I don't think we'll have to do much worry about anyone removing that boiler anytime soon. And NY probably has tax records for all those lands from the logging era.
I'd be much more concerned about older artifacts from early explorers or natives.
Hopefully the ones like the boiler serve as a reminder as how not to manage the forests; until they turn into dust. I'd guess it would take a good long time for that one to break down to small iron oxide fragments.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Number 1 Camp Steam Boiler (Watson's East Triangle)
Collapse
X
-
To be fair, it's also not easy to come up with wording for a legal document that allows for interpretation on what constitutes something as "historic" or not based on human emotion. Age of an object is much more objective and not as subject to interpretation if and when it becomes necessary for these matters to be examined in court.
Leave a comment:
-
Rather a moving target.
I can see why archeologists would want to be conservative and not have people mess with “artifacts”. But there’s definitely some grey area as to when enough is enough. I bet there’s a couple canoes out there coming up on the 50 year mark as well.
Leave a comment:
-
The so called "50 year rule" has nothing to do with the APA.
Rather, 50 years is the general rule that has often been applied across the board throughout the US with regards to whether something is an "historic artifact" and is worthy of preservation efforts and/or protection. While the specific language of laws regarding protection of historic artifacts varies from one jurisdiction to the next, 50 years has often been the norm with regards to defining what constitutes an artifact for the purposes of the law or regulation- that number shows up quite frequently in laws/regulations on the subject from one state to the next, and also at the federal level.
I'm not entirely sure where the idea originated that "50 years" was the appropriate time limit, but some googling lead me to a source that indicates that it first showed up in a 1952 amendment to the federal Historic Sites Act of 1935.
There's been some discussion recently that it may be time to rethink 50 years as an appropriate limit for what makes something historic. At present, we're looking at items from the early 70s coming up on "historic" status and gaining legal protections. There's a whole lot of trash (discarded beer cans) out there in the ADK backcountry that is about to gain legal protections, if it hasn't already. And the age of disposable plastics gaining the same isn't far off.
Leave a comment:
-
I wonder if the 50 years has anything to do with APA formation and when this kind of thing would have started to be regulated.
Leave a comment:
-
Oh for sure - who knows if they are still in business. They "should have" been held responsible.
That chunk of iron is probably not hurting much though. Other "junk" left, not-so-much (not really much of an issue in the ADKs though, thankfully).
Leave a comment:
-
Just try to hold any originial company to that standard now. I've heard it unofficially said that, if you come across artifacts that are 50 or more years old, then they are to be preserved as historically valuable. Newer stuff is trash to be removed.There are tons and tons of those old dumps and abandoned machinery out there from logging years long past.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by Northcountryman View PostInteresting, and where is this located? Never heard of it beforeWatson’s East Triangle, Croghan Tract, Conservation Easement, Oswegatchie, Buck Pond, Mud Pond, Long Pond, Oswegatchie River, Adirondack
It's one of my favorite remote areas to explore by bushwack using only map and compass.
Leave a comment:
-
Interesting, and where is this located? Never heard of it before
Leave a comment:
-
Leave a comment: