Adirondack Forum  
Rules Membership Donations and Online Store Adkhighpeaks Foundation ADKhighpeaks Forums ADKhighpeaks Wiki Disclaimer

Go Back   Adirondack Forum > The Adirondack Forum > Hiking in the Adirondacks
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 01-30-2021, 09:32 PM   #1
Bagadeez04
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 99
Round Pond Siamese Ponds WA

Anyone been to this pond? It sits next to Kings Flow in SPWA. Wondering if there are any camping opportunities there in winter?

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Bagadeez04 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-02-2021, 09:48 PM   #2
Justin
Moving along
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bagadeez04 View Post
Anyone been to this pond? It sits next to Kings Flow in SPWA. Wondering if there are any camping opportunities there in winter?

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Iíve yet to visit Round Pond but I do know the trail from the Kings Flow dam is technically only open to guests staying at the Cabins At Chimney Mountain, which I believe is currently not taking any reservations and the property is up for sale, so Iím not sure about that current status. However, Iím pretty sure the general public can access Round Pond from the Crotched Pond entry point a little further north on Big Brook Road.
Justin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2021, 12:16 PM   #3
dacipkowski
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Austerlitz, NY
Posts: 44
A nice pond. I don't remember seeing any official or unofficial sites, though. The trail between Round Pond and Kings Flow was hard to find and follow, but the trail west of the pond was pretty well established.
dacipkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2021, 07:25 PM   #4
Crash
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 133
I was looking through a sportsman's book and spotted this map, and then remembered this thread. This book seems to have many old non-designated campsites listed. So I would not expect that all of these currently exist. And I would expect that if any do, they are not legal.
PXL_20210224_231031248_Crp.jpg
Crash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2021, 08:58 PM   #5
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,476
I bet those sites are long since brushed in. When was that book published?
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2021, 09:10 AM   #6
DSettahr
ɹǝqɯǝɯ
 
DSettahr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,224
That's the sportman's atlas? It was published within the last decade I think, but it's known for being rife with errors. Many of the campsites shown are not legal (and some just plain don't seem to exist). And it even gets some of the trails wildly incorrect also.
DSettahr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2021, 09:28 AM   #7
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,476
I was wondering if it might have been published back in the wild west days before UMPs existed.
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2021, 11:58 AM   #8
Crash
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 133
It's official title is Eastern New York All-outdoors Atlas & Field Guide - but I can see, based on the cover, how it could be just referred to as "The Sportsman's Atlas".

It is dated as 2012. For example, Little Tupper Lake campsites appear to be all there, but not nearby Round Lake's. And the public land around Round Lake is listed as in the Sargent Ponds WF rather than the Round Lake Wilderness.

And I agree with DSettahr that many campsite it shows are illegal and/or dated. For example, it still shows a gazillion campsites around Horseshoe Lake.
Crash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2021, 01:07 PM   #9
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,476
I don't want to drift this thread too much but I'm not sure that some of the "illegal" campsites are legal and the DEC doesn't waste resource marking them, or the markers have been removed by people who wish to keep the ambiguity. This probably has little to do with that book, but I really do wonder about it based on some things I've seen, for example:

Fawn Lake in Jessup River WF.

From current DEC website: "Designated tent sites are located at Fawn Lake (12)"

I've been there, and I can't remember a single disc at any of those sites. They were obvious to find though. And they may be marked now, but at one time I'm sure they weren't.

As for a place like Horseshoe, that's easy to patrol - if there's no disc or it says "Do NOT camp here", you're likely to be caught and fined. I've had rangers stop in on me at many roadside sites, and particularly ones where there were areas of "do not camp" and "camp here" clearly marked. I'm sure I would have been asked to move or fined if I hadn't been in the right spot.

I'm not condoning illegal camping, never have. But sometimes I wonder if the DEC really cares much about certain areas.
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2021, 03:53 PM   #10
DSettahr
ɹǝqɯǝɯ
 
DSettahr's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,224
Yeah, it's a pain in the butt trying to figure out where designated tent sites are (or aren't) located across much of the ADKs. Even the "official" source (the DECInfo interactive mapper) is inaccurate with the information shown for quite a few areas. For example, not a single one of the numerous designated tent sites at Marcy Dam (all of which have "Camp Here" discs) is shown.

It's an objective, unarguable fact that many of the sites shown on the DECInfo site are missing "Camp Here" discs, and that there are many sites out there in existence with "Camp Here" discs that are not shown on the DECInfo site.

I really like the 150 foot rule system in general- I believe that it provides a really good reasonable "middle ground" with regards to balancing resource protection with recreational use. It doesn't outright prohibit camping in sensitive areas, but it does give the managing agency a reasonable level of control over how and where it occurs in those areas. But the implementation of this system can be (and should be) better, especially with regards to making it easier to figure out before a trip where the danged sites actually are (the current system doesn't often really lend itself well to "Plan Ahead and Prepare").
DSettahr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2021, 04:06 PM   #11
montcalm
Mobster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 1,476
Yeah I think weíve been over this before but it seems to me new sites that the dec are marking even follow the 150í rule. I noticed this a few years back in St Regis CA and that a number of open sites had been heavily marked for no camping or even day use (so as to revegetate). I didnít mind the new sites but really not as nice as camping right on the water, so I can see the fuss.

Issue is when you do go to a place where there look to be obvious (usually well established) water sites and there is no disc. Do you whack around in the woods and hope you find a clear, semi-flat area or take the risk. Most people out of ignorance take the risk. Some people take the risk if there isnít a ďno campingĒ disc. Some donít care either way.

Not sure the answer there but thereís probably a lot of places (I know a few) where there are ambiguous but otherwise illegal sites that maybe get used by a handful of people because they are remote and/or off trail. Does this represent an issue? I think itís up to the user to use their best judgement on impact and accept the penalty if caught. But again I can think of many no Ranger is ever going to patrol unless called to.
montcalm is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

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.