Thread: Good or bad?
View Single Post
Old 06-17-2019, 10:11 PM   #3
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,869
TLDR (except for glancing into a few paragraphs). But in general, I agree with DS's careful analysis.

But...I think simpler thinking is in order. Preservation and Recreational Use are not really as compatible as people would like to think. We see this in the Adirondacks every day. The state is trying to promote the Adirondacks as a tourist attraction, but also trying to manage it as a "wilderness" where almost no one ever goes. And plainly, this is not working. In fact, most of what the state is doing is a complete failure. Even state employees like Rangers are taking the risk to say that now; it's that obvious.

So, how to develop a policy? My thought has long been that we should pattern on the federal model. The National Parks are focused on preservation; the National Forests are focused on recreation and use. So I think the current changes make sense. There should be areas designated "true wilderness - no one goes there" and there should be areas managed for use.

In the past, I have (only half jokingly) suggested that the Boreas Ponds tract should be a 'true wilderness." This was in response to all the hypocritical green shirts screaming for a "wilderness, but I can still pursue MY chosen game." I still believe there is a place for true wilderness in the Adirondacks. There are large areas with very little use that could be closed altogether to human traffic. In return, recognize the areas that get lots of human traffic, and MANAGE those areas to support that, instead of the pathetic, conflicted, politically driven mismanagement that we see today.
TCD is offline   Reply With Quote