DEC plans to remove two fire towers.

[Puma concolor]

Letter to Editor of Times Union

 

[ALGonquin Bob]

This article has more information regarding the land classification, which is stated as Wild Forest http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=900437&category=REGION

If that is the case, and the towers are not currently on wilderness land, I am in favor of retaining and restoring the Hurricane tower because it is a local landmark. I don't think that the St. Regis tower is a visible landmark like Hurricane and is not needed for good views, so I still would be in favor of its removal - but I wouldn't protest if it was kept. If either fire tower is saved, they must be restored vs. allowed to deteriorate further.

 

[BlackSpruce]

As the adopters (through ADK) of the trail to Hurricane from Hurricane Lane (E'Town side) we visited the tower several times every year. This past Fall we noticed that the number of pieces (wood and metal) that had fallen about from the tower were more numerous than usual. As most day it is an extremely windy summit it is only a matter of time till a climber gets hit on the head by a debris and some are quite large!

 

[Neil]

or the viewless Lost Pond Peak?

You're going to have to go back if you want to "count" it for a list. There are spectacular views of many peaks.

 

[Puma concolor]

You're going to have to go back if you want to "count" it for a list. There are spectacular views of many peaks.

So I guess that's what happens when I pick a mountain I haven't done for an example.

Not working on any list that would include Lost Pond Peak, anyway. I was just trying to throw in an Adirondack "wilderness" peak where the idea of a fire tower would be particularly objectionable. Guess I picked the wrong one.

 

[Neil]

So I guess that's what happens when I pick a mountain I haven't done for an example.

Not working on any list that would include Lost Pond Peak, anyway. I was just trying to throw in an Adirondack "wilderness" peak where the idea of a fire tower would be particularly objectionable. Guess I picked the wrong one.

We're a tough crowd aint we?

Good point about firetowers appearing on peaks where they aren't at this time.

Useless junk? Important historic artefacts? Vulgar money-makers for the towns?

I think they help parents motivate their kids to go hiking.

And, the views from the ones on Vanderwhacker and Wakely are out of this world. (Could add a few others such as Snowy, Lyon, Adams.....)

 

[Explorer Editor]

This article has more information regarding the land classification, which is stated as Wild Forest http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=900437&category=REGION

If that is the case, and the towers are not currently on wilderness land, I am in favor of retaining and restoring the Hurricane tower because it is a local landmark. I don't think that the St. Regis tower is a visible landmark like Hurricane and is not needed for good views, so I still would be in favor of its removal - but I wouldn't protest if it was kept. If either fire tower is saved, they must be restored vs. allowed to deteriorate further.

St. Regis Mt. is in the St. Regis Canoe Area, which is managed as Wilderness. Hurricane Mt. is in the Hurricane Mt. Primitive Area, which also is managed as essentially as Wilderness. Without the tower, it could be reclassified as Wilderness, although I don't believe DEC is planning to do so. I'll have to look into that.

 

[ALGonquin Bob]

I think Phil and I sort of agreed on something!

 

[Explorer Editor]

I'm just stating the facts, Bob. I hope we can agree on them.

 

[tgoodwin]

Since I can see the Hurricane tower from my house, I guess I have as much right as Sarah Palin to offer a comment. Black Spruce is right that the Hurricane tower is in really bad, bordering on dangerous, condition. And let's face it, there is no justification for spending tax dollars to restore an obsolete structure just so ppeople who have always seen it can continue to see it. It would therefore require a massive "Friends of..." effort to restore it. In my opinion, restoring that tower would not be a good use of charitable contributions or volunteer time when there are other fire towers on viewless summits like Vanderwhacker that are in much better shape and would serve a useful purpose if restored. Since it can't be restored, it should come down. I don't know about the current condition of the St. Regis tower, but I still think private efforts to restore it would a poor use of available charitable contributions and volunteer time.
As for Mt. Adams, that was an unusual case in that the tower was built on private land. When the Open Space Institute purchased that land and was preparing to sell it to the State, it was relatively easy to just create a small private inholding that didn't transfer to the State. Obviously, that is not an option with either Hurricane or St. Regis.

 

[Adk_dib]

There are views on these two without the towers, whakley I just climbed last summer and without it there would be no view. So I am ok with the removal. Some young kid might get hurt trying to climb them. There is no cell coverage up there, couldn't these be converted for use?

 

[Tom Rankin]

I just received an email from the Forest Fire Lookout Association, (the NY chapter does not have a web site, but http://beebehill.info gets you close), strongly in favor of retaining the Towers.

The email lists a public poll that anyone can take. Currently, the Poll is 92% in favor of retaining the 2 towers. The only drawback to this poll is that it is for both towers together.

 

[MichaelJ]

I don't understand the assertions that the area cannot be categorized as Wilderness if the tower is still there? Wilderness areas can have grandfathered structures in them, no?

 

[TCD]

That's part of NY State's particular madness. Through the decades, we've actually paid people to march around destroying and burning structures to meet the dictates of land use plans.

 

[Puma concolor]

Well, IMHO, NY State's particular madness has done a rather fine job of upholding the "forever wild" portion of the NY State Constitution for more than a century. Issue-by-issue, the state's actions may seem petty, but the overall results are outstanding. The Adirondacks remain one of the great wilderness areas in all of the United States. Even in financially difficult times, the State continues to buy thousands of acres of F-P land that will benefit few in any real way. I'll take the recommendations of the DEC and APA over the desires of the Adirondack Mountain Club or other pop-up organizations any day of the week.

 

[MichaelJ]

Wikipedia says that the Wilderness areas in the Adirondacks are state, not federal. I didn't know that. That certainly changes my outlook on this - it means I don't know anything about those areas.

 

[TCD]

Don't get me wrong; I love the Adirondacks, and I love the protection of the forever wild lands. I just look for balance. The State owes it to the people who own State Land to take care of it. Mindlessly burning the Interior Outposts, which reduced Ranger presence in the woods, is an example of lost balance. The State also owes it to the people who own the private land in the park (~50%) to let them reasonably develop their land within the bounds of law. Mindlessly attacking farmers and land owners outside the dictates of law is an example of lost balance.

Buying the Preston Ponds tract is an example of an excellent move by the State, picking up a major link between forest preserve areas. More thought out work like that would be welcome, as opposed to the "more, more we want it all" mentality so often on display.

 

[Tom Rankin]

Well, IMHO, NY State's particular madness has done a rather fine job of upholding the "forever wild" portion of the NY State Constitution for more than a century. Issue-by-issue, the state's actions may seem petty, but the overall results are outstanding. The Adirondacks remain one of the great wilderness areas in all of the United States. Even in financially difficult times, the State continues to buy thousands of acres of F-P land that will benefit few in any real way. I'll take the recommendations of the DEC and APA over the desires of the Adirondack Mountain Club or other pop-up organizations any day of the week.

I was right with you there till the end!

Pop-up? The ADK has been around for a long time.

I think it's good to have both state and non-state organizations voicing their opinions, and taking actions on behalf of the Park. "Who will watch the watchers?"

To go back to MJ's comment. Yes, you can 'grandfather' a structure or whatever into 'law', but this takes effort. A lot of effort. By default, a wilderness has little if any presence of the 'hand of man'. This is just my definition, FWIW.

 

[Puma concolor]

Sorry for any confusion. I wasn't calling the ADK a pop-up organization but mentioned them simply because they have been the source (through the fire tower challenge) of a lot of the support for fire tower restoration. The "pop-up" organizations I was thinking of were the various "friends of" fire tower groups that have very narrow focuses. Nothing wrong with any of these groups advocating for whatever they want just as there is nothing wrong with snowmobile or ATV clubs lobbying for expanded use for their interests. My point was that I KNOW where the DEC and APA are coming from 10 times out of 10. It's right in the state Constitution and they have a stellar track record of environmental protection.

 

[Grumpy]

Wikipedia says that the Wilderness areas in the Adirondacks are state, not federal. I didn't know that. That certainly changes my outlook on this - it means I don't know anything about those areas.

Don't kick yourself.

If I am not mistaken, there is precedent for permitting "non-conforming structures" in wilderness areas in the Adirondack Park.

As a side point -- and not a personal criticism -- I think it is worthwhile for those of us who love wild places to become familiar with the history of the Adirondack Park and Preserve. It is interesting, thought-provoking and inspiring.

G.