It’s an issue that has plagued the Adirondacks for well over
a hundred years. The dispute over public versus private lands within the Blue
Line of the Adirondack Park has divided towns, counties, and even the state. In
class we have seen countless battles between public and private interests,
highlighted by the Rockefeller versus Lamora case. The case debated whether the
public should have access to formerly public land and the game which was
publicly stocked and allowed to propagate (Jacoby 1965). Even today hunters and
fishers debate the same issue; however, there have been some easements granted
known as Public Fishing Rights which allow anglers to fish on stretches of
private riverbank. Currently many of these areas are impossible to access
without trespassing on private land, and I believe that creating better
access to these areas would be a large benefit to the tourism of the
Adirondacks.
 |
| Image: DEC |
As a fisherman with little experience navigating the
labyrinth of public and private land of the Adirondack Park I feel intimidated
when trying to figure out where I can and can’t fish. I would imagine that
there are many others who feel the same way, and the maps designating the
Public Fishing Rights areas serve to confuse the matter. Looking at the West
Branch of the Ausable River there are many places where the Public Fishing
Rights appear to have no access point (Department of Environmental
Conservation). Even once an angler gains access to these areas their passage
along the shoreline may be halted by a lone stretch of private land dividing
the public areas.
In recent years the debate over public use of park lands has
picked up with the lawsuit against Adirondack
Explorer editor Phil Brown. The debate centers around the common-law public
right of navigation where any body of water which passes between two sections
of public land and which is “navigable-in-fact” is open to public use
(Adirondack Explorer). A similar
principle should be applied to riverbanks on rivers which connect pieces of
public land. Making areas which comply with these regulations public would make
the Adirondack fishing picture simpler and would encourage more anglers to come
to the park.
Like Lamora in his case against Rockefeller, I believe the
public should have the right to access fish which were stocked through the publicly
funded Department of Environmental Conservation. It is these fish which occupy
the lands under private control (with the exception of clubs that stock their
own), and denying licensed anglers access to the fish they funded is wrong. The
first step is expanding the Public Fishing Rights. The park has nothing to lose
but the tourists who remain too intimidated to venture out into the wild lands of
the Adirondack Mountains.
Edited with help from Liam McAuliff.
Edited with help from Liam McAuliff.
Sources:
Jacoby, Karl. Crimes against Nature Squatters, Poachers,
Thieves, and the Hidden History of American Conservation. Berkeley: U of
California, 2001. Print.
"Paddling Case Advances- Adirondack Explorer."
Adirondack Explorer. 15 July 2014. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.
"West Branch Ausable River." Department of
Environmental Conservation. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.
This is very interesting post and something I have been interested in throughout the course as well. I agree, Adirondack land should be for public use and I think the state has generally agreed as well. Lower courts initially sided with Lamora in his case against Rockefeller, and recently the courts ruled in favor of Phil Brown's use of private waterways sandwiched between public waterways. It seems logical then that these kinds of policies favoring public use and enjoyment of the park should be extended fishing . If however, the state elects to expand public fishing rights, issues related overuse could surface if lawmakers are not careful. I do not know how other areas manage fishing, but I presume there are constraints on fishing regarding the size of the fish you can take and the time of year that you can fish. If such regulations are put in place in the Adirondacks, I do not see why expanding public fishing rights would be problematic, especially in areas where the state has stocked waterways with fish. In this case, I agree with Lamora, who claims that nature really belongs to no one and should be open for public use. But, this leads to the questions: If no one owns nature, then who has the right to protect it? And what constitutes good use of the land from bad use? Maybe New York State has avoided expanding fishing rights to avoid these kind of questions and problems.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do think these are difficult questions the state is avoiding, there is increasing need for them to be addressed. I disagree with you John, that nature should not be regulated. Resource consumption in the Adirondacks has historically been a classic "Tragedy of the Commons" case, where lack of regulation eventually leads to overconsumption. This was seen in the early logging industry and wildlife hunting. It is not like a fisher from Michigan who visits the park once every year is acutely aware of the population size of native fish species. I also do not believe it is the state's right to restock fish every time populations get too low. However, I do think tighter public regulations need to be implemented and readily advertised to tourists so population levels do not get to that drastically low level. Society needs to learn how to regulate itself and conserve the resources it has, and not rely on the help of some unseen power (in this case, the DEC), to step in and fix all the problems.
Delete