![]() |
Rules | Membership | Donations and Online Store | Adkhighpeaks Foundation | ADKhighpeaks Forums | ADKhighpeaks Wiki | Disclaimer |
|
View Poll Results: Do you support a snowshoe regulation for all units? | |||
Yes |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
26 | 41.27% |
No |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
37 | 58.73% |
Voters: 63. You may not vote on this poll |
![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
![]() |
#21 | |
**BANNED**
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 1,154
|
Quote:
And I kind of agree, the law really only needs to be there when education/training doesn't work. But how many people have taken LNT training? I haven't, but I know the principles, but mostly because that's the way we did it before I ever even heard of LNT. I would have worn snowshoes back when I started winter camping if I knew better. Back then I thought snowshoes looked like tennis rackets and were only used by Canadians in the great white north. So obviously something is wrong if I knew enough to pack my garbage in and out and didn't know enough to use the snowshoes. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#22 | |
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,931
|
Quote:
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
Moving along
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,681
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#24 |
Make Every Trip An Expedition!
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: West Oneonta, NY
Posts: 3
|
I thought about this yesterday as I went about my business- are there any statistics anywhere for snowshoe/ski/ vs. bare-boot usage in the wintertime in the whole Park?
In the EHP- what is the adherance rate? And what would be a good adherance rate- like 80% compliance or so? (Even 60%?) I still think if you hit them with education, interesting signage, perhaps a "snowshoe awareness campaign", designated "snowshoe trails", and perhaps even "snowshoe days", it might sink in. Also, hit them when they are young- I introduced my nephew to snowshoes when he was 5 years old- its been 3 seasons now, and he now has his own pair, and thinks they are the coolest thing for the wintertime. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#25 | ||
**BANNED**
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 1,154
|
Quote:
It is much easier to instruct someone to wear snowshoes than to try to catch the postholer. I'm pretty sure the people who proposed this rule in the first place were intending to stop postholing and this was best way they could figure out how to. Like anything, it isn't perfect. You may get people postholing that don't get caught and people barebooting and not causing any problems that get reprimanded. Same could be said for the seatbelt law. People die or are injured wearing a seatbelt and some people walk away unscathed not wearing one. Quote:
The argument could be made that the only reason one would oppose it being a law is that they intend to disobey it. The same argument is made against people who support legalization of drugs. Why would they want that unless they wanted to do drugs themselves? That situation isn't as simple, and we aren't talking about people being thrown in jail for years, we are talking about a typical DEC approach which is education, warning, and then if necessary, punishment. If one thinks it may lead to other regulations such as fire bans, bear cannisters, etc like in the EHP then I can't see that as a bad thing either. If the area is impacted then fire bans make sense. Or if people can't make fires responsibly. Bear cannister regulations are obvious - it is more about the bear than your 'freedoms'. I think the bear has every right to steal your food if you are on it's turf. But in order to keep the peace, we must protect the bear from itself. As far as numbers I have no idea. But I will put this point up. It only takes one to ruin the trail. And once it is, it may freeze over and become a safety hazzard. Many snowshoers and skiers have been injured from other peoples postholes. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#26 |
Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,986
|
Reference? If you please.
__________________
"A culture is no better than its woods." W.H. Auden |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#27 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,177
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#28 |
**BANNED**
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 1,154
|
Go look at the other argument on the HP forum. People are posting about them there.
I agree with YC though - I can ski through them... they suck, but it is possible. You down with OPP*? Yeah you know me! ![]() *Other People's Postholes Last edited by l'oiseau; 03-05-2014 at 11:31 AM.. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#29 |
**BANNED**
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 1,154
|
BTW I am not planning on going to Albany and lobbying for a change. I think if a change was seen as necessary it would have been implemented already. I know that seems like a passive stance but I'm more interested in the rest of the Adirondacks where such regulations don't exist than where they do.
Maybe the opposition to the rule in the EHP has caused those who pushed for it to think twice. If it were to be a thing, and something the public could vote on, I would be for it. But I wouldn't push for it. Interesting that so far the poll is split 50/50 and has wavered there the whole time. I don't really believe these polls too much because the sample is not truly random. I am however interested in why someone would be opposed to such a rule, other than the fact that they wish to do what they want when they are on a public trail. As for a bushwhack, I don't think it matters, if it bothers you, take another whack. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#30 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,177
|
Well rules need enforcing. Enforcing costs money. Otherwise rules mean nothing.. Its kind of like telling your toddler bedtime is 7 and letting them stay up as late as they want.
It would be so much cheaper to just use common sense. And I wonder after finding the postholes that seemed to go down three feet, if the postholer ever wants to repeat the experience. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#31 |
Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 594
|
A friend and I were snowshoeing on a trail yesterday that had been trashed by a postholer. We were risking a turned (or worse) ankle every time the side of the snowshoe dropped into a hole. In a lot of places we walked to the side of the path to avoid this. Imagine, breaking new trail was safer. The worst part was I was with a group of 4 a couple weeks ago, after the big storm, that helped break out this trail. There were 3 guys in front of us and then us. By the end of the day, there was a nice snowshoe route set down. Now it's a mess. As yellowcanoe said, I don't understand why a postholer would keep going. It had to be a miserable experience.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#32 |
**BANNED**
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 1,154
|
Ahh common sense. The answer for everything... I hate that term because apparently what one person thinks is common sense is not actually all that common or must not make sense to another. If it was then there would be no issues.
Call me a trouble maker, I'm just calling it as I see it. I've still yet to see a good reason why a law like this shouldn't exist. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#33 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,177
|
Because it needs teeth to bite.
how much discussion does this really need? |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#34 |
**BANNED**
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 1,154
|
Well say a paroling ranger caught one person a year, and signage and information about the law in circulation educated another few people, etc... there may not be many teeth, but right now there isn't anything anyone can do except look like an a$$hole for telling someone who is barebooting a trail to get off or get some skis or snowshoes.
Somehow what happens in the EHP seems to deter most of it. If not it would look like a local park, I guarantee it. The Marcy dam trail would look like a pack of horse galloped down it every weekend. I just don't necessarily see the other side. Some people who don't support the current rule want some kind of rule, but they want it reformed. I never specified what the rule should be, just asked if there should be one. Now I am asking why you wouldn't support it. Some people think I am provoking them. OK yeah. Stand up for what you believe in for once. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#35 | |
**BANNED**
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 1,154
|
Quote:
I also think it is advertised enough that if you head to that area, you'd consider bringing some snowshoes. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#36 |
Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maine
Posts: 2,177
|
Sorry but this thread has become name calling garbage. I am out of the forum. Yes Bird you are just looking for provocation.
I have better things to do. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#37 | |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Gloversville, NY
Posts: 1,243
|
Quote:
x3 |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#38 |
Member
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: SOUTHWESTERN NY
Posts: 23
|
Maybe they should just ban snow shoes and ski's and the problem would be solved.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#39 |
OMG they killed Kenny!
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Rochester
Posts: 141
|
In an attempt to post w/o stirring up drama, I was climbing last Sunday with the fiancee. We found that microspikes were the most reasonable ans safest foot traction devices for the conditions at the time.
We saw this older guy wearing snowshoes struggling to climb up some steeper rocky parts to the point where it was starting to get dangerous. Meanwhile everyone else in those famous red microspikes kept climbing up through the rocks safely like it was nothing. I think mandating wearing of them is stupid and dangerous. It doesn't seem like there's issues there though. I've only seen one thread on here where someone got a ticket for not wearing snowshoes even though they had them in their possession and I think he won in court (or it got thrown out). However I do agree with mandating having them in you possession as you never know when the weather will get wild. And again I still think that's a little broad, but it will save some idiots life some day. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#40 |
Mobster
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,257
|
Totally agree with you trent. There is a reason people don't use snowshoes to climb walls of ice.
But I disagree that the law mandating skis or snowshoes is stupid. If you think about it from a skiing POV it becomes more clear. Keep your skis on except where it becomes dangerous. If it is, put on crampons or skins. No one would be silly enough to climb steep rocky sections with skis on their feet, even with skins. Yet the law makes perfect sense except in those situations. And most skiers don't carry snowshoes. So maybe if you are a hiker it seems ridiculous and you'll try to climb walls of ice with and technical sections with big clunky pieces of plastic strapped to your feet. Typically the people that are issued tickets that I have heard of are walking on flat trails with bare boots or traction aids. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
DISCLAIMER: Use of these forums, and information found herein, is at your own risk. Use of this site by members and non-members alike is only granted by the adkhighpeak.com administration provided the terms and conditions found in the FULL DISCLAIMER have been read. Continued use of this site implies that you have read, understood and agree to the terms and conditions of this site. Any questions can be directed to the Administrator of this site. |