that it will be interesting. Perhaps 50 years from now I should dig up this thread (provided these forums still exist) and comment! I made that statement, though, to show that universal accessibility is something that is not possible in wilderness, and that when you use the same argument to suggest something like bulldozing the High Peaks, it sounds quite silly. Its possible to improve access at a few specific locations (and the State is working on doing this in the Moose River Plains by hardening old logging roads to remote lakes so disabled users can access them via ATV with special permit), but would never be practical to make everything accessible to everyone.

Think of it this way- everyone has their limitations, even the most physically fit. I'm not the greatest rock climber, so there are undoubtedly locations on cliffs in the High Peaks that I am physically incapable of reaching. I don't feel, however, that someone should leave me behind a ladder so that I can access those locations.

Granted, it's different with issues of those who are disabled. They certainly have a lot fewer options available to them than I do, and are much more limited in where they can go. There are general feelings (rightly so I think) of empathy and that those who are disabled have been dealt a raw deal and life, and accommodations can and should be made for them, even in wilderness areas. However, the issue of access should never be a blanket argument in support of improving access at every location... those locations need to be carefully selected.

One thing that I have noticed in working in the environmental education industry is that there is a lot of interest in finding improved fishing access in general for the disabled and elderly. I've spoken with a fair number of people who were trying to find out more about where accessible fishing sites were located in NY, but were having difficulty in finding a good resource listing such sites.

Quote:
Originally Posted by UpstateDave0104 View Post
Interesting debate and topic. Perhaps a compromise is in order. How about allowing the boats in designated "Wild Forest" areas, but removing them in designated "Wilderness" areas? Some other caveats could be added, such as all boats that are not sea worthy would be removed, no chaining up of boats would be allowed, and all boats must be left at least 30 feet from the shoreline. What do others think of this solution?
While a compromise is a nice idea in theory, in practicality, it'd never work. As soon as leaving a boat on state land became legal, you'd probably have hundreds of people who wouldn't stash a boat otherwise carrying one in to their favorite lake or fishing spot. The shorelines around the popular lakes and ponds would soon look like used canoe sales lots.
DSettahr is offline   Reply With Quote