104 thousand ADK acres to be protected.

[Neil]

Here a cut and paste from VFTT

Pataki Unveils Deal to Protect 104,000 Acres in Adirondacks
From today's New York Times: Link (free registration required)

Pataki Unveils Deal to Protect 104,000 Acres in Adirondacks
By ANTHONY DePALMA

Published: January 5, 2005

More than 100,000 acres of forested woodlands in the remote northeastern Adirondacks will be protected from development and opened to the public for the first time in a century under an agreement announced yesterday by Gov. George E. Pataki.

The agreement is the third-largest land conservation deal in New York history. It is especially significant because most of the 104,000 acres - magnificent forests, crystalline lakes and rugged mountain peaks - form a single uninterrupted tract. The land is in the Sable Highlands region of the Adirondacks, a gateway for large mammals like moose and an important breeding site for warblers, orioles and other migratory birds.

In making the deal public, Governor Pataki said the state was strengthening protection of the six-million-acre Adirondack Park, "while continuing to sustain a critical aspect of the north country economy."

Like earlier conservation efforts, this deal ensures that the Adirondack lands remain working forest in that it includes provisions to preserve jobs in the timber industry, protect the tax bases of local communities and permit the continuing use of hunting camps.

But like other conservation efforts, this one is also getting its share of criticism from local officials who say Governor Pataki is putting the interests of hikers and environmentalists before the needs of people who live and work in the Adirondacks. "All this does is serve a political purpose, which is to support the legacy that Pataki wants to build for himself," said Howard Aubin, a councilman who owns a sawmill in Au Sable Forks, an old mill town just south of the land involved in the deal.

Mr. Pataki has made preserving open space in New York one of the priorities of his tenure, committing the state to protect more than one million acres of land within a decade.

Environmentalists have given the governor high marks for land conservation. But Mr. Aubin, 50, who has lived in the Adirondacks all his life, said that each land agreement had caused hardship for year-round residents of the park, which is a combination of public and private land created more than a century ago.

"It's tough enough to make a living up here in the winter time," he said, "but when you start chipping away at what can be done here, it's even tougher."

The land transaction involved all the Adirondack land owned by Domtar Industries, a Canadian paper manufacturer whose forestry management practices have met the exacting standards of the Forest Stewardship Council, an international nonprofit organization.

Under the complex agreement brokered by the Nature Conservancy, Domtar will sell 84,448 acres to the Lyme Timber Company, which has its headquarters in Hanover, N.H., and which will continue to cut and process trees under the same forestry practices as Domtar.

Existing snowmobile trails will be maintained, but new ones cannot be opened. More than 47,000 acres that were off limits will be available for hiking, camping, fishing and cross-country skiing.

At the same time, Domtar will sell the development rights to the land to the state, which effectively means nothing will ever be built there. Lyme will pay lower local property taxes because of the conservation easements, and the state will make up the difference so the local communities in Franklin and Clinton Counties do not lose tax revenue.

The Nature Conservancy will purchase the remaining 20,000 acres - rugged land that has been only lightly cut and which includes the 3,800-foot-high Lyon Mountain. The conservancy will hold the parcel of land until the state can acquire it as part of the Adirondack forest preserve.

"Having a 104,000-acre tract of intact, contiguous forestland that was privately owned, unprotected and without any public access become available in 2004 is kind of an incredible thing," said Henry G. Tepper, state director of the Nature Conservancy. "It offers an immense conservation opportunity."

[kingof14ers]

"It's tough enough to make a living up here in the winter time," he said, "but when you start chipping away at what can be done here, it's even tougher."

BAWAAAA!! It's tough to make a living if I were to live on the North Pole too. Maybe he should commute to and from Albany to make a living?

[redhawk]

I moved this because it really belongs here rather then in the History/Folklore section

[Kevin]

I agree with Kingofthe14ers, there's no defense for attacking a bill like this. If you're afraid you won't be able to make a living, find another profession or move... but justifying the destruction of natural resources as a means of supporting oneself is absurd IMHO. This is the 21st century, there's plenty of jobs that don't require destroying wilderness, and plenty of places for harvesting what people want to harvest from this particular parcel of wilderness. Geesh...

[Neil]

Read Contested Terrain by P. Terrie. You'll understand where that guy's coming from.

[lumberzac]

Read Contested Terrain by P. Terrie. You'll understand where that guy's coming from.

I second that. A very good read that brings in a lot of insight about what life is like in the park.

Also keep in mind that logging is the second largest type of income to people living within the park (tourism is the first). While over all I think this is a good thing, I still understand where this guy is coming from.

[Ned Kipperson]

I can see it now. The residents of AuSable Forks getting jobs in Albany, or maybe Montreal, it's only a 2:30 commute one way. That's only 5 hours of free time to give up. He could get a rad Jetta with an iPod, and a cell phone and some cool shades!
It's a better alternative. Rather than earning money the way that they have, in their area. I guess if you owned a sawmill, you could go to Albany and buy those plastic wrapped bags of firewood at Stewart's and cut 'em up some more to sell as kindling to tourists with furry white boots.

Domtar is a decent company. I haven't personally seen any clearcuts up there. The land is mostly flat and unremarkable for the weekend warrior in search of crystallized lakes or whatever the press release said. And as far as I know, Lyon Mtn is completely accessible to the hiker. You can even wear tights.
I agree that some of the arguments against state land purchase are lame, but to make all of it wilderness is going to piss a lot of people off. Snowmobiles and skiers can co-exist. ANd to even suggest that someone change their profession at 51 in a small town or move is ridiculous. Most of the Adk economy is service-based. Kind of like if your town was all WalMart employees. The biggest threat to the woods are second home buyers and huge influxes of tourists. Not paper companies who retain their holdings as open space, even if they are being cut. If we don't have industry, we just have a big amusement park.

[Kevin]

If we don't have industry, we just have a big amusement park.

I don't see the harm... it would just move #2 down the list further and strengthen what's already #1 -- tourism.

I'm more of an advocate of environmental regulation. Hiking the dacks I see the damage unregulated industry has caused and I have to stand somewhere on the issue, so I stand with the trees.

Funny, I'm a registered republican. Fortunately I actually use my brain to decide on issues and basically only keep party affiliation for voting in the primaries. If I were 'conservative' in the strictest definition, it would mean I would want regulation (in order to 'conserve' our tradition and resources). Ironically, 'Liberal' Democrats are against industry and for regulation, while 'Conservative' Republicans are against conservation and for big business (and de-regulation). It's all so confusing, and (dare I say) an archaic means of making decisions!

I'm glad Pataki makes his own mind up (because if he were following the republican party line he should be cutting trees down, not planting them).

I certainly feel for those who live in that region and have no other means, but you also need to realize that as much as I want to live up there I can't because there's no jobs for me. Makes sense that wilderness and industry aren't copacetic. If we look at history, we FORCED industry to stop destroying the environment. It wasn't the enlightened millionaire businessman who suddenly said "You know what, we're cutting down too many trees too fast" or "We really need to stop dumping toxins into the atmosphere and water". Such is true with many human affairs -- people need to be ruled to some extent. As much as I'm a advocate for rights and freedoms, I'm not blind to lessons learned from our past. It's a balance. Here, we balance saving a few trees for continuing to allow existing foresting/logging to take place. The article makes it sound like we pulled the plug on all logging. We're just denying them a parcel of land to cut. If they run out of land to cut, then that's a sign you need to move on!

[lumberzac]

I don't see the harm... it would just move #2 down the list further and strengthen what's already #1 -- tourism.

I'm just playing devils advocate here, but have you thought that maybe a lot of these towns don't want tourism to be #1? An economy that is based on tourism is very unstable. There are a lot of things that influence that type of economy. Bad weather, gas prices, and loss of interest, are all things that could keep tourists home. There is also always friction between local and transient populations.

If we look at history, we FORCED industry to stop destroying the environment. It wasn't the enlightened millionaire businessman who suddenly said "You know what, we're cutting down too many trees too fast" or "We really need to stop dumping toxins into the atmosphere and water". Such is true with many human affairs -- people need to be ruled to some extent.

That is true, but it also was happening in a time when the wilderness was thought to be never ending. When all the trees were harvested (clear cut) from one area, industries would just buy another parcel of land to cut. Today, there are no more parcels of land to buy, so lumber and paper companies are practicing selective cutting methods on there own land. These methods are not fool proof, you still will end up with some damage to a forest in the areas where selective logging is practiced, but most of that damage is short term and the forests heal themselves within a few years time.

[oldsmores]

I agree with Kingofthe14ers, there's no defense for attacking a bill like this. If you're afraid you won't be able to make a living, find another profession or move... but justifying the destruction of natural resources as a means of supporting oneself is absurd IMHO. This is the 21st century, there's plenty of jobs that don't require destroying wilderness, and plenty of places for harvesting what people want to harvest from this particular parcel of wilderness. Geesh...

Wow! First let me say that I think this acquisition is a great thing, but these comments are pretty harsh. Having lived in Ray Brook, Saranac Lake, and Malone (very near Lyon Mt.) while working for the NYS Employment Service, I think I can say pretty authoritatively that finding another profession at age 50 in that part of NY is not as easy as it may appear from Albany. I would say the odds are that Mr. Aubin has always been a logger, and chances are his father was one before him. He is most likely also a 6th or 8th generation resident of the area. I'm all for preserving the wilderness, but let's have some empathy for those whose lives are fundamentally affected by this sort of action.
Like it or not, our society uses an awful lot of wood and paper products - It would be great if we never cut down another tree, but it ain't gonna happen in our lifetime...

[Rik]

Maybe this will be oversimplifying but shouldn't it be hard to make a living in the north county? Wouldn't a lot of people live there if it wasn't hard? Isn't that a choice we all make? Live in a city where there is more opportunity but also more people, traffic, polution,... or live in the woods with less opportunity, people, traffic, ... For myself I choose to live where I can work and visit the Adirondacks that I love whenever I can. On another note: Can NY state afford to keep buying land? Seems with all the budget problems this would be difficult.

[oldsmores]

Maybe this will be oversimplifying but shouldn't it be hard to make a living in the north county? Wouldn't a lot of people live there if it wasn't hard? Isn't that a choice we all make? Live in a city where there is more opportunity but also more people, traffic, polution,... or live in the woods with less opportunity, people, traffic, ... For myself I choose to live where I can work and visit the Adirondacks that I love whenever I can. On another note: Can NY state afford to keep buying land? Seems with all the budget problems this would be difficult.

Point taken, and I can relate because one of the reasons I no longer live in the Park is the difficulty of making a living there. Having said that, I had the option of moving out and doing something different by virtue of my situation and education. Many lifelong residents of the north country don't necessarily have the opportunity. And let's not forget that the man quoted in the story was presumably living and working there for a long time when the state came in and changed his circumstances.
Again, I firmly believe that we need to do more to protect wild areas. I was just a little annoyed by the comments that this poor guy should just move or change jobs instead of complaining about the purchase.
On your final point, NYS government is so screwed up. No, the state can't afford to buy more land. My personal opinion is that as heavily taxed as we are, the state should have ample funds. The problem is that a large portion of the state budget goes to pork projects which are handed out to ensure that the same dysfunctional government gets returned to office year after year. In the Rochester area, the state is sinking money into a failed fast ferry service to Toronto and a new soccer stadium. Give me education funding and land acquisitions any day...

[Rik]

I hope my post didn't sound unsympathetic to those with concerns about being able to make a living. That wasn't my intent and I do feel bad for folks that have been working in the park and now find it harder because of changes. With that said I still feel that change is always possible anywhere and none of our livelyhoods(sp?) are guaranteed. I also feel that land conservation is a good way to spend our tax dollars and with the taxes we pay in this state we should be able to acquire land if our $ was not mismanaged.

[redhawk]

Over the years, people in many walks of life from all different areas in many different jobs have had to change or relocate for all sorts of reasons, ranging from no more need of the product, to better technology for manufacturing the product resulting in the need for learning a new skill or finding another occupation.

There is no "guarantee" that your job or your lifestyle for that matter will last forever.

To think that decisions that impact the future or the preservation of the land for the enjoyment of thousands in the future should be influenced by the inconvenience of a number of people in the present is short sighted and is in fact the very reason that there is a need to acquire, preserve and protect the land for the future.

Humankind has proven by it's actions, which are evident everywhere we look that they are incapable of doing things the right way if it affects the bottom line.

What we have today is a result of what we did in the past.

[Neil]

... but justifying the destruction of natural resources as a means of supporting oneself is absurd IMHO.

The very fact that we refer to trees, minerals, coal, etc. as resources means we're planning on using, and in the process, destroying them. The person who goes out there and gets the stuff isn't the one responsable.

Over the years, people in many walks of life from all different areas in many different jobs have had to change or relocate for all sorts of reasons, ranging from no more need of the product, to better technology for manufacturing the product resulting in the need for learning a new skill or finding another occupation.

In the case at hand any individuals whose livlihood is destroyed should be assisted by the govt. in some way be it re-education, money, moving expenses...

I'm just playing devils advocate here, but have you thought that maybe a lot of these towns don't want tourism to be #1

The tourism industry has always been a mixed blessing for the local population. Money brought in from the outside feeds the family but the hordes of tourists, the nation-wide attention and the governement's "meddling" has altered the lanscape and created sets of rules making it even harder to get by.
The local folks have the bad luck of being born and raised in a very unique place. "Other" people think they know what's best for that unique place and create laws without bothering to consult with the locals which must piss 'em off.