A lot of our discussions lately have been centered on conflict in
the Adirondacks, and it’s becoming increasingly apparent that the park itself
is a product of all this conflict. Having intense debates and fighting about
issues that we’re passionate about leads to results that reflect how we want to
best use the park.
The Adirondacks are by no means static, and require constant
feedback from the citizens and governing bodies that oversee the land. To be
content with the state of the park would mean that there isn’t enough passion
for the issues that define the Adirondacks. The state of the Adirondacks is
constantly changing with environmental fluctuations, a moving economy, and
shifting cultural values. To keep the Adirondacks the best that it can be, our
passions and discussions need to match the pace of these changes. We need to
adapt and continually question whether the current regulations meet the needs
of the park and meet our desires of how to use the park.
There are countless cases of how conflict has produced what
we see in the Adirondacks today. Examples can be historic – Elias’ presentation
on forest fires comes to mind, where the increasing prevalence and threat of
forest fires was conflict enough to bring about changes in regulations and how
much we depend on logging and railroads. A more recent example (one of many)
would be the conflict with Phil Brown, which is highlighting our need to better
define what constitutes private and public lands.
My point is that conflict is necessary to reach a compromise
that best suits the Adirondack Park and the citizens at that point in time. And
a struggle where both parties feel at least a little unhappy with the outcome
is usually a sign that a fair compromise has been reached. After all, the
Adirondack Park represents a conglomerate of mixed intentions for land use and
individual passions that will never be fully aligned. But this type of conflict
ideally paves the way towards some middle ground that addresses all of the
combating interests.
Great post, Chris!
ReplyDeleteI totally agree that conflict can be a good thing. It just depends on how we approach the conflict (i.e. fighting between settlers and natives, not the best form of conflict). However, when it comes to the Adirondack Park today, I think that the park would lose a lot of character, were some of the major competing interests to fade away. These interests include
Recreation vs. reservation
Industrial vs. romantic
Home vs. vacation
Although constant land use debates can be exhausting, these controversies are also what make the Adirondacks such a dynamic place. So many people, from hikers to snowmobilers to miners to loggers to full-time citizens treasure the Adirondacks for what it has to give to them.
I think Janelle's comment on Monday that the Adirondack tension is much like the tension in a rope of tug of war was a great analogy. Without that tension, the structure of the Adirondacks--a place so many people love--would fall.