How did we miss this cabin??

**Kevin** · 10-11-2005, 07:26 PM

A little birdie told me about this recently with a first hand account/report...

It sounds like a place I wouldn't mind spending some time.

**Wildernessphoto** · 10-11-2005, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by Peanut Butter

http://timesunion.com/AspStories/sto...ate=10/11/2005

The article says this cabin is on Preston Ponds. ( Attatched the link found in Tim's site.)

Now I'm posting it here because some of us canoed the route into Duck Hole earlier this year. I don't remember seeing this cabin. At first I thought they were talking about the cabin on Henderson Lake (the one that looked like it was being retained as private property).

So folks, is the location given in the article an error? Or is there another cabin we didn't see?

The description sounds suspiciously like the one we all took a good look at. Even the interior description sounds the same.

Hi Judy!
The cabin we looked at was on upper Preston pond. We stopped and looked it over before we started down the portage to Henderson lake. We only looked at the new lean-to on Henderson, but didn't go beyond the eastern bay where the take-out is on Henderson.

**Boreal Chickadee** · 10-11-2005, 08:06 PM

Thanks GAry.

So I'm officially going brain dead!!! I'm not surprised . Not even a tiny bit. I'll go back and put an edit inthe first post.

**Boreal Chickadee** · 10-11-2005, 08:22 PM

The least I can do to make up for my feeblemindedness is to let others see the cabin! It's in great shape and apparently from the article IS now owned by the state.

**Dick** · 10-11-2005, 08:39 PM

And the issue being discussed on Tim's site, and in the article quoted, is whether or not the cabin should be torn down or removed as a non-conforming structure. Thoughts anyone?

Dick

**Kevin** · 10-11-2005, 08:42 PM

Originally posted by Dick

And the issue being discussed on Tim's site, and in the article quoted, is whether or not the cabin should be torn down or removed as a non-conforming structure. Thoughts anyone?

Dick

Tough question. Since the state didn't put it there, I guess I could see the argument for removing it. Same argument that can be made for Duck Hole's dam - since that was built by funds from the national government the state isn't obligated to maintain it... but I'd hope they would find a use for it rather than just discard it.

**Wildernessphoto** · 10-11-2005, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by Kevin

Tough question. Since the state didn't put it there, I guess I could see the argument for removing it. Same argument that can be made for Duck Hole's dam - since that was built by funds from the national government that state isn't obligated to maintain it... but I'd hope they would find a use for it rather than just discard it.

My understanding is that there are just a few "conforming structures" in a wilderness area...
The only conforming "structures and improvements" are lean-tos, privies, existing dams, and foot trails and their respective bridges and signboards. Ranger cabins, aside from the Lake Colden outpost, are non-conforming, and should be removed."
Now that the new property is coming into State ownership, they may need to amend this provision to include the Preston Pond Cabin.

**Wildernessphoto** · 10-11-2005, 09:36 PM

Here's a shot that shows how well it fits into the landscape...

**Wildernessphoto** · 10-11-2005, 09:38 PM

This is a view of the back of the cabin

**Wildernessphoto** · 10-11-2005, 09:41 PM

This shot shows how well it's constructed...

**Mavs00** · 10-12-2005, 01:01 AM

Originally posted by Wildernessphoto

My understanding is that there are just a few "conforming structures" in a wilderness area...
The only conforming "structures and improvements" are lean-tos, privies, existing dams, and foot trails and their respective bridges and signboards. Ranger cabins, aside from the Lake Colden outpost, are non-conforming, and should be removed."
Now that the new property is coming into State ownership, they may need to amend this provision to include the Preston Pond Cabin.

I posted this elsewhere, but I still feel this way. Moreso now that I see the pics of it. Though it look pretty sweet. I ought to check it out before it comes down. Can anybody use it? Does anyone know?

Originally posted by Mavs00

I think that this is probably one of the few "appropriate" uses of the Non-conforming structure designations I've seen. I think it somewhat ridiculous to consider the dam at Duck Hole, the bridge of the Johns Brook interior outpost or occasional lean-tos as "non-conforming structures". Even the brief debate over the cables on Gothics to me seemed kinda dumb. To me those are silly little nit picky excuses for people to get into pontificating grey matter debate over what is technically wilderness and what isn't.

As to 1' x 6" canisters found on summit, PLEEEEEEEEASE. The ultimate in goofy IMO. I recognize mine is only an opinion, but I believe in the "spirit of wilderness" and for me (and I believe a majority of rational folks) most of the items I mentioned really don't take away appreciably from the spirit of the wilderness we feel, at least insomuch as to outweigh the the benefits they serve the areas they are in. It really shouldn't be a black and white, "everything man-made must go" issue.

The cabin, to me does go a little over the top. I think that is too much a human intrusion into what I consider the "spirit of the wilderness" to remain, unless there is a clear benefit to the wilderness area its found in that can be quantified, it should go.

There is a huge difference to me from a full service furnished cabin and a primitive lean-to or a small unobtrusive canister that marks an obscure summit and I think it shouldn't take a bureaucrat to see it. Just my opinion though.

**Kevin** · 10-12-2005, 02:10 AM

Originally posted by Wildernessphoto

My understanding is that there are just a few "conforming structures" in a wilderness area...
The only conforming "structures and improvements" are lean-tos, privies, existing dams, and foot trails and their respective bridges and signboards. Ranger cabins, aside from the Lake Colden outpost, are non-conforming, and should be removed."
Now that the new property is coming into State ownership, they may need to amend this provision to include the Preston Pond Cabin.

I was trying to be objective and work another angle for sake of another angle existing, only to be shot down with facts and junk.

**Wildernessphoto** · 10-12-2005, 05:39 AM

Originally posted by Kevin

I was trying to be objective and work another angle for sake of another angle existing, only to be shot down with facts and junk.

Hi Kev!
That post wasn't for your benefit, just some info to try and make sense of all this silliness with the APA...
I get the impression from articles I've read, Peter Bauer from the Residents Committee to Protect the Adirondacks would like to build a 20' high voltage fence around the park and tell us all to go home... Most everything his name is attached to seems to scream "GO AWAY!" He tends to be a bit extreme for my taste...

It's amazing how those "facts & junk" get in the way...

**redhawk** · 10-12-2005, 11:53 AM

So if they take down the cabin, do they bring in some mature trees and plant them or is a "non conforming" clearing all right?

Remember, the cabin had orange tape on trees around the periphery? What was that all about?

Actually to be technical, since the property that the cabin is on was once privately owned, and the cabin was legal, it was a "conforming" structure. The ownership of the land has gone to the state, and the cabin existed when it became state property and in other instances (a change in zoning under ordinary circumstances) the cabin would be grandfathered.

I do agree that it appears as if one of the problems is that there are extremists on both side of the argument. Some want to make the woods available to everyone with a minimum amount of effort required to get there and as many conveniences as possible, and the other says lets take down everything that exists except the trees and revert to the 1600's (Hmm, maybe not a bad idea

).

Offer a compromise and draw some attention to our cause. Suggest that the cabin be TAKEN APART and the logs used to help repair the Duck Hole Dam.

How did we miss this cabin??

How did we miss this cabin??

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment