It's debatable

[TCD]

Here's our problem: BlackSpruce is right.

As confident as many of us our in our opinions here, and in the value of conservation / recreation balance, there is a substantial constituency in a lot of places that disagrees. In the environmental conservation community, in land management agencies, and among the moneyed elite, it would be easy to assemble a large group of people who would support the positions:

>Competition is inherently evil (Close).

>Having fun is childish (Ketchledge, surprising from such an admired source).

>I've got mine, ban everyone else (many leaders of these organizations already have their "piece of the pie," as was pointed out above).

>All human access to wild lands should be banned (more people than you might think).

Even the most recent issue (just out) of ADK magazine states that the population of ADK is shifting, and that recreation is becoming less important and "advocacy" is becoming ADK's top interest.

So we need to do more than commiserate here on a forum. We need to advocate for continued access for the recreation we enjoy, and that is balanced with conservation. That includes hiking, biking, bushwhacking, climbing, swimming, paddling, hunting, fishing, and a host of winter sports. Conservation resources need to be spent on real environmental problems, like acid rain and ATV trespass, not on fighting about where someone should or should not walk in the woods.

TCD

 

[Peakbagr]

This thread began with an admirable aim and discourse. Unfortunately, we have had to remove 3 posts that crossed the line from debate to insult. And one post that contained quotes from one of the others.
Feel free to contribute to the debate, but I'd ask everyone to please keep it civil, whatever your personal feelings.

Thanks

 

[una_dogger]

Sorry about that, *very* poor form on my part.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Well, I've read the posts on this thread, the posts on a similar thread on the ADK Forum, and article in the Adirondack Explorer, and to paraphrase that little old lady in the TV commercial a few years back "Where's (What's) the Beef?"

It's a given that as soon as someone puts together a climbing list of mountains, based upon some obvious or not-so-obvious criteria, and gets a few others to accept it, then the game's afoot. Others will want to 'complete' this new list, and eventually competitions may spring up as to how fast the list can be hiked/completed.

So, having a debate as to whether or not the mountains should or shouldn't be climbed may help sell magazines and books, but to my way of thinking, the genie's out of the bottle - the mountains will see more hikers because of this new list.

Maybe the debate should focus on how best to minimize the impact of the hiker traffic on the wildlife. That is - should trails be built or should herd paths be allowed to develop? And, as a corallary - have there been any real studies down on this topic of trails vs. herd paths? Certainly everyone has an opinion, but ... have any authoritative studies been done on the longterm impact of a formal trails vs. herd paths?

Finally - I'm not aware of closures of backcountry areas unless there is evidence that human presence has a negative impact on a specific species, and that species is often endangered or nearly so. A couple of examples of these closures (and they're seasonal, not permanent) are areas around peregrine falcon nesting sites in Vermont and bighorn sheep calving grounds on Mt Williamson in CA. Am sure there are others, but those two come to mind. If forest management wishes to reduce human impact, then permits and quota systems are put in place, but permanent closure would be difficult to impose.

 

[RTSpoons]

The debate

I finally had a chance to read the actual debate thanks to it's inclusion on this site.

The bottom line the mountains are there for everyone who cares to climb them. The climbing must be responsible, as one poster stated, pick up any trash you see, avoid walking in single file, etc. I also must agree with the point regarding getting people to use other parts of the park besides the high peak region.

I must ask Mr. Close, are these mountains only for those special people you mentioned. Must I be some type of loner to have the privilege of hiking in places other than established paths. No, you are not wrong for being concerned about the impact on more boots in these regions. Yes, there will be some impact. The question becomes, should anyone be allowed in the park, should we abandon all activities, so we do not harm nature as it is without human presence.

It would be helpful to know where you would set the limits.

As for the goal seeking, climbing the 46, the northeast highest, or the fire towers, etc. for some only provides direction and helps them explore other areas in their quest to hike. You can only climb Mt. Marcy so many times before you desire to see some other area.