Speak out for backcountry skiing in the Adks!

CONTENTS DELETED

nice work , email sent!

Done.

I'm going to push this out on Facebook.

Thanks Jeff - finally some real meat here.
Can you tell me where I can find the proposed amendment? It does not seem to be on their website.
I can't support an amendment that I haven't read or are they just asking for support for the idea of an amendment written with the guidelines given?

PeeTex wrote

Can you tell me where I can find the proposed amendment? It does not seem to be on their website.
I can't support an amendment that I haven't read or are they just asking for support for the idea of an amendment written with the guidelines given?

What Jeff outlined is pretty much it as far as ASPA's position. According to Jeff's piece in AA there is a 14-page document - Jeff how to access it?

In the end the APA will draft something they think makes sense based on what they think, influenced by what the public wants.

This is an extremely rare opportunity.  At this point the letter machine is in action and a million opinions, some you may not agree with, are going to be submitted.  Why not add your voice? I wrote my own letter that outlined my views specifically, going beyond skiing.

This is huge.. The backcountry community in NY has done a commendable job, and from what it looks like, is at a crux move .. Good luck to all involved.  

PeeTex wrote

Thanks Jeff - finally some real meat here.
Can you tell me where I can find the proposed amendment? It does not seem to be on their website.
I can't support an amendment that I haven't read or are they just asking for support for the idea of an amendment written with the guidelines given?

Thanks guys.  Harv's got it correct in the post above ^^.  Right now APSA's proposal is still in draft form (that's the 14-pg doc referred to above).  That document will eventually be released once it gets finalized.  One thing that's kind of weird about this SLMP process is that right now the Park Agency (APA) is in the idea gathering phase, hence the "listening sessions" they've established over the next month or so.  From those listening sessions, the specific proposed amendments will be developed, but none of the ideas (including mtb) have specific amendment language yet.  That said, the items I outlined in the original thread post above and in my piece on Adk Almanac were in large part lifted directly out of that draft document and will form the core of the proposal.  So to answer your specific question, right now the Adk Powder Skier Assoc is mainly asking support for the idea, but with as much of the specifics of their proposal being put out there for people like you to consider and digest.  
Thanks!

My letter is in.

Letter is in!

Spoke to Ron today... he's said the letter writing campaign has been solid, but he want MORE!!! Pour it on.

REMINDER! from RonKon:

TODAY: APA listening Session November 17 in Albany:

11am - 2pm
NYS DEC Headquarters
625 Broadway
Albany NY 12233

TOMORROW: APA Listening session November 18 in Old Forge:

5pm - 8pm
Old Forge Central School
3002 State Route 28
Old Forge, NY 13420

IF YOU CAN'T MAKE THE MEETING, or even if you can PLEASE send comments to the APA before the Dec 5 Deadline at this email address:

SLMP_Comments@apa.ny.gov

APSA was well represented at the last listening sessions (Ray Brook & Newcomb) 3 weeks ago.  I'll be going to the Albany session today.  There's still plenty of time to get letters / emails in to the APA before the Dec 5 deadline.  
More info here and here. Thanks to those who have already written APA in support of APSA's proposal!

email sent and passed around the info for the listening session. thanks.

I wrote an email. Will probably write a letter too, if people think that will help.

I'll swing by the DEC building around lunch time. What do I tell them when I get there? More backcountry skiing? I don't interact with policy authors very much. Am I just going to get there, sign a sheet of paper and leave? I wish there was a better way to do this activism stuff. Why don't they make it easier for lazy people to participate?

Write and say what you think. I modified the letter APSA put together to precisely reflect my thoughts.

This is a rare opportunity, we gotta let em know we are out there.

Would love to hear what happened, how it went.

mattchuck2 wrote

I wrote an email. Will probably write a letter too, if people think that will help.

I'll swing by the DEC building around lunch time. What do I tell them when I get there? More backcountry skiing? I don't interact with policy authors very much. Am I just going to get there, sign a sheet of paper and leave? I wish there was a better way to do this activism stuff. Why don't they make it easier for lazy people to participate?

I was there from about 11:30 to 12:30, just got back about 15 min ago.   You sign in, and there are staffers taking comments at several tables.  I brought along a printed copy of the letter that I emailed, and I gave it directly to Kathy Regan, the APA planning director, and told her I was there to support the increased access for backcountry skiing that the Adk Powder Skiers Assoc is proposing.  That's basically it.  I hung out for longer to talk with Ron Kon and an APA staffer who will be involved in reviewing APSA's proposal, but you can be in and out in about 10 minutes.
I think they've made it pretty easy to participate.  Emailing & letter writing is easy.  But showing up in person definitely adds to your impact.

I went around 12:45. Wrote a comment, talked to a couple of APA guys (Kevin and Matt?), talked to RonKon a little.

It seemed like the main focus of the meeting was the Essex Lakes Tract and whether or not to allow biking (which seems like it should be fine because there are a lot of old logging roads up there that would be fun to tour around on) and whether or not to allow them to bring in outside materials to build a bridge (why the hell not?).

Then there was the stuff about reopening the management plan where I put in a pitch for mountain biking and skiing. I don't understand what the big deal is, really. Why aren't these things constantly updated? Like, yearly? It was supposedly a big thing that they're reopening the plan for the first time in 25 years, but come on. Mountain biking was in its infancy 25 years ago and backcountry skiing was nowhere near the phenomenon it is now. I'm sure there will be some new outdoor activity in 10 years that nobody knows about yet.

Shouldn't there just be one guy that's like "okay, mountain biking is cool now, but not in these areas, you can trim glades here and here, but not here because of this reason, blah blah blah". And then if something doesn't work or they get too many complaints then just change course? It just seems like a weird model that we only adjust our rules every 10-25 years and hope that nothing changes within that time period. Same thing happened with the Rail Trail thing. People keep telling me to go to these meetings and write these letters and do these things, and I do them, but I don't really feel like I'm making much of an impact.

There should just be a benevolent dictator that decides all of this stuff that thinks exactly like I do for everything. Is that so hard?

Awesome, thanks for going Matt!

mattchuck2 wrote

It seemed like the main focus of the meeting was the Essex Lakes Tract and whether or not to allow biking (which seems like it should be fine because there are a lot of old logging roads up there that would be fun to tour around on) and whether or not to allow them to bring in outside materials to build a bridge (why the hell not?).

Yeah, the Essex Chain Lakes was the impetus behind opening up the SLMP for review.  It was a deal that got made during the land classification process a year ago. The issue with the bridge (over the Cedar River) is that structures are supposed to be built out of natural materials.  This bridge would be steel.  Personally, I agree this shouldn't be a big deal - there are other "non-conforming structures" in various places within the Forest Preserve (for example, the steel supension bridge over the Sacandaga at Whitehouse, in the Silver Lake Wilderness Area).

mattchuck2 wrote

I don't understand what the big deal is, really. Why aren't these things constantly updated? Like, yearly? It was supposedly a big thing that they're reopening the plan for the first time in 25 years, but come on. Mountain biking was in its infancy 25 years ago and backcountry skiing was nowhere near the phenomenon it is now. I'm sure there will be some new outdoor activity in 10 years that nobody knows about yet.

When the SLMP was created in the early '70s, it was supposed to be reopened every 5 years for review.  But as you know, our state government does an excellent job of screwing up the best of intentions.  There is an excellent 5-part series on the history of the SLMP that just ran on Adirondack Almanack, if you're interested (warning - it's a long read).  Here's the link to part 5.

mattchuck2 wrote

There should just be a benevolent dictator that decides all of this stuff that thinks exactly like I do for everything. Is that so hard?

I'm available.  

Seriously, it's great that you went.  The meeting seemed lightly attended, probably because it was in the middle of the work day (the other meetings were in the evening), so each individual counts that much more.

mattchuck2 wrote

.... Mountain biking was in its infancy 25 years ago and backcountry skiing was nowhere near the phenomenon it is now. I'm sure there will be some new outdoor activity in 10 years that nobody knows about yet.

we are there now with e-bike access, hot topic with land managers, trail builders and riders

mattchuck2 wrote

There should just be a benevolent dictator that decides all of this stuff that thinks exactly like I do for everything. Is that so hard?

I was thinking it should be you, but you did say you were lazy so maybe I will vote for Jeff. Ultimately I'd need to hear both candidates position on the men in black.

I also don't get the natural materials thing. Isn't Essex all Wild Forest and Primitive?  There's a steel bridge in the Siamese and I THINK it's there because the span is really long on wood wouldn't last.  Some would probably consider any bridge in a wilderness bit of a contradiction anyway.