In debate over Adirondack conservation, green groups lose ground
When I came to the Adirondack Park 11 years ago, my first impression was of a lop-sided battle over conservation.
Pro-development advocates were disorganized, poorly funded, and often — let’s be frank — flaky as pie crust.
Green groups, meanwhile, were organized and well-funded, with a coordinated message and direct ties to Governor George Pataki.
Pataki, a Republican, adopted their mission to expand the Park’s forest preserve, proudly trumpeting his successes during his final state of the state address.
When Eliot Spitzer was elected governor, environmentalists had every reason to expect their influence to grow.
Spitzer had a long track record of using state law and litigation to pursue polluters.
He appointed Peter Bauer, one of the most controversial green leaders in the Park, to serve on one of his transition committees.
He also chose Pete Grannis, a lawmaker with a long track record of environmental activism, to head the Department of Environmental Conservation.
But four years later, the tide has shifted dramatically.
Spitzer was ousted over a sex scandal and his successor, David Paterson, has showed little interest in green issues.
Speaking privately, environmentalists say Democrats in the legislature also have little passion for spending money on land conservation.
The recession has also hurt green groups directly, forcing two long-standing organizations — the Residents Committee and the Association for the Protection of the Adirondacks — to merge.
The resulting advocacy group, Protect the Adirondacks, is still struggling to reorganize.
Bauer, though still influential in the Lake George region, has taken a much quieter role.
Meanwhile, groups opposing the environmental agenda have gotten smarter, louder, and better at pushing their message.
The Adirondack Association of Towns and Villages produced a highly influential report — the APRAP study — that showed serious threats to local communities.
The Local Government Review Board, headed by Fred Monroe, hired a PR firm to help spread the message that land purchases are part of the problem.
The Board’s members and allies have pelted green groups and state environment officials with a series of lawsuits, some of them successful.
Monroe also managed to prompt the state Attorney General’s office to investigate a 2008 conservation land deal in Clinton County.
Working with state Senator Betty Little, pro-development advocates have blocked the appointment of environmentalist and businessman Peter Hornbeck to the APA board.
They’ve also steadily built support for an open-ended moratorium on new land purchases in the Park.
Of course, environmentalists aren’t out of the game. Three members of the APA board are former members of the Adirondack Council board.
That’s a lot of influence.
And the Adirondack Nature Conservancy is still fighting to close a land deal on the former Finch Pruyn timber lands that would add roughly 60,000 acres to the forest preserve.
They also hope to convince the state to purchase Follensby Pond, near Tupper Lake.
But as those battles go forward, the debate appears far less one-sided.
There are now two powerful, articulate and passionate factions in the Adirondacks, engaged in a healthy and spirited fight over the Park’s future.
Having grown up within the Blue Line and having decided to leave for a less restrictive area after Gov. Cuomos "21st Century Bond Act" surfaced and appeared to be the wave of the future, I'm rather pleased to see a real opposition to the never ending State land acquisitions and regulations. Regardless of how you view State land purchases, there are basic rights a landowner should be assured of. Even outside the park it's not a sure thing anymore. This is a national issue, international actually since parts of Ontario are going through he same type of thing. I suppose it's what you get when the vast majority of people live in urban areas and have no concept of private property and land use rights. The debate within the park is just a reflection of those broader issues.
Yeah. Powerful, articulate, passionate… and in the case of Fred Monroe, at least, deceptive and dishonest.I've long felt that having two strong, empowered sides to an issue is how the best compromises and solutions are achieved. However, this assumes that both sides are equally committed to respectful, honest solutions and ultimately what is best… as opposed to caring only about "being right" or playing a PR game.This latest bit concerning Monroe and the land deal, where he basically stirred up drama without knowing the facts (or caring about them), was the straw that finally broke my opinion of him. He seems a lot more interested in playing the media and stirring up controversy than he does in achieving a balance of conservation and community within the park.IMO, the pro-development side would be much better served by someone more committed to the process of working out solutions… just being influential and loud isn't the end game.
"the pro-development side would be much better served by someone more committed to the process of working out solutions… just being influential and loud isn't the end game." This may be true. I would also suggest that folks who think that these land deals are maybe not the best way to go should have office space and staff located at the DEC just like The Nature Conservancy does now. Seems fair?
Ah, the sting of yet another "ANONYMOUS" poster.
I look forward to a serious debate on the actual pros and cons of the state adding additional land to the Forest Preserve. Is additional land in the FP still necessary? If so, why? Is it for environmental protection purposes? Can the same protection be provided through an alternative approach? What are the actual threats to the property if not placed in the FP? What are the true fiscal implications on local communities and the Park as a whole? Will these areas provide additional needed recreational assets to residents and visitors? I know that the State does evaluate the majority of this issues and more when considering an acquisition. However, a broader public discussion should be held to guide a policy of additional acquisitions in hopes of establishing a more transparent process. If additional protection is necessary then additional acquisitions should happen. If additional protection is not necessary, then alternative means should be considered.
Paul,TNC staff at DEC in Albany work for the Natural Heritage Program, a cooperative program that works in many states and not involved in land acquisition.
Is additional land in the FP still necessary? Was it ever a neccessity.Is it for environmental protection purposes? YesCan the same protection be provided through an alternative approach? Yes, conservation easements is one, Private land regulation is another. Neither are popular with fred monroe and gangWhat are the actual threats to the property if not placed in the FP?Fragmentation is one of the most likely result since big land owners seem to no longer be interested in owning large tracts of land in NY.What are the true fiscal implications on local communities and the Park as a whole? Good question, likely both good and bad, but what the net impact probably depends on the area: how communities promote forest preserve, what recreation opportunities are in the area, etc.Will these areas provide additional needed recreational assets to residents and visitors?In the case of follensby pond in TL, a large pond with a a lot of history would be great asset for residents and tourists. Is it needed? Thats in the eye of the beholder.
While my questions were intended to be rhetorical, your responses demonstrate that there are likely to be as many opinions on the issues as there are people interested. Debating is healthy. We just need to make sure we ask the correct questions and deal with facts.
“not involved in land acquisition”Spends_Less_Time_on_the_Web_Than_Paul, I beg to differ. From the DEC/TNC NY Natural Heritage program website:“Serve as a resource to better inform land use decisions, natural resource management, biodiversity conservation, and environmental assessment.”You think that the DEC is not utilizing their services in connection with land use decisions? If they have not advised the DEC on why it might be a good idea to preserve a particular tract of Adirondack land I would be shocked. Let’s take a look at a few quotes from the most recent NHP newsletter if you are still not convinced.“These recommendations [from the NHP (my addition)] are a critical part of the State Park Master Plan process, allowing Heritage an opportunity to inform land management within the state park system.”“Our information needs to be easily understood, accessed, and used by natural resource managers and conservation practitioners both within and beyond New York. To do this, we work side-by-side, regularly exchanging information and ideas with partners at the DEC central office where most of our staff are housed”Basically you have 25 folks at the DEC lobbying from inside for land protection.
Paul,Aren't the lands the DEC buys already in the Open Space Plan?How do you think this "Lobbying" affects the open space plan?
I think the term Environmentalist is a misnomer for the land acquisition crowd. The last thing they care about is the environment. Just look at DEC's reports on their unit management plans. The reports consistently disclose all kinds of environmental problems.The lands, forests, and streams were in much better hands under private stewardship.If the land acquisition crowd really were environmentalists, they would push for optimal stewardship, rather than state ownership.
The thing about Forest Preserve is it's permanent. Why can't anyone come up with a good compromise solution for shared use? We need to have public access, we need forest products, we need to protect sensitive areas, and we need to keep the recreational clubs in business.What does it have to be all or nothing? Let's put together a better plan.
The Natural Heritage Program definitely plays a role in surveying biological resources on lands slated for acquisition, a process that contributes to decision-making about which parcels are purchased for the forest preserve, which parcels are protected by easements, and which are re-sold in their entirety. They don't actually make decisions, but their research and field work is often a part of open space preservation efforts in the Adirondacks.–Brian, NCPR
I'm for the forest preserve, but I think we've probably acquired enough land or are at least close to doing so. In towns like Arietta, over 90% of the land is state owned. And half of the private land is classified as resource management, where you need over 40 acres of land to build a house. This essentially leaves all except a miniscule part of the town off limits to development. As a result, these sparsely populated towns are unable to achieve any sort of economies of scale with regard to school districts and local government. How are we going to have sustainable communities with no development? Or is the whole point not to have sustainable communities?
I think we have enough forest preserve but it would be a shame to pass up adding unique areas to the park. Our elected officals should make a law with a cap for acreage of state land, if the state buys more, they have to sell off other land. They sould still be able to buy land with lakes and ponds and peaks, but not have as much forest that really isn't unique.
Anon 4:42- Kindly stop interjecting common sense into a political discussion. (I'm with ya 100%!)