Lyon Mountain

Harvey's post about use of state land I think was somehow inspired by this place... but...

Any news?

And as an aside does anyone know or have any history on this place.  It's a stout mountain.  I bet it was a great place to ski.

I'm a bit torn on the subject myself.  Part of me thinks a ski glade is lower impact than a hiking trail, and all out ski trails exist in the High Peaks.  Why couldn't the state be persuaded to allow trail maintenance on glades?  One would think we could treat them just like a marked trail.

The DEC clears trails for snow machines which is clearly are more disruptive than skiing.  Part of me thinks this is just 'tradition' holding on.  Nothing was written into the constitution for skiers... just like bikers.

At the root I think it is more about what has been forced by those who lobby and not what is good for the forest preserve.

For some reason I'm guessing no one knows wth I'm talking about... Quelle surprise!

http://www.adirondackalmanack.com/2013/05/skiers-want-to-maintain-glades-on-lyon-mt.html

Maybe that will clear it up some.

The official DEC response thus far has been an resounding NO to allowing ski glades to be maintained in the forest preserve.  Maybe more support from environmental groups could sway the decision.  A lawsuit perhaps?

It's tough being a square peg in a world of round holes...

http://nyskiblog.com/backcountry-skiing-new-york-state-land/

Both discussions over a year old.  Have there been any new developments?

My guess is no one is going to stop pruning the glades - and the state, being as overburdened as they are, won't do much unless they get pressured from some higher force to make an example of someone.

I agree it seems environmentally harmless, the small trees would regenerate in the matter of a couple years if left to nature anyway.  The impact is small.

It is, however, not in agreement with the 'forever wild' clause.  But we have to stand back and think about how many times human recreation steps right over that forever wild statement.  How is this any different?

One could also say that clearing shore lines or summits is the same thing - clearly they are not, but one would have to be careful in the 'red tape' verbiage in the UMP to state that the clearing only applies to designated trail areas, just as it does to snowmobile or hiking trails (snowmobile trails, if not maintained, would grow in just as quick as a glade).

MikeK wrote

Harvey's post about use of state land I think was somehow inspired by this place...

True dat.

MikeK wrote

For some reason I'm guessing no one knows wth I'm talking about... Quelle surprise!

http://www.adirondackalmanack.com/2013/05/skiers-want-to-maintain-glades-on-lyon-mt.html

Maybe that will clear it up some.

The official DEC response thus far has been an resounding NO to allowing ski glades to be maintained in the forest preserve.  Maybe more support from environmental groups could sway the decision.  A lawsuit perhaps?

It's tough being a square peg in a world of round holes...

Been a busy 12 hours with some other things going on, merely posted the link to show we were aware of the situation.  I did understand that DEC original comments seemed to imply they were not thinking about being flexible.

Mike... have you seen recent comments from DEC? If so would like to see them, please post. What are your thoughts on this kind of grooming?

Not sure enviro groups would be on board with this?  Probably have to trade something big.

Keep quiet and out of sight and all will take care of itself. You would be surprised at who is doing a little nip and tuck in the woods.  

I agree PeeTex... it's gonna happen.

It goes back to Harvey's poll on whether or not the rules should be consistently followed or conveniently ignored.

I'm of the mind rules should be consistent, but in this case, I think the rules need to be rewritten or at least reviewed.  Again I'll point out I see little difference between a maintained snowmobile trail and a maintained glade except that one had precedence when the rules were written.

The danger as I see it is the state could be real assholes about it if they wanted.  It's best if these kind of things get accepted and written into management plans.  Or else it is up to the lawmakers to decide which kinds or recreation are OK and which aren't based on old rules that already lack consistency.

In my mind there really needs to be some overwhelming evidence that shows maintaining these types of trails is detrimental to the forest and not the age old argument that if we let skiers maintain trails then next there will be a hotel on top Mt. Marcy.  There is an obvious difference there to most sensible people but it needs to be laid out in legal jargon.

It is my sense (pure speculation) that Ron Kon wants to bring it out in the open.  Not sure if this is a big picture vision or primarily to preserve glading on Lyon.

Mike,
I can't agree with you on this, I think things are just fine as they are. The state will look away just as long as it does not get out of hand. They want the law firmly on the books to keep the Yahoos out. I would rather the decision be in the hands of a DEC ranger than an Albany Judge. The crane pond road is an example of wisdom on the states part, they could shut it down and start a war which the locals would loose but it isn't hurting anyone but if it gets out of control they can step in.

Not to be condescending, but pick your battles, particularly the ones you really don't want to win.

I think I have to agree with Harvey's observation though.  I don't think the APSA via Ron would have made this public if they weren't planning to fight the battle.

My guess is they are putting it out there to see who backs them up.  Most skiers won't give two hoots because they'll never go there.  The few that do or want to may be too few to cause any real movement.

I think Ron Kon has more influence in the ski community than some might expect though.  It would be nice if the Adirondack Ski Touring Council would back this up too, but their interests are slightly different.  A lot of people who are ski tourers might become interested in this type of skiing as well, if they aren't already... there are many parallels... so I could see them working together if there was some promotion.

I don't see much difference between this and what Beta has successfully done but the APA and DEC evidently do.

The problem is they came out and said where they wanted to do it so now that they were shot down they can't cut there.  It's a big big park and a few small trees won't be missed if done properly and on the down low

Not sure why they showed their hand unless they thought they could get something legal done.  I hate to say it but unlikely anyone would get caught doing this (see below).

OTOH, I don't condone cutting a few trees here and there.  I think it's a good thing that we keep these things in check.  I really don't like to see live trees cut around campsites, on shorelines or on summits, no matter how small they are.  It is a good thing to keep things as wild as we can, but we have to be conscious that people do use the park for recreation, and a fair deal of legal pruning already happens to maintain trails that if were not would result in a large uproar from certain special interest groups.

As far as illegal cuttings that have no tie to public recreation and are just for personal use or aesthetic reasons those have their way of being dealt with.  Rarely will a ranger catch people doing this, but if it persists, sites are shut down and areas are closed off to re-vegetate.  It's almost impossible to keep everyone out but un-marking trails and closing campsites does work.  I think the balance here is weighing the needs of the many vs. the needs of the few.  From an ecological standpoint the park would be better to be shut off from all recreation, but it's not meant to be that.  It's meant to be a balance...

A side ramble about balance...

If you do a quick check in the Adirondacks you will find the a split in most areas of controversy.  The park is nearly 50/50 private/public.  In the public holdings the land is nearly 50/50 Wilderness/Wild Forest (non-motorized/motorized recreation).  So clearly all of this is about compromise.

I think the issue is just now being raised and if the supporters are smart about it I think the solution of compromise could be met in the future allowing skiers to have some recreational right to modify the landscape.  It won't come easy though, and I think trying to keep it under the rug gives the wrong impression to everyone; future generations foremost.

I'm glad these guys are going public and trying to do things the right way.  It may seem like a bunch of BS right now but if things like this are allowed, then the end result will be much sweeter.