The Adirondack Park Agency (APA)
is amending the Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan (SLMP) for the first
time in over 25 years and is giving community members the opportunity to comment
on the amendments and propose new changes. One of the proposals comes from the Adirondack Powder
Skier Association (APSA), which is lobbying for the amendment to include
specific language allowing for the “creation and maintenance of designated
backcountry ski touring trails on Forest Preserve lands classified as Wild
Forest and Wilderness.” The SLMP currently allows backcountry skiing in the
park, stating, “The following types of recreational use are compatible with
wilderness and should be encouraged…ski touring… and other forms of primitive
and unconfined recreation” (Adirondack Park
State Land Master Plan). However, the SLMP prohibits the maintenance
required to make backcountry skiing a safe activity. The APSA proposal only
requires the cutting of a few branches, saplings and witch hobble to create
safe paths for skiers, which would not reach the “material level” of cutting
that is prohibited by Article 14 of the SLMP. Though the APSA promises not to
cut a single living tree, their proposal is still the topic of heated debate
within the community.
Opponents of the amendment argue
that changing the SLMP to allow maintenance of backcountry ski trails would
open the door for other changes to the land that go against the core purpose of
the “Forever Wild” clause, such as land alteration for the purpose of
snowmobiling and other recreational activities. They also argue that creating
more accessible trails will lead to an increase of injuries by inexperienced
skiers who will require evacuation and put rescue teams in danger. However, I
think that providing safe trails will actually decrease the number of injuries
by providing safe terrain for less experienced skiers to use instead of terrain
that is beyond their abilities.
Though the concerns of those who
oppose the amendment are legitimate, I think the pros far outweigh the cons. Backcountry
skiing is less invasive than other recreational activities such as snowmobiling
and resort skiing. The environmental impact of the proposed maintenance would
be minimal and would help protect the few virgin forests remaining in the park
by directing skiers to other areas. The new trails would also provide an economic
boost for the park during the slower winter months. During an open community
forum about the amendment, one community member who works in retail claimed
that backcountry skiing has lead to a 40% rise in sales since 2012 and believes
this momentum would continue if the maintenance were approved (SLMP
Amendment Summary of Public Comments, January 15).
The root of this argument lies
in the struggle between preserving wilderness in the park and encouraging
people to respectfully use the land. This new activity would allow more people
to develop a connection with the park and incentivize them to protect it in the
future. While I think preservation of the park is extremely important, the
benefits of this specific proposal seem to trump the minimal environmental
impacts.
I completely agree that it is important to maintain backcountry ski areas to make them more safe despite that fact that this technically interferes with the concept of "forever wild." In light of the avalanche that killed two U.S. Olympic skiing prospects in the Austrian Alps, I think it is important to make areas designated for human use, safe for human use. For individuals ducking ropes and ignoring "do not enter" signs, there is no guarantee that the terrain they choose to ski is safe. But for places where people are encouraged to explore, I think it is the park's responsibility to make it as safe as possible. This reminds me of Table Mountain, a landmark hiking endeavor in Cape Town, South Africa. With so many people visiting and hiking the mountain, the city has been compelled to make the hiking trail as safe as possible, putting gravel along the trail and fencing in areas around any rocks that could potentially fall down the slope. While I admit, this made the hike less "natural" and appealing, I think it the maintenance and precautionary measures taken are necessary considering the mountain is heralded as a "must do" hike. I think the Adirondack Park has a similar responsibility to maintain back country ski areas. The only issue I foresee is related to the use of dynamite and its role in making back country ski areas less prone to avalanches. Such use could have more severe environmental impacts and prevent efforts to make back country skiing safer.
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly does the APSA mean by the "cutting of a few branches"? Honestly, the cutting of a few branches here and there will do almost nothing to make back country ski areas safer. What would make a difference is cutting trees, removing stumps and horizontal fallen logs, all of which are major changes to the woods, and would violate the "forever wild" clause. What makes skiing safe, with the exception of avalanches (which pretty much don't occur in the Adirondacks) is the skier's ability. Since the park has no control over the skiers' ability, I don't think that it has any responsibility whatsoever for the skiers' safety. Outdoor recreation comes with some amount of risk, and each skier should assess this risk on their own.
ReplyDeleteJack, while I agree that the Adirondack Park has no control over the skiers' ability and where they go, I do believe they have to deal with the repercussions of these decisions. I feel like I read about a different rescue completed in the park every week when I read the Adirondack Almanack. Whether they rescue a skier, hiker, or someone taking part in another outdoor activity, these rescues put the emergency responders at risk, especially in harsh winters like these. By making the back country ski areas safer, they could decrease the danger for both the inexperienced skiers and the emergency personnel who have to respond if the skier gets into terrain that is too difficult for them.
ReplyDelete