Regulations!

[TCD]

So here's a new thread on regulations in general, if anyone wants to talk to it.

And here's an opinion:

The regulations that are in place in the Adirondacks already are quite sufficient to ensure an enjoyable and sustainable experience. The problem is that Albany, to save money, under resources enforcement. For example, we probabnly would not have the bear problem as badly as we do if everyone had always done a great job of hanging their food.

The result of under enforcement is that the regs "don't work." For example, I hiked the Round Pond Dix trail some time ago and saw several tents illegaly placed right on the shore of the river. Now I didn't make a big deal out of this. But enough people do, and want "action." "Better regulation." etc.

The folks in the Government and the Regulatory agencies learn quickly that they can make better headlines and get more credit by promulgating new, stricter regulations than they can by simply quietly enforcing the ones that are already there. Plus, passing a new regulation, such as "You can only camp in designated sites", or "No mountain bikes in Wilderness" is cheaper and easier than actually hiring and training more rangers to educate and enforce the current regulations, or doing an actual assessment of trails to find out which ones are appropriate for bikes regardless of whether they are in Wilderness or Wild Forest (these are all just examples).

So there is a great push to pas more rules, get more headlines, and do more chest beating, while the output side is little or no improvement in actual conditions, and frustration and selective enforcement on the part of the Rangers, and inconvenience for those of us who do follow the existing rules.

Now, wha tdo we do to make this better?

A couple people mentioned that the trailhead is the place to get this done, and I agree. I would pay higher taxes to hire additional Rangers to provide mandatory education at all trailheads, as opposed to the occasional spotty presence there now. I'm sure there are other ideas.

TCD

 

[Rik]

We already pay more in taxes than any other state! "Read my lips...."

 

[lumberzac]

A couple people mentioned that the trailhead is the place to get this done, and I agree. I would pay higher taxes to hire additional Rangers to provide mandatory education at all trailheads, as opposed to the occasional spotty presence there now. I'm sure there are other ideas.

In addition to what AlpineSummit posted, I don't see how this could ever work. There are just too many trailheads into the interior. You would have to have a ranger at each of them.

 

[spaddock]

Sticking one at the Loj and Keene Valley would probably take care of the majority of people who are in need of education.


S.

 

[Doc McPeak]

Starting in 2007 all hikers will be getting the highly anticipated G77 bluetooth enabler chips implanted at the base of the cerebral cortex. Automatically every hiker will become a courteous practioner of the seven LNT principles and denizens of impeccable backwoods behavior.

Those few exceptions who reject the implants will be sent to the Soylent Green Trailmix Factory.

 

[Warren]

TCD-

I don't think that wilderness regulations are such a hot topic for most voters that legislators can use them for chest beating.

It's much more likely an interaction of DEC and special interest group requests and lobbying as well as the recent rollout of the new management plan(s).

As for Rangers I've seen a huge increase in the presence of Rangers in the High Peaks over the past few years, more than I've ever seen in the previous decade of traveling there, the Catskills and the Whites. Backcountry presence of Rangers is needed just as much if not more than the trailhead presence.

Hey, you know, at least they are trying to make things better. It even seems to be working.

 

[SherpaKroto]

I went to the ADK's in July. I walked in mud, met a pleasant ranger who told us what we were doing wrong, fixed it, had a great time, and went home happy.

I also spent many days and nights in the Whites during unregulated days. I don't necessarily want to go back to that. Tuckerman's/Hermit Lake would be a cesspool if that had bene allowed to continue. That kind of abuse could not continue.

The regulations are not so much for us as they are for our children's children's children.

 

[TCD]

Thanks for all the replies on this thread.

First, please don't misinterpret this. I support the regulations that are in place, and follow them carefully. I think we need them to protect the resource and keep it attractive.

I'm probably oversensitive to political posturing from government types that have never set foot in the woods.

Most of my hiking is off trail or in less popular areas, so I might not necessarily perceive an increase in ranger coverage. From a couple responses, it sounds like there are more rangers out there. That's great! The better we enforce the existing regs, the less we'll need new ones.

Thanks again.

TCD

 

[Ned Kipperson]

The problem with bears is the same everywhere you go. If they aren't breaking into campsites, they're breaking into houses. More bear hunts are the solution. If they aren't hunted, they'll be dispatched by police if they cause damage and threaten people, bottom line.
I think the problems in the high peaks are caused mainly by overuse and the fact that the wrong management philosophy is practiced in the High Peaks. Wilderness works in unpopulated, desolate areas, like West Canada or Five Ponds. The High Peaks would do better under a city-like police department. Just kidding. I do think it should be treated more like a park than a wilderness. Harriman comes to mind. Keep the throngs at cerain spots, let them be social, and have rangers patrolling the area, writing tickets! Nothing works like making the wallet a little lighter, not to mention they would have to be taken to a judge to pay up. A ranger saying don't do that and then walking away gives some the idea that nothing will happen if they leave a nasty campsite.
TCD has some valid points, DEC should stop purchasing land at top dollar that few will use, and hire more enforcement to protect what we have. For instance, Just because DEC owns Tahawus now, what will be the real outcome? Now the friendly city dwellers can come up and camp illegally at 10:00 at night with a bonfire and booze on more state land!