Adirondacks in 2106

[Little Rickie]

A hundred years ago the Adirondack region was logged out, most of the old growth had been cut down and the region was in bad shape. Over the years land has been bought by the state, nature has reclaimed much of what she has lost. Trees grew back, many species have rebounding or have returned. Land is still being bought by the state and will be allowed to be wild again.

Man is building some very expensive property in and near the park, reminiscent of the great camps of the past. Is this a cycle? Will this development go the way of the great camps? What will the Adirondacks be like in 100 years?

How do you visualize the Adirondacks in 2106?

[AlpineSummit]

WoW - this thread could go forever...........

I feel the outlook is kinda scary & kinda sad. With 100 yrs of increased population - who knows if we'll ever get that under control - there will be so much pressure on lands to be developed. I don't know how the state could possibly retain what they have, let alone buy more land.

I don't know quite what it will be like, but I have my fears.

[ElectricMan]

What will the Adirondacks be like in 100 years?
I think global warming will increase the amount and severity of precipitation in the North East. With very little top soil left on the High Peaks now, it will quickly erode leaving nothing but bare rock.
The up side is: Trail maintenance should decrease dramatically. Slide climbing will increase dramatically. :)
The down side is: The valleys will be filled with debris making them impassable. ;)

[pete_hickey]

How do you visualize the Adirondacks in 3006? Cheeses! What does it matter. Man won't even be around by then. Man will have been killed by weird predators, produced by genetic engineering experiments gone bad due to PETA protesters.

[Mavs00]

Is this a cycle? Will this development go the way of the great camps? What will the Adirondacks be like in 100 years?

How do you visualize the Adirondacks in 3006?

not to be overly fastidious and I do see what your hinting at, but.....

Wouldn't 3006 be 1000 yrs, not 100 years???

My answer changes, depending of which one you meant. 100? or 1000? or did you just mean some arbitrary time in the future?

[neighbor]

humans will find a way to exterminate themselves loong before 1000 years pass.

[Neil]

The ADK's are growing, IIRC, at a rate of 10 centimeters per century, therefore in 1000 years from now they will be more than 3 feet higher. Does that mean McNaughton will make the 4ker list?

In a million years Couchie'll be what? 6850 feet above sea level. I can't wait.

[AlpineSummit]

In the year 2525

Observation decks on the peaks w/less than perfect 360's
A monorail system from peak to peak to peak. ADK will offer 'Monorail Dinner Cruises' at sunset to 'Become a 46'R without hiking, from fruitcup to coffee & dessert'.

[MattC]

The E-man makes a good point about climate change. There are different models of how much and what type of changes may come to our corner of the world, but there is little doubt that something will change. Putting aside precip-caused soil loss for a moment, one might imagine hardwood forests creeping up the slopes to higher elevations, and the lovely boreal forest we all love retreating. Might do wonders for foliage season, but the Balsam, people, the Balsam! Won't someone think of the Balsam?!

Matt

[Boreal Chickadee]

the Balsam! Won't someone think of the Balsam?!

Matt


Been thinking about this for years! Pretty depressing and along with the balsams got the boreal species of birds.

Now don't quote me on this one, but I think Barbara McMartin mentions the change in forest species composition that will come with warming in her comprehensive tome of the forests of the Adirondacks. It's been about four years since I read it so my memory is a bit foggy. If warming doesn't get them inthe long run then woolly adelgids will in the short run....No more balsam blisters to stick a twig in and sniff as I walk down the trail. :cry:

[joseywalesb]

Hmmmm,
I believe the dacks are headed the same place as the black mountains in NC/Tenn. The north will become more like the south as far as geographical layout. Everytime you go to the top of a peak, you won't just see other peaks and woods, I believe you'll see small towns and small cities at the base of the mountains. They were just talking on the news tonight, the U.S. has 300 million people now. We're growing rapidly and using up all our resources/land. Humans are far more destructive to the earth than any insect or animal could ever be. As far as the size of the dacks, many think the dacks are part of the oldest ranges, but that's false. The dacks are actually the youngest of mountain ranges, the rock that forms them is some of the oldest known. Hence, they are growing faster than any other chain, cept the ones with volcanos, lol. The climate is becoming more like the south, it's happening now. Within the next 10-20 yrs NYC will be gone as well as most of the first 20 miles of the east coast. Anyone watch National Geo? They guarantee a shelf to fall and create a tidal wave that's going to wipe out that rat infested modern day Sodom down there. We'll have some prime ocean front property here, buy land now, it's going to be worth a fortune. After the big one, I believe the state will start developing more and more in the dacks, hence the statement about the small towns/cities up here. Just a thought.... more like a few...

[Little Rickie]

OOOps Sorry, I meant 2106. I was rushing when I wrote this.

So who has any serious foresight on this.

PS: Could managment change the title to 2106? I don't know how to or can't do that, thanks.

[pete_hickey]

OOOps Sorry, I meant 2106. I was rushing when I wrote this. Then things become a LITTLE easier.

but still....

Things are changing in a non-linear fashion. Look at the past 100 years. Don't look at it as a whole 100 year hunk. Break it into 20 year intervals.

1906-1925 Much still wild, but much was logged (3)
1926-1945 recreational use starts a bit more (28)
1946-1965 increasing recreational use (311)
1966-1985 effects starting to be seen from increased use (1860)
1986-2005 greater increase in rec use, stronger protection laws, winter use starts.(3537)

The numbers at the end are the numbers of 46ers in thiat time period. Not to be thought of specifically as 46ers, but as an indication of the increasing use. I suspect that NH48, Cat3500, Colorado 14ers follow a similar pattern.

Note two things. The increase is non-linear. Graph that curve, and see where it goes in 20 years. The other thing to notice, is that protection laws are REACTIONARY, not proactive.

Either of two routes will occur. Protection will continue, or it will be given up. There will be increased problems due to winter use, and lawsuits.

Spring thaws will expose tons of turds and garbage dropped/lost in the snow. Hiking will not be permitted in early spring, when there isn't enough snow to protect alpine vegetation.

Regulations will come into efect to protect the state against lawsuits. GPS will be reequired for travel, or off-trail hiking will not be permitted. There will be limits on the number of people allowed per day, and gear will be checked in the winter/Baxter style.

[lumberzac]

The E-man makes a good point about climate change. There are different models of how much and what type of changes may come to our corner of the world, but there is little doubt that something will change. Putting aside precip-caused soil loss for a moment, one might imagine hardwood forests creeping up the slopes to higher elevations, and the lovely boreal forest we all love retreating. Might do wonders for foliage season, but the Balsam, people, the Balsam! Won't someone think of the Balsam?!

Matt

The Adirondack Atlas touches on this a little. I don’t have it in front of me, so the following is paraphrased from memory. Basically if the current rate climate changes remain the same, the climate of the Adirondacks will be similar to that of current day southern New Jersey. All of the alpine vegetation will be gone, as well as most of the spruce and balsam with the exception of pockets mainly on the north slopes of some of the higher mountains. The Adirondack forest will be mostly hardwoods. Will this actually happen? I don’t know. One thing I can tell you is the Adirondacks will change over the next 100 years in ways that we probably won’t be able to predict.

[lumberzac]

The increase is non-linear. Graph that curve, and see where it goes in 20 years.

It would be interesting to see that graph compared to that of population increases as well as other factors.

[Mavs00]

Then things become a LITTLE easier.

but still....

Things are changing in a non-linear fashion. Look at the past 100 years. Don't look at it as a whole 100 year hunk. Break it into 20 year intervals.

1906-1925 Much still wild, but much was logged (3)


Ummmm. Actually, if you choose to look at it as a "lumped" historical perspective, I think we could agree the Adirondacks ARE in FAR better shape than they were 100 years ago....

During much of that first period (1906-25) over 1 million acres of the park (over 1/6) was a barren wasteland. The great fires of 1903 & 1908 laid waste to HUGE parcels of land. Add to that, the extensive logging of the 19th century (a huge part of which set up the scenario that allowed the fires to occur), and I'd be willing to bet that the land as a whole is Far healthier than it was 100 years ago........ Not withstanding significant bumps along the way... i.e. Acid rain (improving), human traffic.

Being more of an optimist, I like to believe that the preservation measures, better fire control measures, ect that have allowed the Adirondacks have begun to heal some, will continue into the future. 100 years? Not sure about that long, but certainly the foreseeable future. I doubt that rational folks will allow for the overturning of the "forever wild" clauses, so that we can build condos along the Great Range. Sorry, I just don't see it.

As for hikers and increased FOOT traffic........ Lets get real here folks. Compared to sizable impact activities/events like logging, fires, infrastructure/development (cities, towns, roads), climate changes or other destructive environmental policy consequences, feet hitting the group is WAAAAAAAAAY down the list of land killers.

You could double/triple foot traffic, and while you'd certainly see a big impact to the "little ribbons" of trails that crisscross the area during a stroll, but if you got in a plane and did a flyover, you'd really see a minimal impact, as compared to those "big ticket" items.

That certainly doesn't mean we should not advocate for responsible recreational use in the backcountry, quite the opposite. I am a huge proponent of it. However for the purpose of this thread, I think that if were gonna see a prolonged significant negative impact to the Adirondacks in the next 100 years, it'll be from one or more of those big ticket things. Not soley from "boots on the ground".

Fire away :) I'm sure some people will disagree.

[lumberzac]

Mavs00, does bring up a very good point. The Adirondacks are in much better shape than what they were 100 years ago, but not 200 years ago. It’s interesting to see the contrast between then and now. A good place to see this is on the Santanoni Preserve. Stop at the Gate Lodge and look at the photos of the farm complex, then walk the half-mile up the road and see the area now. All those open fields have grown in. I do think the Adirondacks will change, but will survive. Remember, 10,000 years ago glaciers removed almost all the vegetation and topsoil. If the region survived that, I think it will continue to survive. I still think the efforts to protect the region are well worth it. While I believe time will heal any wounds that we as humans put on the Adirondacks, the healing time could be much long than ours or our children’s life times.

[Neil]

I hope that the Adirondacks will be much like today 100 years from now. Here are a few changes that I'd like to see though:

Better, less easily eroded trails.
Better educated visitors.
Moose, bears, wolves, deer in abundance.
No private land outside of the towns.
No hunting.


I hope what "wilderness" there is remains as is. ie. Places like the Sentinels and Sawtooths, Lost Pond Peak. They look like tiny little enclaves on the map and they are close to road systems but when you're out in the middle of them you sure feel the contrast between them say, the Ridge Trail up Giant.


The physical environment may be healthy, protected by law from development and well preserved. What may be lost is a sense of Wilderness. Imagine the Dix Wilderness with no trails or herd trails. Or, the Sawtooth range with trails and LT's all throughout it.

(I imagine that the central through southern Adirondack park is pretty wild compared to the HPR. Or is there a lot of motorized recreation down that way?)

[AlpineSummit]

My fears are over-crowding and over-regulation, not that the Adirondacks won't survive. They will, but in a diminished way. They'll maybe feel more like Central Park than a primitive forest.

[lumberzac]

I hope that the Adirondacks will be much like today 100 years from now. Here are a few changes that I'd like to see though:

Better, less easily eroded trails.
Better educated visitors.
Moose, bears, wolves, deer in abundance.
No private land outside of the towns.
No hunting.



Some of these will probably never happen. In fact, if I had to guess I would think that some of the wildlife populations would go down as the forest matures. There are far more deer inside the park that there were 200 years ago. Some of this is do to the lack of natural predators, although coyotes seem to do a pretty good job, but most of it is because of habitat. Whitetails don’t do very well in a mature forest, because it lacks a lot of the under growth that they feed on. They are much more adaptive to new growth.
Check this map out:
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dfwmr/wildlife/deer/wmu05.gif
If you notice the two areas with the least number of deer taken are over the Adirondack and Catskill Parks, areas with the highest acreage of continuous forests. While there are other factors involved, much of the reason for this is due to lower deer populations in this area.
I’d like to see a healthier population rather than a larger one.

[Little Rickie]

I just woke up after my second cup of coffee and discovered I've became a Senior Member?

How'd that happen? What did I do to be bestowed with seniority? I haven't been around the forum that long.

I'm old and feeble but...

[hawk]

I can't speak for the Adirondacks as far as experience goes, but I can compare different areas iof the country that I hiked in back in the 50's and 60's to now, and it's a mixed report.

In many areas, tourism and recreation became the "Gross Local product" and in those cases the approach was how best to "improve" the area for the tourists and the recreationalists (new word?). That lead to development catering to the people (houses, resorts, outdoor related businesses, restaurants, etc.) which began to sprawl outward from the small communities. Next came the Condos, conceived by the developers who realized people with "idle money" would pay big $$$ for their own "piece of wilderness", which was often built on the edge of forests and incidently ended up cutting down on the "public" land that was available, as well as leading to more clearing of forest lands. Today most of those areas are now pretty much off limits for free recreational use since it is privately owned.

In other words, as far as being public land that was available to most people, it has now become available to only the wealthy. Much of the open or forested land has disappeared. The balance of nature, especially the wildlife has been affected adversely. The predators are mostly gone and the proliferation of game animals without their natural predators and a smaller habitat has led to starvation and diseases like CWD.

Other areas became pro-active in protecting the public land and the wildlife and limiting development. They still have a lot of open space that is free for the public to enjoy.

That has occurred in just the last half century. Incidently, in many of those areas, laws that were passed to seemingly protect some areas, actually were designed to give an elite few control over how the land was used.

Fortunately for us the Adirondacks are protected by a Constitutional Amendment which makes it difficult (But not impossible, that could be overturned under the right circumstances). There are several agencies that oversee and regulate what happens here, but what must be understood is that there are private interests that have a lot of ower and exert a lot of influence on the DEC and the APA. For instance, the ADK has a lot of say in what projects get priority and which don't, as well as a couple of other agencies. Sometimes these are in everyones favor, but not always.

We have a lot of competion here in the Adirondacks for use of the land. Backpackers, campers (car and backpacing), day hikers, peak baggers, HH, snowmobilers, mountain bikers, trail runners, hunters, ATVers, paddlers, photographers, rock climbers, skiiers, snowshoers, and cavers, not to mention Towns, lumber companies, quarries and developers. Throw into the mix that the use of private land can affect the Adirondacks and that regulations can affect how private land is used.

Every year people are trying to introduce legislation that will cut back on the regulation of the Adirondacks so they can develop the land and make a quick profit.

So, the Adirondacks are contested grounds, from many different areas. What happens in the next hundred years depends on which interests "win".

In order to help ensure that what we enjoy today is still here for our grandcchildren or great grandchildren, we all need to be the watchdogs. Part of that means looking at the whole picture, instead of fighting over our individual "turf". There needs to be a unity among all those different recrational interests to prevent the development as well as overuse.

If wwe can all work together, there are compromises that can be reached among all of us regarding the use of the land for recreational purposes.

I think that if we can accomplish that and be reasonable, then in 100 years, there is a good chance that the Adirondacks might be better then they are today. if we don't, then overuse and dissension among the various sportsmen will result in more regulation and limited use of the Adirondacks for all sportsmen (and women) and that the lack of unity and awareness of ALL the issues affecting the Adirondacks will eventually result in changing the regulations to allow more development.

Remember, it was primarily the clear cutting of the forest that got the public up in arms. remember that the original purpose of the first organization to "protect the Adiriondacks" was instituted by the wealthy landowners to creat a monopoly for them to log and mine.

The public has a short memory. If we are not diligent, informed, and united, in 100 years the Adirondacks may again be in control of those who which to exploit the natural resources for personal financial gain, whether it's developing housing, building resorts that charge for the use of the land, or opening it up for logging again under the guise of "fire management".

So the short answer to what will the Adirondacks be like in 100 years is that it depends on what you do about it between now and then.

[Rusty and the Maniac]

Yeah, I just became a senior member too! I wonder if I can get discounts at brunch now???

Ok, back on topic, I know that global warming is "irrefutable" now in the scientific community... but has anyone been out winter camping in the last few years? It's freaking cold out there compared to when I was in high school. I was skiing on whiteface on oct 30th last year and last winter was mild compared to the rest of the 2000's. I'm not sure if we'll have to kiss our boreal species goodbye... Likewise, I have faith that the state won't let any wilderness go away, that is unless the people let it happen. Unfortunately, the APA seems to be slipping with the whole Ti Lowes store thing... Which, in my opinion is the worst thing to happen to the ADK's in a while.

[randomscooter]

I'm very optimistic. I only wish I would be here to see the changes... forests continuing to mature from the ravages of logging, in some cases the transition forest community of today will have become nearly indistinguishable from the pre-logging days old growth forests, and given another hundred years almost all the public forest lands will be mature old growth. Corresponding change in composition of flora and fauna as the forests mature. Bushwhacking will become a lost art, unnecessary except perhaps the top few hundred feet to the summits, but even there there'll be fingers of older growth forest that reach to or nearly to many of the summits.

[MattC]

I wonder if the Cliffhanger will reopen by 2106. I really liked that place.

Matt

[joseywalesb]

I'm very optimistic. I only wish I would be here to see the changes... forests continuing to mature from the ravages of logging, in some cases the transition forest community of today will have become nearly indistinguishable from the pre-logging days old growth forests, and given another hundred years almost all the public forest lands will be mature old growth. Corresponding change in composition of flora and fauna as the forests mature. Bushwhacking will become a lost art, unnecessary except perhaps the top few hundred feet to the summits, but even there there'll be fingers of older growth forest that reach to or nearly to many of the summits.

Ugh, your so right dude. If I could, I'd live forever. Doesn't everyone think about that? What are you going to miss when your gone? Life is just grand, at least I think so, even with ups and downs, it's the only experience we're ever going to know, we should embrace it with all that we have, all that we are, and all that we are ever going to be while we are here. Would anyone else think they might develop some more ski slopes? I don't see that as a complete no right now. They are opening Big Tupper again, can't wait to try that. NY has a ton more mountains than VT and yet we probably have 1/4 the number of ski slopes. I think eventually we might get a few more. On the side note, neil's comment about hoping they stay exactly the way they are.... If taxes keep going up the way they are, they most definitely will. One thing to note is the new international airport going in to Plattsburgh. That's going to make this area much easier to get to. Look at Burlington for instance, they have around 200,000 people over there. I'd have to do the research, but I think it pretty much grew around the airport. That could happen to the plattsburgh area, and with it being only 10 miles from the park limits, boundaries could change etc... Just a thought...

[ElectricMan]

Nicely Put i12climbup :tup:

... but what can I do? What will I do? Yeah sure, I pick up litter as I hike. Sure I stay off the fragile alpine vegetation above tree-line. But it will take more than that. Every effort we make today may perhaps buy us one more day of the beauty we now behold. But what kind of effort does it take? What does an average Joe Hiker do to help preserve an area of over 6 million acres?
.
IMHO

It’s done by instilling in your children (and your children’s children) the values that you are passionate about and hold dear. THAT is how this world will become a better place for the following generations.

[AlpineSummit]

Nicely Put i12climbup :tup:


IMHO

It’s done by instilling in your children (and your children’s children) the values that you are passionate about and hold dear. THAT is how this world will become a better place for the following generations.

You're a wise man, E Man.

[kwc]

Here's an interesting article from the Press-Republican (Plattsburgh).

I've highlighted a couple statements made by the author ... one because of Neil's desire to have "moose, bears, wolves, deer in abundance", the other because I just found it to be an interesting statement ...


Wilderness and wildlife - do they go hand in hand?
Moose, deer prefer open, disturbed forest
By Dennis Aprill, THE OUTDOOR PERSPECTIVE

At the end of last fall's big-game hunting season, a friend came to me saying, "I found the biggest rubs you will ever see. Go check them out." I did.

They were way back in on paper-company land on a hill that had been logged heavily five years earlier. Now, besides the usual whippets and blackberry canes, striped maples grew, some eight inches in diameter. There were rub-like rippings on the bark, some six to eight feet off the ground. I knew immediately these weren't rubs made by antlers; these trees had been barked for food. It had to be a moose. As summer turns to fall and winter, moose move to higher ground, where they seek out young hardwoods like those striped maple.

I knew from past experience in New Hampshire and Maine that, if we had any moose in the vicinity, they would eventually find that particular place. Moose, like deer, don't like mature climax forests often associated with the wilderness ideal -- the unbroken virgin forest. They like forest disturbance, and, in this era when natural forest fires are not allowed to spread in New York, the best habitat for our two big ungulates (moose and deer) is logged-over land.

Both moose and deer do well with forest succession and actively seek out edge areas where food sources like hardwood saplings, berries and wild plants are plentiful, not the maturing interior Adirondacks protected by the Forever Wild clause of the State Constitution where food sources are growing beyond the reach of these animals. Even though moose seek out water with lilies and other aquatic plants during the summer, they still gravitate to cut-over land to supplement their diet. Among the myriad of other animals that also thrive with forest diversity are grouse and wild turkeys.

It's ironic because you so often hear people extolling the virtues of expansive wilderness areas where extirpated species like the eastern Canadian wolf would live, but on what? The deer would be elsewhere, and so, too, would the wolves eventually.

This is not to say wilderness areas are bad; it's just that they are often maintained for human gratification. Although these areas provide habitat for a limited number of species that do well in climax forests, the majority of our large wildlife may visit but not stay very long. One of these temporary homes might be an uncut evergreen-tree stand with lots of northern white cedar, an excellent winter deer food.

How many deer live in the High Peaks Wilderness Region compared to the peripheral Adirondacks and the St. Lawrence and Champlain valleys? Granted, climate plays a role, but, if deer and moose eat well, they can usually overcome bad winters.

Needless to say, in the Adirondacks we have extensive wilderness-designated areas and certainly don't need many more. Our moose and deer numbers are just starting to increase, and it is private lands managed for timber harvest that are the reason; Let's hope we can maintain the patchwork of forest types we already have.

[randomscooter]

Needless to say, in the Adirondacks we have extensive wilderness-designated areas and certainly don't need many more. Our moose and deer numbers are just starting to increase, and it is private lands managed for timber harvest that are the reason; Let's hope we can maintain the patchwork of forest types we already have.
Glad to see you stated the bottom line so clearly. The mix of public and private lands in the Adirondack Park is precisely what is needed to provide the "edges", those transition zones between different forest communities, that are required for our wildlife to thrive.

[chip]

It's ironic because you so often hear people extolling the virtues of expansive wilderness areas where extirpated species like the eastern Canadian wolf would live, but on what? The deer would be elsewhere, and so, too, would the wolves eventually.

This is not to say wilderness areas are bad; it's just that they are often maintained for human gratification. Although these areas provide habitat for a limited number of species that do well in climax forests, the majority of our large wildlife may visit but not stay very long. One of these temporary homes might be an uncut evergreen-tree stand with lots of northern white cedar, an excellent winter deer food.

Thanks for posting that article. I agree with it completey and I'm not sure why so many people have trouble with the concept. Animal populations around me have exploded in the last 20 years. Deer were a rare sight when I was young. Turkey, coyote, bear, bobcat and moose were unheard of. Not so today. Many states were nearly clear-cut for wood and farming 100 years ago. Like mature forests, farms offer no Habitat, no Edge. Any resident animals were hunted. Now every neighborhood has grass, gardens, trees, open-spaces, protected areas, streams, ponds, and little or no hunting - perfect habitat - like the stages of successional forest. It's no coincidence that now every neighborhood also has a flock of turkey, herd of deer, pack of coyote and a bear.

This creates opportunities like increased fee income from hunting and problems like rabid animal attacks (http://www.newstimeslive.com/news/story.php?id=1018149), habituated animals and accidents.

How far behind the deer, bear and coyote can the wolf, cougar and wild-boar be ? 2106 ? More animals lead to expanded hunting and trapping seasons. Will armed hiking guides be required ? It's not far fetched. It's wild out there, baby !

[TFR]

How far behind the deer, bear and coyote can the wolf, cougar and wild-boar beDoes anyone know where the nearest stable populations of:

- Wolf

- Cougar

- Boar

are living these days? I don't care about the transients, I know cougars and other wild beasts pass thru once in a while.

And BTW, I just read that the Jaguar is back in the desert SW!

[lumberzac]

Does anyone know where the nearest stable populations of:

- Wolf

- Cougar

- Boar

are living these days? I don't care about the transients, I know cougars and other wild beasts pass thru once in a while.

And BTW, I just read that the Jaguar is back in the desert SW!

For wolf I would think Algonquin Park in Canada. Although I think there are other populations that are closer, the one in Algonquin seems to be the most stable.

BTW, I don’t think wild boar are native to the Adirondacks, though I could be wrong.

[joseywalesb]

Does anyone know where the nearest stable populations of:

- Wolf

- Cougar

- Boar

are living these days? I don't care about the transients, I know cougars and other wild beasts pass thru once in a while.

And BTW, I just read that the Jaguar is back in the desert SW!

Now now. I'm not sure if anyone will believe this one or not buttttt, since we're on the topic. I was headed to work about 1.5 yrs ago, not last winter, but the one before. I used to drive from Saranac to Rouses point, NY everyday, about 40 miles each way. I've seen Pics of wolves on discovery, the net and animal planet. No joke, i'm driving on 87 near the Chazy/Sciota exit near Miner Institute, between that exit and the Champlain exit. I see about 100 yards in front of me something kind of galloping across the road. Hundred yards isn't really that far, but far enough where i couldn't see his eyes or anything, but something that probably goes about 120lbs or so, like a huge dog. Dark brown/black in color. If this was a dog, it's hands down the hugest wild do I've ever seen. Anyways, it kinda runs across the road and turns and keeps galloping north about 20 feet off the side of the road kinda headed towards the woods. I saw it very clearly, it was not more than 30ft from me at one point, I slowed down and took a good look at it. I asked a couple people, they said it was a timberwolf. Dude, this thing was huge and if I saw it in the woods with a gun, I'd probably turn and go the other direction hoping it didn't see me. It looked exactly like you'd think it would with the pics of warewolves and whatnots. Anybody else see something like this or validate that something like this could be around these parts???

[kwc]

This is the line that struck me the most ...

"This is not to say wilderness areas are bad; it's just that they are often maintained for human gratification"

if one is maintaining wilderness, then it isn't wilderness, is it?

[AlpineSummit]

Lotsa definitions of the word 'maintain' - One is 'to keep'. So that fits well enuff. But yea I saw that too & it made me think a little. That's something :tup:

Nice av kwc, it just draws me into it. Purty

[TFR]

This is the line that struck me the most ...

"This is not to say wilderness areas are bad; it's just that they are often maintained for human gratification"

if one is maintaining wilderness, then it isn't wilderness, is it?Interesting! By effectively keeping things *OUT*, we are in fact not making it a true wilderness!

[pete_hickey]

.... Dude, this thing was huge ...... It looked exactly like you'd think it would with the pics of warewolves and whatnots. Anybody else see something like this or validate that something like this could be around these parts???You do know about The Nye Wolf, don't you?

[TFR]

There are lots of stories in the press about animals that have been sighted where they do not 'belong'. A moose in Fishkill, cougars in New England, wolves in NY, wild boars in NJ. And on and on.....

Some of these critters may have wandered around by themselves, but others could have been released by people who were tired/afraid (?) of keeping a 'pet' mountain lion around any longer. :eek:

[joseywalesb]

You do know about The Nye Wolf, don't you?

What's that???

[chip]

BTW, I don’t think wild boar are native to the Adirondacks, though I could be wrong.
Neither are coyote. Animals fill niches where they are available. There is a stable, breeding Russian Boar population in western NH on a 20k plus acre private preserve. The boar can escape, breed with pigs, etc. There is also a healthy population heading this way from the south.
Listen, I don't want you to think I'm suggesting BigFoots (not counting the Hickey's :eek: ) are taking over the woods, but 30 years ago if you told someone there'd be turkey, coyote, bear and moose in CT, you'd have been committed.

[chip]

Interesting! By effectively keeping things *OUT*, we are in fact not making it a true wilderness!
Not allowing fires to consume vast acerage is also a big factor. Native Americans knew the advantages and burned forests, the colonists but an end to that.

[joseywalesb]

Not allowing fires to consume vast acerage is also a big factor. Native Americans knew the advantages and burned forests, the colonists but an end to that.

In some areas they still burn certain areas to control fires in case a forest fire does start, they can contain it...

[hawk]

Not allowing fires to consume vast acerage is also a big factor. Native Americans knew the advantages and burned forests, the colonists but an end to that.

A few years back, there was a fire at Bear Butte in Sturges, Sd. It is a mountain sacred to the Lakota and Northern Cheyenne. We use it for Hanbleecha (Vision Quest) and at the base of it there are frames for our Ipipi's (sweat Lodges). It is also designated as a National Monument and there are two trails, one is for Native Americans only, the other for the public at large.

The fire engulfed the whole mountain (more of a large hill then a mountain really) and people were saying that it was destroyed. One of our Holy men stated that it was "the natural order of things, the way Creator heals the land".

In two years, the Butte looked better then ever, no deforestation, the trees all had leaves again, there was less brush and with the opened up areas along with the nutrients the fire had created new life sprung up.

So, sometimes things are managed best when it is left to nature to do the managing. It seems she did rather well for the eons before man started to "improve" on things.

Today it's a two edged sword. in many cases we need to do things to "undo" the negative impact from the "improvements" of the past.

Remeber, a few decades back, the beaver was almost trapped to extinction in the Adirondacks as a nuisance. Finally someone realized that the beaver was a part of the ecosystem. As much as we may dislike having to slog through some beaver meadows or around their ponds, a big part of what the Adirondacks are is a result of the beaver.

There are many things that can be done to restore the balance necessary for an ecosystem and it's wildlife to be healthy, but because some of those things will encroach on the leisure or sporting life of humans, they will be opposed vehemently.

Part of the solution overall is to base decisions on what is best long range for the resources and wildlife, and not what will be most profitable or advantages for people.

That is of course assuming that we are interested in preserving the wilderness.

[lumberzac]

Sorry, I misunderstood what you had posted. I originally thought you were suggesting that wild boar be introduced to the Adirondacks, which I would be against. Now I see you were just suggesting that they might move in naturally over time from places like NH. I agree that is definitely a possibility.

[chip]

Well, since there's some interest;This is a map of breeding populations of boar from 2004. (http://www.uga.edu/scwds/dist_maps/swine04.html) It shows the preserve in western NH, but also wild populations in Ohio and West Virginia, near the NY & PA border. Anyone who has seen the damage that these animals can do would prefer not to have them as neighbors. If the Audubon Society has a problem with deer, (http://magazine.audubon.org/incite/incite0507.html) just wait until the boar get here. Truly ROUS's. :eek:

[Little Rickie]

Before this post gets lost in tangents I'l like to add my $.o2 and see what people think.

In a hundred years the forests will be in much better shape than they are now and the wilderness will be more wild than ever. The enviromental laws govering the park have become even more strict & restrictive, taking away the financial incentive to develop land. Individual ownership of land dwindles due to financial disincentives. The exception is of course for the ultra-rich and political favors but they still can only rent the land from the state.

Multi-million dollar homes are abandoned or sold by families as they change hands at the death of the original owners/builders. Many become bed and breakfast hostels catering to day hikers since highly prized overnight camping has been severly limited. Overnight campling is by permit only obtainable by lottery (or political favor, some things will not change).

Trails are rerouted every 10 years so they have a chance to heal. Hiking clothing & equipment technology have mastered the leave no trace principles. Our pee is rendered harmless due to special food suplements we take prior to hiking. Solid waste is carried out because technology makes it a simple & easy task.

All our wilderness activities will be tracked by biomontering GPS type wrist bands. Where you are and what you are doing is observed/recorded around the clock so no area of the park is overused. A challanging subgroup spins off the ADK High Peaks forum and challanges the system by bushwacking without these monitoring devices. These Nealists have a motto, "Come find me!"

Preservation of wildlands will have become an obsession. Everyone will finally figured out we need to live in harmony with nature if humans are to survive and have any kind of quality of life. Wildlife flourishes on it own accord but not until several attempts to manage wildlife like a large zoo have failed. No hunting or fishing is allowed in the park.

There will be an artificial enviroment culture but it is limited to large but shrinking cities because population growth has slowed down in the US.

Global warming was reversed when rising costal tides forced the issue in 2020.

Hover crafts access to the high peaks is finally limited after decades of protest from the 46rs.

Thats all for now.

What do some of you imagine.

[TFR]

Before this post gets lost in tangents I'l like to add my $.o2 and see what people think. Well, I hope you are correct, but for now I will refer you to Neil's title (Chief Dreamer)! :D

[Neil]

This is an interesting thread. There is a current of thought (not necessarily stated directly here but alluded to) that there is something domestic or artificial about defining and setting aside wilderness areas. ie. That these areas are defined by man, kept for man's pleasure and are perhaps no more than legislatively fenced-in play areas. The anthropocentric view. There is also the fact that managed forests are more productive from a forestry perspective and I imagine the deer, moose etc. populations (that I said would like to see in abunbdance) could increase too. But, do we want wilderness, sans the hand of man and his works, or something more akin to a tree and large mammal farm? In wilderness chaos reigns supreme. True, it is an ordered chaos based on energy capture and flow but whenever I travel through it it sure looks like chaos to me. Definitely not as productive as it could be.

Large contiguous tracts of wilderness will have stands of climax forest with nothing to eat for the browsers but there will always be blowdown, fires, pest epidemics and ensueing transitional growth areas.

[Little Rickie]

Well we made it to 50 posts and no one has been insulted or gotten mad. Nice! :tup:

Keep posting, this is just starting to get interesting!

Are there any other ideas or thoughts out there?

[Mavs00]

.....that there is something domestic or artificial about defining and setting aside wilderness areas. ie. That these areas are defined by man, kept for man's pleasure and are perhaps no more than legislatively fenced-in play areas. The anthropocentric view.

Well, thats interesting. Of course Adirondack wilderness areas (in fact most in the country I'll bet) are handled -anthropocentrically- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocentric) , because when it comes down to it, they are really maganaged BY us and FOR us and our whims. Now certainly those whims may be altruistic and environmentally -biocentrist- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentrism) in principal, but its still driven by us and for us. That certainly is the case recently, moreso now than in the past anyway. But still, wilderness area are managed in such a way that caters, or at least allows for, human recreation and enjoyment of some sort.

I'm sure that will continue over the next 100 years, provided we do not catapult our species off the planet first. I do not foresee us just walling of parts of the Adirondacks just for sake "having more wilderness", without intrinsically doing it for some "human" based rationale or agenda.

Thats the 100 year answer....... The thousand to beyond answer. While we may fool ourselves take a anthropocentric view of the world. The world is biocentric over the long haul and our visit here will temporary and likely not to have unduly lasting effect on the order of things.

[hawk]

back in the mid nineties, when I did my "long walk" (2700 miles), I was in many areas where man had not yet left his footprint. The remoteness and inaccessibility pretty much ensured that the wilderness was pretty much like it was for centuries.

Perhaps the occassional Indians or trappers or Mountain men and maybe an occassional hardcore bushwhacker like myself.

It is impossible to describe to anyone who has never had the good fortune to experience it. However, I do believe that anyone who has ever experienced it is not in favor of management by man and certainly is not anthropocentric.

It's a whole different thing to experience the beauty and the solitude with the realization to appreciate the fact that what you are experiencing is something that 99% of humanity will never enjoy.

My fear is that we encroach further and further into the wild places, build roads and make them easily accessible, my descendants will never be able to have the same experience.

[Little Rickie]

Humans are part of the natural world and will always have an impact on the environment, at least for as long as we are around. Currently we seem to be the dominate species and seem to be having the greatest impact.

Are we destroying nature or learning from our mistakes and adjusting as we go along? Will our growing awareness reverse current trends? Maybe we are self delusional idiots just bumbeling along and nothing we do will make a difference as the real big picture unfolds. We may turn out to be (we are?)no more than a minor player. Nature is amazingly resilient, larger and stronger than all of us, we are only a small part of her greatness.

Change is the only certainty. Things will be different. I believe for the better. I chose a long term time frame to reflect upon because it helps put a different perspective on our day to day concerns. I think it makes things less sharp, still important, but maybe we don't always have to react so quickly or so strongly.

I am confident we are going in the right direction. Even though, at times, it seems slow.

[AlpineSummit]

It sure does seem slow.
The good news is that even we all-powerful humans cannot do any lasting damage to our planet in the long haul. The bad news, of course, is that the long haul is many zillions of years long. Sadly. for the short term, we have indeed made some significant messes that aren't going anywhere for a while.

But we are learning, I agree. Hopefully we won't forget.