Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Indian Head. Is this place now a "thing"?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by nangaparbat View Post
    1- They close an old trail to open a new one merely within a hundred feet of the old one and they use the tree they have cut to prevent access to the old one.

    2- The trails are always widened to allow the passage of their newer wider trucks despite the fact that the park has been designated as a preservation area.

    3- Opening a new lodge and at the same time closing an old one that was within 500 feet from the new one. to destroyed five years later the newly built one to construct another one where the old one was....
    I don't know the details of each one of these examples. However, it's not difficult to find plausible reasons for each one.

    1- Closing a worn trail, that's beyond repair, and replacing it with another one isn't a bad idea. Many people have advocated the same thing should be done in the Adirondacks. No one would mourn the loss of the current trail to Cliff or dispute the need for a rerouting of the wettest portion of the Lake Arnold Trail. In fact, short sections of the Van Hoevenberg and Avalanche Pass trails were rerouted this year and the new ones are just a short distance away from the old ones. A few years ago, the old trail to Jay was brushed-in and a new one was constructed that's better able to withstand erosion.

    2- A trail wide enough to allow for the park service's vehicles allows them to deliver materials without resorting to more expensive helicopter flights. It also provides faster access to injured hikers. DEC rangers use ATVs for this purpose but only where the trails are wide and smooth enough to allow for it.

    3- Constructing a new lodge next to an old one lets you keep the old one in operation (and making money) during the construction phase. Perhaps someone did a cost-benefit analysis and learned it was cheaper than renovating the old building.

    ... $8.50 per person per day as in Quebec.
    That's US$7 (at the current exchange rate). That fee would inject thousands of dollars into the High Peaks, every weekend. However, user-fees are more common in state/national parks and the Adirondack Park is a different concept.


    Once you give money to a public organization, then forget it , the fees will always increase and may not be use to the best.....
    First, it's important to note that SEPAQ parks are run like US national parks, where user-fees are also collected. Yes, there's always the risk that the collected funds are mismanaged. I've read that SEPAQ may indeed be imperfect, inefficient, and over-controlling. However, some of the money it collects is definitely being used effectively because there's a huge difference in the quality of trails, huts, and other infrastructure found in a SEPAQ park compared to the High Peaks.
    Looking for Views!

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by nangaparbat View Post
      I am glad that the Dacks are (mostly) free of fees as some people would not be able to pay the $8.50 per person per day as in Quebec. Obviously those with deep pockets wont have a problem with that, but I think it is a good idea to be able to give free access to public land.
      Once you give money to a public organization, then forget it , the fees will always increase and may not be use to the best.....
      This. Yes.

      While I'm completely ignorant to all things SEPAQ, I understand NY pretty well. Unlike the NPS, funds collected here may or may not be reinvested back into the entity that they were collected for. In all likelihood, "park" collection fees would pay for a new string of street lights along the Verrazano bridge or for scraping ivy off a state building in Albany. Something else to keep in mind is that the ADK isn't just a park, maybe it is by definition but its also the home of many, many people who live along the borders of this public land and pay local taxes so the rest of us have safe roads to access these trails by. If the DEC wants to put up voluntary collection boxes at trail heads and lead public fundraisers to find new cash to pump back into the ADK, awesome. I'll give to that; many of us would. I just don't see enforcing a pay to play system being a functional way to reduce any of the issues involving our public lands. Sorry for getting political.

      Just for some insight, these folks all paid upwards of $70k+ for their wilderness experience. At least the ADK doesn't have this kind of crowding issue on any single peak... yet.
      http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/...-0_634x420.jpg
      Last edited by FlyFishingandBeer; 10-27-2017, 12:02 PM. Reason: Stuff.
      My mind was wandering like the wild geese in the west.

      Comment


      • autochromatica
        autochromatica commented
        Editing a comment
        Sadly, the last time I was there the lots were nearly empty and the road was nearly full.

      • FlyFishingandBeer
        FlyFishingandBeer commented
        Editing a comment
        Wow, I never would have guessed that. I guess saving $10 is saving $10 when all you've got to do is a little more of the very thing you came for; walking through the ADK. I'm not sure if the "hassle" of exchanging some currency outweighs the extra distance for our Canadian friends, but this could make sense too.

      • Trail Boss
        Trail Boss commented
        Editing a comment
        Yup, walk an extra mile and pocket $10. If you arrive early, it can be just a few hundred feet.

        When the "No Parking" signs disappeared I was concerned it would negatively impact the Loj's parking revenues (there's a long thread somewhere). After looking at their financial statements (before the signs were removed), I discovered the alleged cash-cow is only a small portion of their intake.

        If this was a major impact to their operations, they'd have raised a bigger stink and sorted it out by now.

    • #18
      Originally posted by Trail Boss View Post

      I don't know the details of each one of these examples. However, it's not difficult to find plausible reasons for each one.

      1- Closing a worn trail, that's beyond repair, and replacing it with another one isn't a bad idea. Many people have advocated the same thing should be done in the Adirondacks. No one would mourn the loss of the current trail to Cliff or dispute the need for a rerouting of the wettest portion of the Lake Arnold Trail. In fact, short sections of the Van Hoevenberg and Avalanche Pass trails were rerouted this year and the new ones are just a short distance away from the old ones. A few years ago, the old trail to Jay was brushed-in and a new one was constructed that's better able to withstand erosion.

      2- A trail wide enough to allow for the park service's vehicles allows them to deliver materials without resorting to more expensive helicopter flights. It also provides faster access to injured hikers. DEC rangers use ATVs for this purpose but only where the trails are wide and smooth enough to allow for it.

      3- Constructing a new lodge next to an old one lets you keep the old one in operation (and making money) during the construction phase. Perhaps someone did a cost-benefit analysis and learned it was cheaper than renovating the old building.
      To answer your reply

      1- The old trail was not worn out since it is flat with no water running naturaly on it.

      2- Rescue could be done with some of there smaller motorized equipment, the trail are so wide that you can go with a F150 pickup on them.

      3- I think you missed an important detail in my remark : They destroyed the newly built lodge to make a new one exactly where the original one was. A case of bad planning and waste of ressources. The only items that were sold are with distribution machine, not a huge loss of money if you have to close the lodge for a short period of time..


      All, of this is due to mismanagement of public money, You have to realized that administrators of public corporation receive a budget that reflects their spending. Often in public institution corporation there is no incentive to manage money in an efficient manner.

      I gave these examples to show what could happened with funds, BUT my most important point is that it should remains FREE of charges to access public land.

      If you are concerned about the cost of Search and Rescue, then another solution could be the implementation of voluntary rescue insurance.

      After my reply to your remarks you are still in doubt of the validity of my initial remarks, I invited you to come along with me, you will see for yourself how mismanaged the money can be done by a public administration.
      8000m 0/14

      Comment


      • Trail Boss
        Trail Boss commented
        Editing a comment
        I'd like to learn more about it. Did anyone challenge SEPAQ's decisions (for the 3 examples you provided)? Did SEPAQ reply to the challenges?

    • #19
      I see photos of Indian Head posted on Facebook, Reddit, Instagram and whatnot all the time. I've yet to visit that area because I am worried it will be over crowded.

      Sometimes I wish there was a shuttle, or the LP Express would pick hikers up from the Parking Lot behind the Scenic Railroad and drop them off at the ADK Loj. Of course...if you miss the shuttle that'd be a far way to walk.

      Comment


      • #20
        Originally posted by nangaparbat View Post

        As a solution to overcrowding in the Dacks, you seems to suggest that put access fees is a solution....
        Not to control "overcrowding", to provide money to improve infrastructure. But I agree that the odds of collected money going to say, cutting a durable trail to Cliff or building better toilets at trailheads, are scant.
        1111111111

        Comment


        • #21
          It's a great spot on a late November or early December weekday. Was up on Rooster comb earlier this month and that's a great view with not too much effort. I hope it's not on a list. I'm sure others have noticed but it seems that the Giant and Ausable trailheads are busier now than ever.

          Comment

        Working...
        X