It's debatable

[Neil]

Taking sides?

There is talk of taking sides. I think we're all on the same side here. The side of the mountains and their preservation.

As far as taking sides in the Close/Peak_bgr debate I'll have to A)Read the book and B) read the magazine article. (Thanks Phil!)

It's interesting to read the
same thread on ADKHighpeaks. Teejay started one there with the exact same initial post. 33 replies and counting.

 

[Rick]

Mr. Close is also the one who, uh, "spearheaded", in his words, the effort to shut down the Great Adirondack Trail Run, despite the event having broad community based support. The mass pickets he envisioned never quite materialized.

Some people seem to love nothing more than dictating how people recreate.

Tim,
I do seem to rmember a lot of heated 46er Listserv messages coming from JC about trying to shutdown the NLP trail run. In my mind (sometimes not the best place for ANYone to be ) I thought he was spearheading the movement against the NLP Trail run.
Cheers
Rick

 

[mavs00]

Just read them............

Hahahahahahaha. Are you kidding????????

Maddie, don't take Close's comments too personal . He's not even talking about Spence in most of his article.......... I'M the internet HUCKSTER he speaks of. My hundred highest forums and all the discussions we've had over there. Course he won't come at me directly, though he has already TRIED.

Spence is his convenient target right now because of his book, but trust me, he's it's a deeper thing with him. He's from the Ostrich school of conservation . Just stick your head in the sand and hope it all goes away. I personally tend to look at thing a little less naively.

As a finisher, he's one of the pioneers of these peaks and now he wants to unring a bell and stop the coming climbers. I don't think he even knows the players involved. PRESIDENT CLINTON probably has as much to do with opening access to these hitherto to dark peaks by TURNING ON THE LIGHTS then either Spencer or I.

Nowadays, anyone with a few hundred bucks and "little sense of adventure" can go out anyday and climb ANY ONE of this peaks. He is stuck in another world. He doesn't have a clue that whether my forums (or a book, or any informational tool) exists, it will not keep people from exploring farther and farther afield. We need to be PROACTIVE and help people understand the factor in play. That allows people, who may not otherwise know them, the issues at hand that may be applicable to other peaks.

The realization is that the ADK100 are not the same ADK100 he climbed and unless you're willing to get into the reality of the situation, you ain't really part of the debate. The thing you need, along with your handheld "I'll get you there, no sweat" GPS unit, is information that will help you NAVIGATE the other issues that are much more challenging then just getting there (Property rights, herd paths, resource protection, ect........).

He has some really good points and there are some real issue's facing these peaks and climber now spreading out among them, but when your best defense is "just don't go there", you're not being very realistic.

 

[una_dogger]

Hi Maddy
I have yet to read the article or Spence's book, but I surely didn't mean to infer that Spence was not all about educating others -- farthest from my mind -- Spence has always presented himself as an accessible, kind and generous source of information, support and wisdom on the Daks; as is your brother. You and Spence have opened your home and your hearts to us all and your generosity knows no bounds. I'm sorry that the other person in the debate chose to turn ugly -- obviously he is lacking the respect necessary to engage in good debate. When the dust settles, I'm sure most people will not be remembering him in a good light. I've read a quote here on the boards, "the strongest trees stand in the most exposed places" -- and Spence from the sound of it has weathered quite a storm in this debate, he's got strong family roots to grow upon, and a good woman at his side.

 

[RoySwkr]

My understanding of copyright law is that "fair use" includes free copying for noncommercial discussions of public policy hence it might be legal for someone to scan and post the article. It would be even better if the editor chose to post the electronic version here or elsewhere. (I am not willing to request a printed copy and the resource waste it would cause although I respect this generous offer.)

Surely publishing this debate will increase awareness hence climbing of the A100. The book will not only increase overall climbing particularly by those lacking imagination to choose their own routes but will concentrate use on those routes identified as superior. This will no doubt cause herd paths and erosion to develop in some areas, but compared to the total acreage of the Park the effect will be minuscule.

Surely people have the right to believe that everyone should stay out of the woods and leave them to the animals. I only hope that those people will let others not only have different beliefs but continue to act on them.

 

[beverly]

My understanding of copyright law is that "fair use" includes free copying for noncommercial discussions of public policy hence it might be legal for someone to scan and post the article.

Sorry, but totally incorrect. Adirondack Explorer has control over the copyright and is the only one that can permit posting of the article. Don't get Darren in trouble!.

 

[DougPaul]

My understanding of copyright law is that "fair use" includes free copying for noncommercial discussions of public policy hence it might be legal for someone to scan and post the article. It would be even better if the editor chose to post the electronic version here or elsewhere. (I am not willing to request a printed copy and the resource waste it would cause although I respect this generous offer.)

My understanding of copyright law is that only short excerpts are allowed without permission. Reprinting or posting an entire article without permission would be a clear violation.

Usual caveat: I am not a lawyer.

Doug

 

[RTSpoons]

How Many will do it

It is an answerable question, how many will do it because of the Other 54. Puma Concolor states, may be 40 or 50 have done the hundred highest.

If one is concerned about environmental impact of hiking than take a look at the erosion caused by hikers in the high peak region. Does anyone really expect to see the type of traffic which flows out of the Garden or the Loj.

Of the so-called trailless peaks I have climbed MacNaughton has the least developed herd trail...it is considered by some to be one of the 47. Given this fact tons of people do not climb it, as far as I know.

Someone from the Schenecady chapter stated only 20% of the 46er's have climb this peak.

If that is true I don't think to other 54 have much to worry about.

Just an opinion...

 

[Tim Seaver]

The Damage "Close" Minded Folks Do

From the post linked to by Mavs:

J. Close:

"....Morally, I don’t have a leg to stand on - so swing away. But before you knock my hypocritical lights out, hear this: That was then, this is now. It’s a whole different playing field out there with dozens of internet and GPS-savvy testosterone-charged men and women who live for competitive events as the only-framework-that-makes-life-worth-living. For those with Cave-Dog like competitive genes, everything else we are - values, morals - is subsumed to the Great Competitive Spirit. You know what that feeling is - and so do I."

Good grief. Still beating up on Cave Dog! (I had no idea that this testosterone-charging thing was liked to being GPS savvy, but there you go. I guess we can be thankful that Bob Marshall didn't have a GPS, or he would REALLY have run amok!)

Which reminds me....it was an article about the "controversy" on Cave Dog's tour of the 46HP in the Adirondack Explorer ( Sept./Oct. 2002) that got me psyched on going after his record in NH. Part of the motivation was reading the absurdly selfish comments from some of those interviewed. My favorite blow-hard comment was this:

...Biologist Ed Ketchledge, who has devoted many years to studying High Peaks flora, regards the mountain as a classroom in which to learn about natural history. "Running up and down them for some perceived physical recognition-fleeting at best-is no more justified an endeavor than racing around the New York State Museum or the Arlington National Cemetary. The High Peaks are not a playground for men acting as children"

Got that? Mr. Ketchledge has deemed what the mountains are FOR, and running ain't one of them. It's this kind of arrogance that gives "wilderness advocacy" a bad name.

My suspicion is that Mr. Close is so fond of being on his little soapbox of "wilderness purity" that he doesn't even recognize the fact that he is popularizing the very things he is attempting to stop. I imagine the folks that embraced Jim's position on the GATR event are having a rather dramatic case of "buyers remorse" at this point now that he has THEM in his sights.

 

[Peakbagr]

Two points. We don't permit copyrighted material to be posted on VFTT, only links. If the Adirondack Explorer editor allowed it, we could then post the debate and book review.

Over the last 4 years I've spent time tracking completers of the ADK100. Gathering the known finishers and then checking names/trail names in canisters, info in the public domain, information from friends on 3 hiking boards, email queries with friends from the ADKs and New England. Also following up with name/addy's from peanut butter jars on the summits.

As of a month ago, there are 22 known completers and another 66 that are in various stages. Some, stopped a number of years ago well into 80 or 90 peaks. Others chipping away a few a year. Others going at it tooth and nail.
We estimate that there are probably a dozen or less that have done this without our knowing about them.
I stay in periodic contact with many of the ones who are closing in. I also add or eliminate names.
I got the idea of doing this when someone suggested that the history of climbing these mountains are being written right now and that someone ought to be keeping track when this might matter years from now.
Besides, I've had a ball meeting many bushwhackers, young and old I might never have previously met. Some have since attended the ADK Gathering. Others are starting to hike with us.

 

[rdl]

The Adirondack Park was created to preserve wilderness and provide a place for the public to recreate. Trailed/trailless -- it doesn't matter. It's a park -- it's there for people to use.

One may say that preserving wilderness and public recreation is mutually exclusive(and I would tend to agree with that), but nowhere is public use(foot traffic at least) banned in the park.

 

[Neil]

Measuring traffic.

As of a month ago, there are 22 known completers and another 66 that are in various stages. Some, stopped a number of years ago well into 80 or 90 peaks. Others chipping away a few a year. Others going at it tooth and nail.
We estimate that there are probably a dozen or less that have done this without our knowing about them.

If 60 people were to average one peak each every 6 weeks then that's about one ascension of 10 ADK100 peaks per week. Let's assume that each of the 10 is one of the roughly 40 trail-less. That would make for about one ascension of each trail-less peak per month or 10-12 per year.

However, when there were canisters on some of the peaks I did (6 or 7 canisters ) I saw entries by zero to 2 parties per year. An exception was Avalanche Peak which being close to the Loj and fairly easy to hike probably had 4 or 5.

Either the 66 active climbers are averaging far less than one peak per 6 weeks or they were eschewing the (now defunct) canisters.

If all of these people could agree to studiously avoid re-using fellow HH aspirants routes then whatever traces get left would have ample time to be erased.

On most of the peaks I have done I have seen no signs whatsoever of human visitation both on the final approach ridge and on the very summit itself. On some of them I have seen embryonic herd trails over the final 100-200 yards to the summit and a small trampled circle right at the top.

 

[mavs00]

The Adirondack Park was created to preserve wilderness and provide a place for the public to recreate. Trailed/trailless -- it doesn't matter. It's a park -- it's there for people to use.

One may say that preserving wilderness and public recreation is mutually exclusive(and I would tend to agree with that), but nowhere is public use(foot traffic at least) banned in the park.

NOT TRUE..................

Significant tracts of land within the park are on "exclusive use" or private property, including several of the peaks on this list, access to them, and some of the routes described in the book as well. We may not like that fact, but it remains. One of the peaks is ENTIRELY CLOSED as stated by the OWNER of the land. Something he did only after all this bruhaw started. Expect a lot more of that.

Private Property considerations are significant on the lower 54. Many don't really give a crap about that (not pointing fingers, just stating facts), and that is one, of several issues involving this list.

Someday, with the Nature Conservacy gobbling up more land, some of these peaks my open, however trodding all over their land right now and not respecting the rights of ownership makes them LESS likely to work with us in the future, NOT MORE.

 

[mavs00]

On most of the peaks I have done I have seen no signs whatsoever of human visitation both on the final approach ridge and on the very summit itself. On some of them I have seen embryonic herd trails over the final 100-200 yards to the summit and a small trampled circle right at the top.

Look harder next time............ I have photo evidence of ILLEGAL view cutting or summit clearing on 8 of them or so.

Other than that I agree......... Trip reports on my site for ADK100 peaks have increased quite a bit in the last few years. Traffic is increasing, for sure. Lot's of reasons why, including many that have NOTHING to do with us.

I would view this list as similar to the state high point list........ It's catching, but without some guidance, the problems are only gonna increase not decrease.

 

[Neil]

I have photo evidence of ILLEGAL view cutting or summit clearing on 8 of them or so.

Ok, I confess. I did more than a few of them in winter or under winter conditions.

Which ones have you seen the cuttings on?

I also agree that more people are discovering the "low peaks" and they are posting their TR's. I also agree that it might just not be a bad idea to do something to prevent those of us who enjoy hiking these mountains from destroying the very characteristics that attracts us to them.

 

[TCD]

From Mavs00's post:

"Course he won't come at me directly, though he has already TRIED."

Thanks for the link. I had not seen that incredible rant before, but it was enlightening, regarding the source. I had wondered where this guy was coming from, when I read the chicken little rant about the Trail Run in ADK magazine. (Of course, the dire predictions have proven to be wrong. The good work of many has resulted in the North Trail to Giant being in better shape now than it was 3 years ago. As a two time participant and a volunteer, I'm convinced that's partly becuse of the Run, not in spite of it.)

Many years ago, I hiked in a group with a young man (18, I think) who was a brand new 46er. He was rabid to shut down access. He advocated closing the ADK Loj and Loj road, shutting down JBL, closing the Ausable Lake Road to hikers, etc., etc., now that HE had HIS patch. Sounds familiar. It could have been that young man writing what I just read on that link.

On the flip side: No one should be cutting for views. It does go on, unfortunately. In fact, I have heard rumors of an infomal loose organization of people who will cut a few small trees, here and there, to "create" views along trails in the ADKs. I think they might call it "lookouts," or "viewpoints," or something like that. That kind of thing makes it harder to preserve normal recreational access. Of course the Slant Rock Leanto now has a great view, and a lot of trees were cut to relocate it....?

TCD

 

[mavs00]

Neil, I gave you the list privately.

Jim and Spencer agreed to play the YES and NO game in the Adirondack Explorer, both knew perfectly well what it meant and in the name of free speech Jim Close is allowed to express his opinion without being insulted, furthermore Spencer went public with a book knowing full well what was coming, so please stop the name calling! Instead try to find a 100 finisher who got permisssion every time he or she walked across private property...

Christine

PS: Anyone offended by anything that was published should complain to Phil Brown since it was all his decision and responsability!

Missed this one earlier. It's a good point (as per usual for Christine).

 

[rdl]

NOT TRUE..................

Significant tracts of land within the park are on "exclusive use" or private property, including several of the peaks on this list, access to them, and some of the routes described in the book as well. We may not like that fact, but it remains. One of the peaks is ENTIRELY CLOSED as stated by the OWNER of the land. Something he did only after all this bruhaw started. Expect a lot more of that.

Private Property considerations are significant on the lower 54. Many don't really give a crap about that (not pointing fingers, just stating facts), and that is one, of several issues involving this list.

Someday, with the Nature Conservacy gobbling up more land, some of these peaks my open, however trodding all over their land right now and not respecting the rights of ownership makes them LESS likely to work with us in the future, NOT MORE.

I didn't think I needed to preface my statement with "public" land in the park, but apparently I did -- my apologies for an ambiguous post...

 

[mavs00]

I didn't think I needed to preface my statement with "public" land in the park, but apparently I did -- my apologies for an ambiguous post...

It's all good. I'm actually glad you were unintentionally ambiguous . Cause, while I'm sure you understand the public /private thing, you'd really be surprised to find out that I've come across a surprising number of folks that have either e-mailed me or talked to me about some peak that when I pointed out something "Oh, you can't approach from there, the ____ club owns that side" (or whatever), that their response "Oh really, I had no idea'.

It's like the Rainny trail, There are signs all over the trailhead that say private, but hikerso do have pass though priledges. It's one of those things. Many people are just not well informed.

 

[AntlerPeak]

Reading Bigmoose's interpretation of Mr. Close's comments it leads me to a comparison to a prior issue. I admit I did not read the article. For sake of argument let's say Bigmoose assesses this accurately. Several years ago PBS ran a TV report on the over development of Adirondack Lakes. The issue was to prevent shoreline over building and to protect the pristine environment. It seems too many views were ruined and, well you know the argument. One of the leading protectionists groups were pushing for a ban or near ban on all future development. The head of this group was interviewed stating his protectionists views from the porch of his camp on an Adirondack Lake. Oh my the entire interview smacked of "I got mine and to heck with you" attitude. Sounds like the Mr. Close message.

Just an observation from a distance. I climbed about 80 of them with no plan to do any more. For the most part I enjoyed all that went into it, planning, route finding and the feeling of solitude. Did not trespass once and as long as hikers respect private property I am not about to espouse a view that he or she should not make this a goal.

To Mr. Close, if several hundred achieve what you accomplished you can always take the high ground by claiming you did it the hard way. That still keeps you above the rest.