Morning Read: APA takes final steps to save Champion hunting camps
Mike Lynch is reporting in the Adirondack Daily Enterprise that the Adirondack Park Agency is close to approving final permit changes that would allow traditional hunting camps to remain on the former Champion timber lands.
The Champion deal was one of the state’s first big easement deals over the last decade, and the plan initially called for hundreds of camps to be evicted. It now appears that the vast majority of clubs will be allowed to remain.
This from the Enterprise:
Canton resident Dan McDonnell, a member of the South Branch Camp in Clare, said the retention of the hunting and fishing camps is important because of the tradition associated with them.
“I think as we look back on this in history, I think it speaks of the tradition and the culture of the Adirondack deer hunting camp and fishing camp,” McDonnell said. “It’s really where outdoor recreation and conservation was founded in the Adirondacks.”
Tags: adirondacks
I don’t care one way or the other since I don’t belong to any elitist hunting camp.
But I am curious to know if any of these camps (even one) is a front for white supremacist organization.
Pete, There are many camps available for lease if you would like to get one. There are no more clubs after this. Currently they are 850 dollars per camp. If you find a few “elitist” friends you should be you could easily lease a camp for about 100 dollars each per year.
Paul,
Why waste money on a leased camp when you can hunt, fish and camp for free on state land?
Wait, I thought the apa hated hunting and real people. So am I not supposed to hate them anymore? This is all so confusinng.
“Why waste money on a leased camp when you can hunt, fish and camp for free on state land?”
True, but you might have to sleep in your car to get an early start if you don’t have a place nearby. Also these folks obviously are not there for the hunting only, if they were they would go where there are deer.
I was thinking that you could go under cover for a hundred bucks and see if there are any “white supremacists” operating there that you are concerned about.
The main point is that if they are “elitists” here as you say, than anyone that enjoys a roof over their head must also be one.
Great idea, Paul, except for one thing. There are too many camps and this would be it would cost too much to play “I spy.”
I think the important message here is that the recreational leases are being acknowledged as an important part of the Adirondack culture and economy. The landowner receives lease payments from the camps, and I’m sure that helps offset the costs. Obviously, forest products is important too, as this land is being actively managed. I applaud the APA for recognizing the economic and social importance of recreational leases! Let’s hope they can convince DEC of the same thing fro the Finch and Follensby lands!
Pete, since all the surrounding land will be open to the public you shouldn’t have much trouble spying from a tent you can set up near each camp! Just take them one at a time!
The APA has not recognized the economic and social importance of recreational leases by reviewing these permit applications? They are simply reviewing a permit from a land owner just like they would for any permit that crosses their desk.
This “camp lease program” is not a continuation of the club culture. These camps can only be leased by individuals, they cannot alone or collectively, be leased by any previous or future hunting clubs.
For better or worse, in this particular case, the owners of the land recognize that they do not want to lose the $220,000 dollars in lease revenue that they generate from the existing leases. This camp lease program (along with the other 13 five acre lease envelopes that they got under the 1999 permit) will allow them to continue to collect (and maybe increase) their lease revenue from the land.
It all boils down to revenue for the landowner. If the lessees have a good experience from it, and the economy of the area benefits than that is a bonus. But let’s not pretend what this is about for the landowner.
Sorry, I just don’t buy the premise that recreational leases are an important part of the Adirondack culture and economy. I have never seen a study that shows leases have the economic impact their supporters claim. As far as culture goes, the Forest Preserve concept, being more than 100 years old, is as much or more a culture of the Adirondacks as a few generations of private hunting clubs. Now the State will pay most of the property taxes and the public is excluded from those lands. Yes, there are benefits – for the property owner and leaseholders. But no recreational benefits for the public, even though we paid for the easements and now the property taxes.
I seem to recall reading that clubs spend enormous amounts in the towns and villages. Also, you can’t read an historic account of the Adirondacks without reading about the clubs.
“Now the State will pay most of the property taxes and the public is excluded from those lands.”
Myown, what are you talking about? All this land will be open for public recreation. The state will also receive an additional 2200 acres of land to add to the Forest Preserve.
Nobody is “excluded” from anything.
Still haven’t seen any objective data on the economic benefits of lease camps other than the unsubstantiated claims of people with a vested interest in keeping them.
Only 2200 of the 114,000 acres will become Forest Preserve. Wow. There will be 220 permanent camps on 1 acre sites. This is just like when semi-permanent private tent platforms were allowed on the Forest Preserve. Sure some of it is open to the public, but all the best camp sites and access are already taken. I doubt the public will have the same policies for motor vehicle access and ATV use as the leaseholders of the 220 camps will. Who wants to hunt and fish in an area with 220 camps and leaseholders already all over the area? I doubt the leaseholders will ever see much in the way of public hunters, hikers or fishermen.
myown, you have no idea what you are talking about. Again this comment has several inaccuracies. Do you know any of the details of this arrangement?
“Only 2200 of the 114,000 acres will become Forest Preserve.
No, this is 2200 acres of easement land that was not slated for the FP that will be added in addition. I think there were about 50,000 acres that were added to the FP. NYS should have bought more land in fee and less in easement if they wanted it. I am sure Champion would have been glad to sell it to them.
“This is just like when semi-permanent private tent platforms were allowed on the Forest Preserve.”
No, this is not Forest Preserve land.
“Sure some of it is open to the public, but all the best camp sites and access are already taken.”
No, this is totally inaccurate, the best camping sites are on the rives and other water bodies within the tract. They have been available to the public since the sale and are still open for public use. This easement will add even more sites for public use. Almost none of these camps sites are in places near the water. All the “good” ones were removed after the land was added to the FP.
“Who wants to hunt and fish in an area with 220 camps and leaseholders already all over the area?”
There is so much land available here, you have no idea what you are talking about.
I am not necessarily for or against this deal, but I think we should at least have an informed discussion.
Paul, interesting you claim to not to be for or against this deal but have no problem distorting what I said. According to the ADE article only 29,000 acres went into the Forest Preserve plus the additional 2,200 not 50,000 as you believe. The easement area is 110,000 acres.
According to the ADE the easement area is not open to the public yet: “Within one year following the completion of the APA permit amendment process, the entire 110,000-acre property will be open to public hunting, except for the 1-acre camp areas, the DEC previously announced.”
Yes, I know the easement areas are not Forest Preserve, duh. The tent platform issue was simply an example of a similar situation where the land was open to the public but private use effectively discouraged it. You try to dismiss my concern over the fact there will be 220 private camps on the easement land by diverting the issue and saying camps have been removed from “good” sites in the smaller area being added to the Forest Preserve. Again duh. I still believe the 220 camps and the advantages leaseholders have will discourage recreational public use over a lot of the easement lands, particularly in the areas “influenced” by the presence of the camps. Time will tell.
“According to the ADE the easement area is not open to the public yet: “Within one year following the completion of the APA permit amendment process, the entire 110,000-acre property will be open to public hunting, except for the 1-acre camp areas, the DEC previously announced.”
myown, since 1999 the easement land has been open for public recreation. Go there right now and look at where the camps are. There is nothing stopping you. You will see with your own eyes that these camps are not in prime spots. If you are worried about it or don’t believe me look at the DEC website, or call the DEC and ask them about the easements. These camps occupy 0.02% of this tract, how on earth can that really discourage public use???
Also, I will take a stand if you like. I am also against this proposal. Personally I think that this does not allow the hunting club culture to continue. It basically fragments the whole area.
I would prefer to see the 13 – five acre development blocks that are already allowed under the 99 easement be the only areas where there are camps. That would allow a more cohesive arrangement and would effect less of the area.
it is what it is, if your not an outdoorsman or woman then you have no conception of the history of the adirondacks,except what you see in the movies (deliverence} for example, etc. my concern will the great police state of ny, continue to harrass, law abiding citizens in the adk park? well thats another topic
Deliverance was in the Adirondacks?
oa, I do wonder about the similarities sometime! We do have some scary characters in the mountains.