Blake via Auable Lake Ski

[WalksWithBlackflies]

I wanna climb Blake via the Carry Trail... does anyone know if the Lower Ausable Lake is skiiable yet?

 

[Nonlegit]

I think I was there yesterday...and I saw people skiing around the Ausable Lake. There was a little bit of twigs and whatnot on the road around the lake though, but definately skiiable. And i do believe it had been groomed also.

 

[Skyclimber]

Sorry but I called the Ausable Club a couple weeks ago for a friend of mine who also wanted to do this hike, but the Lake and Carry are off limits, to everyone who is NOT a member.

 

[NYBRAD]

That's funny, I do this hike every winter. Never had a problem. And I would think the lake is skiable, although I haven't been back there yet. Be careful near the outlet though.

 

[Skyclimber]

Also at the time I called, the Lakes weren't safe yet.

 

[arm]

there was a sign posted near the AMR gate a week ago:

 

[Peakbagr]

During another thread on this topic a few weeks back, it was suggested that it probably was NOT a good idea to call the Ausable Club to ask if you can ski the lakes.
Lots of people ski them all winter long, and up to now, the Ausable Club hasn't made an issue of it. Once put on the spot, they are compelled to take an official postion, which will be "no". The next thing you could see, is the maintainance staff start to enforce it, instead of winking at it like they've done for decades.
The internet is a great medium, but instant communication can cause consequences that affect everyone.

This is one of the reasons why the trip reports posted here and on the 46er listserv for some ADK100 peaks that cross private land have dried up. Some of these involve lots of "human engineering" to obtain permission. Someone reads about it here, wants to do it themselves and before you know it, the landowner is getting email, phone calls, voicemail and then tells everyone its now closed.
If you want to ski the lake, do it, but be a bit unobtrusive.

To answer one of the original questions, I'd be careful about the ice. 2-3" of SOLID ice will support a skier. 5" of SOLID ice will support a group. Moving water, inlets or outlets underneath the ice undermine the ice and whats 8" on most of a lake can suddenly go to 1" where there is a stream coming in or going out. Thats why cars of ice fisherman on Lake George or Schroon go thru the ice in the dead of winter.

 

[Dennis C.]

You express a lot of lot of common sense Peakbagr. The logic of "leaving the sleeping dog alone" is the best course to take. Some winters back we just skied in and across the lake ice and climbed Blake via the Carry Trail .... no problem!

 

[Skyclimber]

The only problem with "sneaking" in on AMR Property to do the Lakes and Carry is spoiling it for everyone else.
Maybe they are "watching," where we can't see for who knows they may be lurking around the corner counting heads and when they've seen to many disrespectful hikers trespassing, then they will clam down harder on us.
We used to have the privilege to ride the bus, but that was taken away by a loud mouth hiker, to where it is now limited to just members.
We also used to be able to park at the Round Mountain trail head, but for some reason that was taken away as well, leaving us to park way at the end of the road, adding over a mile round trip, when climbing in this area.
We need to leave well enough alone.
This area is a privilege, it's not State Owned, only parts of it, so we need to respect their rules, so that future generations are able to enjoy the beauty of the mountains that surround that area as much as we all do.

 

[Doc McPeak]

We were talking with Bill the gate keeper yesterday and the Lake's have some sketchy areas on them this winter. He was worried about some of the conditions down on the Upper Lake channels and recommended staying off them. Take that how you want to. I agree with Peakbagr (and well stated!) about doing it quietly, but also take Skyclimber's approach and would publicly declare it off limits.

 

[Grumpy]

Respect for privilege . . .

Look, it clearly appears that the "rules" for public use of AMR land say "no" to skiing on the lake or using the Carry Trail. Evidently these are not new rules, but old rules that haven't been enforced or much at issue in the past.

For whatever reason, the AMR has decided to remind guests on AMR property of the rules now, and has indicated an intent to enforce them. Let's not blame the internet for that. Let's put the onus where it belongs, which is on the shoulders of those who have glibly violated the rules in the past, thereby rudely abusing the privilege they have to cross AMR property in the first place. AMR merely has decided to assert its rights as the landowner.

To condone or encourage even "discreet" violation of the AMR rules here is indiscreet to the max, and just plain wrong. Violation of easement terms on AMR or other private land is a violation of trust, and inevitably makes it more and more difficult to obtain and maintain easements for public access in the future.

G.

 

[Peakbagr]

My post was not to encourage "sneaking", but to acknowledge that the AMR had chosen to ignore skiiers for decades. No one denies that they have been aware of us as the caretakers wave "HI" on their snowmobiles as they zoom by to check on the boathouse and camps on the Upper Lake, and many outing clubs have advertised ski tours to and out across the Lake.
When you ask permission for something winked at, its a pretty good guess that the official answer will be "NO". Its the same in business, municipalities, and elsewhere in life. There are lots of little things organizations let slide because its nots an issue until its made an issue.

 

[Grumpy]

Rules still is rules . . .

. . . When you ask permission for something winked at, its a pretty good guess that the official answer will be "NO". Its the same in business, municipalities, and elsewhere in life. There are lots of little things organizations let slide because its nots an issue until its made an issue.

I know there's an old saying about how it is easier to get forgiveness than it is to get permission. But that doesn't make it right to ignore the rules, and never has. Perhaps I was brought up in a represssive environment, cruelly taught that the measure of my character is how I behave when nobody's looking.

G.

 

[Peakbagr]

And thats how I was brought up. A little closer examination of my post will reveal that all of us who have availed ourselves of this "courtesy" are aware
that we've known they are watching.

 

[JimB]

My 2 cents, last year we attempted to ski out the lake road twice to do Blake and found poor snow conditions. This year we had planned for the week of January 10th to do Blake via the lake and almost finish our 46 . When the question came up here and the discussion continued I was disappointed and shared PB's thoughts. Monday we arrived at the gate, read the brand new signs, and skiied out to the lake to climb Sawteeth. The lake is bare of snow and a strong wind howled down it. We summited Sawteeth, skiied back out and saved Blake for the next day. Not wanting to deliberatley break any rules we went over Colvin to Blake and then back over Colvin to the parking lot. It is one tough day trip essentially climbing 3 4,000 footers in one day. At the junction to the Carry trail there is no sign of anyone using it and it was mighty tempting after looking up at Colvin . I agree with Peakbagr .

 

[Doc McPeak]

... the "rules" for public use of AMR land say "no" to skiing on the lake or using the Carry Trail...G.

Actually, the Carry Trail is a legal trail, and in fact is the trail that joins the two lakes. The "Carry Trail", as we all call it (the Lake to Blake/Colvin col trail) is also legal, but can only be legally accessed via Colvin, or via the real Carry trail, which can only be legally reached via the southernmost trail off Sawteeth, or via the Sno-bird or Bartlett Ridge trails. This past summer I legally used all those trails on a backpack over Marcy and Haystack, down Sno-bird, along the Carry, and up the Lake to Blake trail... which I wouldn't advise...

 

[Grumpy]

Thanks Doc . . .

I stand corrected on the Carry Trail, but the notices that appear in a photo posted above in this thread by Arm make it clear that skiing and walking across the frozen lakes is not permitted.

G.

 

[Dennis C.]

The rules have changed .... it's no longer permitted to cross the lake on AMR property .... fine. It's a fact that when I did it 15 years ago, it was permitted. Hikers today will just have to go in along the routes as described by JimB. And as for "spoiling it for everyone else" (Skyclimber2971w) ..... climbers who use environmentally sensitive "leave no trace" tactical maneuvers while climbing don't fall under this category.

 

[Skyclimber]

The rules have changed .... it's no longer permitted to cross the lake on AMR property .... fine. It's a fact that when I did it 15 years ago, it was permitted. Hikers today will just have to go in along the routes as described by JimB. And as for "spoiling it for everyone else" (Skyclimber2971w) ..... climbers who use environmentally sensitive "leave no trace" tactical maneuvers while climbing don't fall under this category.

It does, if they trespass on AMR Property when the RULES are written out in Black and White to NOT use the Lakes as it is off limits to the Public. Or disrespecting any rules for that matter, that AMR point blankly says, "Not TO!"

 

[Dennis C.]

I understand where you're coming from Skyclimber, but I rest my case on the statement above on what once WAS and what is NOW.