Local government takes the lead in the Adirondacks
This week, local government leaders from Hamilton County wrangled a meeting with Department of Environmental Conservation commissioner Peter Grannis.
Their demands were simple: partner with us to find a way to open the Moose River Plains road system in time for this weekend’s holiday tourist traffic.
“This is the budget crunch this year,” said Inlet town supervisor John Frey. “But we also want to be open to talks to be able to help in a long-range situation should the need be there.”
A similar deal was worked out recently to reopen the Caroga Lake campground in the southern Adirondacks, with the town of Caroga picking up a part of the tab.
Meanwhile, activists and Paul Smiths College officials are working to maintain operations at the Visitor Interpretive Center this summer north of Saranac Lake.
Obviously, the inability of the DEC and the Adirondack Park Agency to fund basic operations and stewardship has dealt a blow to the state’s already bruised reputation in the North Country.
And these ambitious efforts by local residents and government leaders raise important questions about where we go from here.
For starters, why didn’t the state take a more pro-active approach, trying to find solutions that could keep these facilities open?
Were they playing politics by threatening to shut down these popular destinations in the Park, in order to get the legislature’s attention?
Or did state officials feel for some reason that working responsibly to shift more management control to towns and counties was a non-starter?
Perhaps most worrisome of all, did the DEC’s dwindling staff simply lack the foresight and planning capacity to develop alternatives to devastating closures?
Another question here is why the environmental groups aren’t playing a more active and visible role in coming up with practical solutions?
If cash-strapped towns and counties can reopen campgrounds and road systems, surely green groups can chip in, perhaps using volunteers to replace some of the the assistant forest rangers who won’t be hired this summer.
Or conducting much-needed trail maintenance, without sending a bill to the state. Or volunteering for a summer to run one of the VICs.
In any case, it’s clear now that local government leaders are the ones pushing for creative partnerships and solutions.
At least one environmental activist, the Open Space Institute’s Joe Martens, has acknowledged that the beefed-up role of towns and counties probably warrants more authority and influence.
“Some of the old assumptions about how the park is going to be managed will have to be re-examined,” Martens said in a recent interview with NCPR.
“We are going to have to rely on the communities themselves more. I think there’s going to have to be more of an emphasis on communities getting involved in issues of management in the Park and maybe more deference to some of the communities in the Park than in the past. Because if the state doesn’t have the resources to do it, somebody has to.”
If Hamilton County finds a way to reopen the Moose River Plains road system, we may already be seeing the first rough draft of a new paradigm for the Adirondack Park coming into focus.
bring back the civilian conservation corps.
Good on you guys in Hamilton County! I made this suggestion just a couple weeks back here and the idea was scoffed at by some. Local control and local funding can work if the return for the local economy is sufficient.
On a related note- I just bought my fishing license so I can take the little ones out. $29.00 for a resident fishing license. That’s $29.00 to drown a worm because there’s no guarantee I’ll even get a nibble. So tell me why, in this budgetary crisis environment, the State does not require a lands use permit for all the people utilizing the State trail system? Seems to me a $29.00 lands use permit would be a fair idea since the costs associated with hikers, kayakers, canoeists, etc. is rising each year. Either have a lands use permit, a hunting, fishing or trapping license or stay off the State lands.
“Perhaps most worrisome of all, did the DEC’s dwindling staff simply lack the foresight and planning capacity to develop alternatives to devastating closures?”
This paragraph should have been in bold and 24 pt. font.
Ditto Brian!
Bret,
That’s a good idea. I’d pay $30 for annual access to state lands. Smaller fees can be made for kids, seniors, and day-trippers. Think of all the revenue they would generate for all the hikers going up Cascade or Marcy…
And exactly how do you plan on enforcing this land access permit? Hire more $100000+ state employees? Why not just charge people for breathing.
I have a suggestion. One model that was not well designed was these easements that the state has used to protect about 1 million acres from development. The concept of using the easement to protect the areas from development is a well proven idea, and has worked all over the country. However the state decided to also allow the public to have access to these areas. This was done without the money or the staff to manage this. The state if opening the area to for public recreation needs to maintain roads, patrol the area, etc. The state should allow the underlying fee owner of this land to (if they chose) post and maintain the areas for private leases. The easement protects the land from development and the owner uses the lease money to maintain the area. This has worked for over a hundred years. This was a clear case of a “lack of foresight and planning”, but it is not too late to make changes to fix this misstep. Environmental groups will have a conniption fit but they do no matter what the state does anyway.
Brian, your suggestion that environmental groups should help out is reasonable, but it is obvious now that their “take no prisoners” approach to adding forest preserve land in the Adirondacks is clearly one of the main contributors to the problem we are now facing. Their is no denying this. It seems like they simply can’t help themselves. In your interview with Joe Marten’s he acknowledged that the sate had purchased more land that it had the money or staff to manage. Then in almost the same breath he says that the state has to find a way to go ahead with the purchase of another 50,000 acres of TNC land and over 100,000 acres of TNC easements. I am not so sure I want someone with this type of twisted logic helping solve a problem that his group partially created. Brian, I herd that interview right didn’t I? He went off about the need for a new paradigm and then went ahead and suggested that we dig the hole deeper.
Bret, would the revenue from the $29 user fee suppliment state funding or replace it?
Brian, if it were up to me it would replace and augment any state funds currently used for trail maintainance, etc. However, in the real world it would probably go to the general fund, just like all the other fees assessed on hunters, trappers, fishermen, ATV and snowmobile, motor boat and jet ski users. We’re told that the funds will go to help with wildlife habitat, docking, etc, but who knows how much actually gets there. Either way, it would add to the revenue and would certainly make for better feeling among outdoorsmen towards the hikers, etc. that have gotten a free ride for decades. It also might make the hikers, canoeists, etc. a little more appreciative of the complaints sportsmen have made about increasing fee’s over the years. My proposal would be that those who’ve already purchased a permit for other purposes (hunting, fishing, etc.) would be exempt from another permit. No sense adding insult to injury.
Bob, do we not have Forest Rangers, En Con Officers, Park Police, Troopers and local police? Most people will abide by the law. Those that don’t, well, like speeding and fishing w/o a license, a certain number will get caught and fined. I see no reason to expect 100% compliance, but neither do I see any reason a whole class of outdoors people should be allowed to use State Lands at no cost while I’m required to purchase a license to hunt and trap certain species on my own farm and certainly to make use of lakes to fish or use a powered vessel. Doesn’t equal treatment demand this? What is the sense of saying a 45 foot sailboat can use State waters for free but an 8 foot punt with an electric motor needs to be registered? Why is it right for me to be required to purchase a hunting license to walk around on State lands carrying a handgun (it would be argued I’m hunting) when I have no intention of pursuing game animals?
This is a fairly old argument. The usual defense is that hikers, canoeists, etc. aren’t “taking” anything from the land. I would argue that based on the condition of the State trail system in the High Peaks for example. And for that matter, if it’s about “taking” then aren’t I due a refund if I don’t catch a fish or ever even get to the woods after buying a license?
Bret, I would prefer that our well compensated law enforcement persons work on real crime rather than whether or not someone walks on a piece of State land or kills one of the States deer or catches one of the States fish. Rather, I would like them to investigate: the sale of untaxed cigs. to nonnatives, illegal immigrants, and lets just say things that are true dangers to our well being.
Well, untaxed cigarettes hurt whom? It’s a money question isn’t it? That’s a true danger? Illegal immigration is also a civil crime, not a crime against a person. One might ask how the illegal alien picking lettuce in California is a danger to you. Meanwhile if we let our fish and game and land use laws go unchecked we’d have no deer, turkey, sturgeon, etc in a short while. State lands would be logged, water quality would drop, etc. Real crime in my estimation involves crimes against persons- rape, robbery, burglary, arson, assault, murder, etc. But our police are charged with enforcing all types of law, so limiting it would be unwise, wouldn’t it?
If you just don’t think hikers, canoeists, etc should have to bu a permit or license, then fine. I can accept that. I don’t expect it to ever happen, I ‘d just like to use this opportunity to point out the possibility and that it’s fundamentally unfair to give one group a free pass while another bears increased costs year after year.
So, troopers driving their own private vehicals down the highway at excessive speeds to their own private functions getting a “free pass”is unfair. yeah right that’s what she said. Face it Bret; we live in a police state. They do what they want, when they want to, who they want. Sound jealous do I. Not at all I know stay on my land and the Po-po might leave me alone.
“Were they playing politics by threatening to shut down these popular destinations in the Park, in order to get the legislature’s attention?”
YES!
I proposed a “hiking license” to offset trail maintenance years ago only to be shouted down over the idea. I’d happily pay the fee. Meantime I’m in my 18th year of volunteering as a lean-to maintainer.
Bob, what does that have to do with the subject at hand? I agree that nothing irks me more than seeing a police officer flaunting the law, but that’s about 7 degrees away from this discussion. If you want to talk about that stuff, fine, but I was trying to point out the lack of fair play associated with the subject at hand.
Just to be clear- in my perfect world the license fee’s would all be about $2-5.00, just enough to cover the administration and costs. The idea of having to have a license to use taxpayer lands goes against everything in me, but since that’s not going to change I offer this suggestion partially to illustrate the absurdity of the present system.
Bret, nothing on having law enforcement officials chasing down real crime? Instead of you don’t have a stamp, permit, etc etc so I’m ticketing you and earning my $100000+? Do you want law enforcement working on real crime or spending the majority of their day nickel and diming to generate revenue?
Bob, do you want to talk about law enforcement or do you want to stay on the subject at hand? For that matter this is just the area that Forest Rangers, EnCon Police and Park Police are supposed to be taking care of.
If you want to discuss proper application of our Troopers and Deputies to “real crime” that’s fine by me. I have some rather strong opinions in that area. But your original question was how would we enforce a land use permit? Just like any other outdoor recreation requiring a license, registration or permit. No need of new people for that.
If you just want to complain about the wages of the Troopers then I would have to refer you to the arbitrator the State hired back when binding arbitration discussions were being held. That was his ruling.
BTW Bob, I’m still curious on your defining illegal immigration and untaxed tobacco as “true dangers”. I’m not in favor of either, but I am curious on why they fit the definition of “real crime” in your book.
Let me be clear; I do not want $1000000+ lawenforcement officers hunting down evil people who do not have the right color sticker on their windsheild, or those killers that are stepping on State land, or those ruthless people who are murdering the States deer. instead I want them to searchout people with briefcases who are bilking people out of money and are unfetered by regulation unenforced. I want computer crime stopped, I want fewer road patrols and more white color crime investigated. I want law enforcement to earn their compesation and their retirements.
Maybe that wasn’t clear. All I’m saying is follow the money and you will find the real crime.
Well first off Bob, no cop I ever heard of in NYS makes $1,000,000.00+ a year. I assume you meant $100K. You want fewer road patrols while everyone else is screaming for more road patrols, you want white color crime investigated while local people want drugs, rape and assaults stopped, you want a lot of work done on Federal level crime (SEC type stuff) by local cops. You want computer crime (???) stopped by local cops who are going to handle interstate crimes…..how?
While I’d like to see all that done too, and more, you have to remember that for every complaint you have there are other people shouting just as loudly for work to be done on the stuff you think of as “non-crimes”, quoting the same salary argument and who feel just as passionately about it. I believe you said in another blog post that the police have to enforce the laws on everyone, so my suggestion would be to realize that consistency requires you support the same level of enforcement across the board.
BTW- the LEO I’m familiar with contribute to their retirement, so they earned it. And while I would agree that many times your average police officer is over paid, there are other times where no amount of money is just compensation for what they do. It might be claimed it averages out over the long run.