Protect The Adirondacks

T

tirolski

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 3, 2020
tirolski said:
ORDA talks with APA on new amendment to the UMP.
It opens a public comment period.

APA seeks public comment on Whiteface upgrades | News, Sports, Jobs - Lake Placid News

RAY BROOK — The state Adirondack Park Agency is currently accepting public comments on proposed amendments to the Whiteface Mountain Ski Center Unit Managemen
www.lakeplacidnews.com www.lakeplacidnews.com
A link to March 10th APA meeting video and ORDA’s presentations here.
ORDA’s discussion starts @ 4:06 or so.

Since ski mountaineering is gonna be an Olympic sport in 2026, and may be more exciting than curling, does ORDA consider it a sport yet?
Click to expand...
Looks like these folks offered comments today.

 
tirolski said:
Looks like these folks offered comments today.

Click to expand...
What a bunch of crap. Wf and Gore are intensive use areas. Adding bike trails/hiking trails in an intensive use area is the smart thing to do for multiple reasons including job creation. There are 6 million acres in the park. I love when these clowns get up in arms on the use of less than 2000 acres that are already not in a natural form and loaded with chairlifts, buildings, parking lots and snow making equipment. Where else would you put bike trails to serve the public? I guess they would only be happy if they could close down all 6 million acres and kick everybody out of the park.
 
Brownski said:
Seems like it
Click to expand...
I don’t read it that way at all.

Can anyone say that PROTECT (Bauer) is factually incorrect on anything stated in that letter?

Not that I, personally, care all that much about hiking and biking trails on an existing ski (and biking/hiking) mountain…..but do any of us truly want to live in a world where SOMEONE isn’t keeping people honest?

Reductio ad absurdum, if you will. Under what is allowed, by law, to support an existing ski area….a business (or State org) is allowed to cut trees and re-grade land to support biking/hiking trails….leading to loss of habitat and significant erosion and such….wouldn’t that be a bad thing?

Shouldn’t SOMEONE be minding the cookie jar, or should anyone be able, through loophole or manipulation, do whatever they want, wherever they want? Not that I think anyone here is really trying to manipulate, but oversight (generally speaking) ain’t always a terrible thing, no?

Bottom line….PROTECT didn’t say “kick ‘em out the f’ing park”. Seems they said “we want to know more about what they intend to do before we approve their doing it.” I’m ok with that.
 
JTG said:
I don’t read it that way at all.

Can anyone say that PROTECT (Bauer) is factually incorrect on anything stated in that letter?

Not that I, personally, care all that much about hiking and biking trails on an existing ski (and biking/hiking) mountain…..but do any of us truly want to live in a world where SOMEONE isn’t keeping people honest?

Reductio ad absurdum, if you will. Under what is allowed, by law, to support an existing ski area….a business (or State org) is allowed to cut trees and re-grade land to support biking/hiking trails….leading to loss of habitat and significant erosion and such….wouldn’t that be a bad thing?

Shouldn’t SOMEONE be minding the cookie jar, or should anyone be able, through loophole or manipulation, do whatever they want, wherever they want? Not that I think anyone here is really trying to manipulate, but oversight (generally speaking) ain’t always a terrible thing, no?

Bottom line….PROTECT didn’t say “kick ‘em out the f’ing park”. Seems they said “we want to know more about what they intend to do before we approve their doing it.” I’m ok with that.
Click to expand...
There has been biking (including lift served at various times) at Whiteface, Gore, and Mt Van Hoevenburg since the 1990s. Are we to believe that ORDA has added biking for 25 years and now PROTECT is going to tell us that they are breaking Article 14, section 1? There has been biking mentioned in the various UMPs for all 3 areas for the past 20 years.

PROTECT references "Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan (“APSLMP”)" at the beginning of the letter with a specific paragraph about land use. What they do not tell you is that in the “APSLMP” "Public use of bicycles will be prohibited" in Wilderness areas but not prohibited in the Intesive Use areas (like Gore, WF, Mt Van Ho).

PROTECT also ignores this paragraph in the “APSLMP” under the Intensive Use section, page 41:

"Guidelines for Management and Use Basic guidelines
1. The primary management guideline for intensive use areas will be to provide the public opportunities for family group camping, developed swimming and boating, downhill skiing, cross country skiing under competitive or developed conditions on improved cross country ski trails, visitor information and similar outdoor recreational pursuits in a setting and on a scale that are in harmony with the relatively wild and undeveloped character of the Adirondack Park."

I bolded the the important part - "similar outdoor recreational pursuits". Biking easily falls into this section. That is not to say that this is the reason for biking at these 3 areas. I do not know the reasoning behind ORDA's adding biking.

Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan​

https://www.apa.ny.gov › Laws_Regs › APSLMP
 
The dang lawyers will probably “fight” it out and then all go have lunch and drinks together.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
© Copyright 2008 - 2024 NYSkiBlog
Join | Subscribe | Advertise | Privacy
NYSkiBlog is for the rest of us: regular people with a sense of adventure, who love to ski.
We zig when they zag. To connect with us, follow us:
NYSkiBlog Facebook.
NYSkiBlog Twitter.
NYSkiBlog Instagram.
NYSkiBlog RSS.
Back
Top