Protect The Adirondacks

[x10003q]

Talk about missing the point!

Bauer (and PROTECT) may be an obstructionist turd….but it doesn’t mean that what they are asking in that letter is necessarily wrong.

It is wrong. Mountain biking has clearly been approved for Intensive Use areas in the Park for 25 years. Are we to believe that everybody involved with approving/adding mountain biking at WF and Protect and groups like Protect missed a clear violation of the 1941 Article 14 amendment? Are we to believe that Protect only recently figured this illegality out in the April 11, 2022, letter?

Yes, there has been mountain biking for 25 years. It obviously got thru last time, these changes probably will too. Of course, that letter didn’t say “no mountain biking”…..it said “tell us more about what you are doing, exactly” as part of the oversight/approval process.

The letter does say Protect does not believe mountain biking is approved on Whiteface.
Here is the relevant quote from the Protect letter:
"The 1941 Article 14 amendment authorized “appurtenances” to support “ski trails” at Whiteface Mountain. Facilities, infrastructure, and improvements for summertime nonalpine ski related activities, such as hiking and mountain bike riding, are not “appurtenances” that support alpine skiing. A mountain bike trail can hardly be considered to be a subordinate part or accessory object of a downhill ski area. Riding a bike does not require skis, nor is it part of the sport of skiing. PROTECT does not believe that the proposed downhill mountain biking trail network and hiking trails at Whiteface Mountain are covered by the 1941 constitutional amendment under the “appurtenances” umbrella."

There it is in bold - Protect does not think mountain biking is allowed on Whiteface. (my bolding)

Cherry picking or ignoring sections of the of the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan (APSLMP) that do not suit your claims invalidate the claims.

But I guess many of you are all for letting anyone do anything they want without any oversight?

Stop it. There are a handful of approved Intense Use areas in the Park that are highly regulated. WF, Gore and Mt Van Hoev are approved Intense Use areas.

 

[Campgottagopee]

You should be grateful

No thanks
Stupidity is something I'm far from grateful for
Again, this group, and other like them, have zero interest in the people who live in the ADK. They like to pound their chests and call themselves tall. That's what they do.
I have deep family roots in the ADK and none of them have ever been in favor of PROTECT.
Let me ask you this ----- what's your definition of timber?

 

[TheGreatAbyss]

You know, like those who actually live in the ADk and know what's best for them. Not a bunch of city folk who have no clue what it's like to live there.

I'm not going to weigh into whatever this particular fight is about, but this exact kind of thinking is why our planet is in trouble. Do only cattle ranchers who live in the Amazon get to decide how the land gets used? How about miners on what was once pristine mountain peaks? Or a few locals employed by Big Oil in the arctic? The earth is a shared resource that benefits everyone, and just cause you may live near one particular resource doesn't mean you get to call all the shots about it.

 

[tirolski]

Squeeky wheels get the grease.

APA Public Comment Public Hearings

Some folks in the mountains may not have good inter web.

 

[Campgottagopee]

Thanks for moving this

 

[Campgottagopee]

I'm not going to weigh into whatever this particular fight is about, but this exact kind of thinking is why our planet is in trouble. Do only cattle ranchers who live in the Amazon get to decide how the land gets used? How about miners on what was once pristine mountain peaks? Or a few locals employed by Big Oil in the arctic? The earth is a shared resource that benefits everyone, and just cause you may live near one particular resource doesn't mean you get to call all the shots about it.

Fair enough
I'm on the internet and I have opinions

 

[Campgottagopee]

Squeeky wheels get the grease.

APA Public Comment Public Hearings

Some folks in the mountains may not have good inter web.

I've written several letters supporting the snowmobile trail that Protect and Block is blocking. Both to the president of NYSSA and local and state government officials. I try and do what I can.

 

[tirolski]

Got salt?

Calls for salt-free roads

The Adirondack road salt reduction task force heard from property owners at its first in-person meeting in Lake Placid.

www.adirondackexplorer.org

 

[Campgottagopee]

Got salt?

Calls for salt-free roads

The Adirondack road salt reduction task force heard from property owners at its first in-person meeting in Lake Placid.

www.adirondackexplorer.org

But this would require people to actually drive for the conditions on the road!??? As in get proper studded snow tires, proper vehicles, and slow down.
I remember those day.

 

[JTG]

It is wrong. Mountain biking has clearly been approved for Intensive Use areas in the Park for 25 years. Are we to believe that everybody involved with approving/adding mountain biking at WF and Protect and groups like Protect missed a clear violation of the 1941 Article 14 amendment? Are we to believe that Protect only recently figured this illegality out in the April 11, 2022, letter?


The letter does say Protect does not believe mountain biking is approved on Whiteface.
Here is the relevant quote from the Protect letter:
"The 1941 Article 14 amendment authorized “appurtenances” to support “ski trails” at Whiteface Mountain. Facilities, infrastructure, and improvements for summertime nonalpine ski related activities, such as hiking and mountain bike riding, are not “appurtenances” that support alpine skiing. A mountain bike trail can hardly be considered to be a subordinate part or accessory object of a downhill ski area. Riding a bike does not require skis, nor is it part of the sport of skiing. PROTECT does not believe that the proposed downhill mountain biking trail network and hiking trails at Whiteface Mountain are covered by the 1941 constitutional amendment under the “appurtenances” umbrella."

There it is in bold - Protect does not think mountain biking is allowed on Whiteface. (my bolding)

Cherry picking or ignoring sections of the of the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan (APSLMP) that do not suit your claims invalidate the claims.

Stop it. There are a handful of approved Intense Use areas in the Park that are highly regulated. WF, Gore and Mt Van Hoev are approved Intense Use areas.

Again I say…..there isn’t much in their letter that is wrong, I don’t think. Even if hiking/biking trails were previously approved and added. Hiking and biking trails are not appurtenances of a ski area. Regardless, it was approved and they are there. PROTECT isn’t disputing that, or asking that such activity be eliminated.

The do use the strategy of questioning the validity under applicable articles as a tool to support their opposition to proposed further expansion of those trails without more detailed information about the additions and improvements that WF wants to make.

No, I don’t know the history of PROTECT and Bauer. But taking this issue in isolation I think trying to get more info before the horse is out of the barn is ok. Heck, depending upon the details it might be worth fighting. Yeah, there are hiking/biking trails on WF now…..but you’d never know it looking at the mountain. Will that continue to be the case with the proposed expansion? That’s a pretty fair question, IMHO.