The Bushman of Botswana’s Central Kalahari Game Reserve

The reading for this weekend talked about the influence of the United States’ system of national and state parks on other countries.  Although it is wonderful that the United States has inspired other countries to protect their wild spaces, it has not been without harm, and this is what stood out to me.  The specific case of a game preserve in Botswana was mentioned, and the conflict that ensued was eerily reminiscent of the encounters between the Native Americans and the settlers.  The government could not decide if the native tribes should be considered people or wildlife.  For me this question is representative of a much larger issue.  If all people are not wildlife, then how can some people be considered wildlife?  This implies that they are animalistic and uncivilized, but this all depends on one’s definition of “civilized”.  Ultimately it was decided that these indigenous were in fact people who were simply lacking civilization, or their preconceived, singular definition of civilization.  These people were moved off of their land against their will and force-fed a custom that was not theirs.  People who had lived on the land for generations were brutally evicted so that the land could be preserved.  This pattern of removing indigenous people so that parks can be established is inhumane.  By doing this, governments are forcing people to abandon their traditions and way of life that is vital to their identities.  With every tribe that is removed in this way, the world becomes more homogeneous and flat.  So how does this relate to the Adirondacks?  Although the majority of the park system in the United States does not include people, the Adirondack Park does.  Can these new parks look to the Adirondacks as a model to include these indigenous tribes, while still considering them people and respecting their cultures and traditions? I hope they can.  Although it leads to conflict and paradox, the inhabitance of the Adirondacks has ultimately been successful and should serve as a beacon of hope for tolerance and diversity in a world that is becoming increasingly uniform.  Not only is it important to preserve the land, but also its inhabitants, tradition, and culture. 

Upon further research I found more updated information on this issue.  According to Survival International in 2006 the Bushman of Botswana’s Central Kalahari Game Reserve won “a landmark case against the government, giving them the right to return to their ancestral land after they were forcibly evicted”, but since then "the government has done everything it can to make their return impossible".  According to a BBC article from 2014, “The government says the restriction of people on the land is intended to preserve the wildlife and the ecosystems of the vast reserve, which is slightly bigger than Denmark” (Fihlani).  But there is much suspicion that the land will be use to mine diamonds, and the impact of the Bushmen on the environment is minimal.  Fihlani notes, “the Bushmen argue that their years of living in harmony with the environment prove that their ways are ecologically sustainable”.  The Bushmen are now being exposed to drugs and alcohol, AIDS, teen pregnancies, and a whole host of other issues that come with "modern" society.  Roy Sesana says, “we are now dependent on government handouts: we are being made stupid and lazy”.  Thankfully, progress has been made, but there are still battles to be won.  In our ever-expanding society, it is vital that we protect the wild lands that are still intact, but we must always keep in mind the costs of these measures and be willing to make compromises, as I believe the Adirondacks have done so well. 

There is so much more to this issue that I did not include - here are two really good sources:

http://www.survivalinternational.org/tribes/bushmen

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-24821867

Rewilding the Adirondacks with Megafauna

A good article by Steve Hall, who co-runs the Adirondack Wildlife Refuge and Rehabilitation Center in Wilmington... he spoke with us on our field trip!

http://www.adirondackalmanack.com/2014/12/the-economic-potential-of-rewilding-the-adirondacks.html?utm_source=Adirondack+Explorer+%26+Adirondack+Almanack&utm_campaign=5d449011db-Adirondack_Almanack_RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b49eb0d11b-5d449011db-47298733

ps  this should resonate with the "proposed amendment group" of Hallie, Rich, John, and Nick!

Wilderness as a Resource

Today in class we discussed Elizabeth Thorndike's essay "the Great Experiment in Conservation" and we all seemed to struggle with her concept of wilderness as a place in which almost, if not all, human presence should be removed. The truth is: even if all humans magically agreed not to set foot in the Adirondacks, human influence would still creep over the blue line. There is no existing land on earth that humans can completely protect from our own destruction. Sadly, the benefits and values of "protection of ecological functions and services, plant and wildlife habitat, genetic pools, freshwater supplies, flood control, soil erosion, air quality, and renewable resources" all are effected by what goes on outside the park too. Although Thorndike's defense of the Adirondacks as a resource of environmental knowledge and resources is well founded, I struggle with her argument for the application of her goals. Human influence in the park seems all but inevitable, the question is: how do we best coexist?

We should know about Martin Litton

This article popped up on my Instagram (Yay, social media!!), written by Kenneth Bower of National Geographic. It eulogizes Martin Litton, who Bower writes "launched the environmental movement as we know it."

Up until this morning, I'd never heard of the guy--but he seems legit. The article cites him as (at least partially) responsible for the following:
-the Wilderness Act
-the Endangered Species Act
-the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act
-the Environmental Protection Act


Also, what caught my attention was that while the Adirondack Park is not mentioned in the article, he seems to embody some of the traits we've identified as characteristic of an Adirondacker--the type of person who does a little bit of everything, somewhat of the Bill McKibben variety: his work has been an amalgam of guiding, journalism, and radical environmentalism. 

But seriously, doesn't he look like he belongs in the 'Dacks? (See below).

"Litton boats down the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam, in Arizona. He holds the record as the oldest man ever to row the Grand Canyon, which he did at age 87."

So, anyway, I advise that you give the article a read. And a question: Do you think his work with the aforementioned legislation has had much of an affect on the Adirondack Park? 

From ADK to FLA... forest clearing

I thought this article might be of interest:

http://earthfirstjournal.org/newswire/2014/11/13/clearing-of-rare-south-florida-forest-begins-for-development-of-biotech-city/

The first two paragraphs read:

After ten years of opposition to state- and county-backed efforts to construct a biotech hub in Palm Beach County, Florida—where the rare Briger Forest currently stands—developers are now clearing land under suspicious circumstances. Since 2010, opponents of the “Scripps Phase II” project have cited the presence of gopher tortoises, rare native ferns, and other threatened and endangered species as reasons to stop the proposed development of the Briger Forest.

Despite these concerns, The Scripps Research Institute—a California-based biomedical company with a campus across the road from the threatened forest—are moving forward on their plans of expansion. Last week, members of the Palm Beach County Environmental Coalition (PBCEC) and Everglades Earth First! (EEF!) discovered that Ranger Construction Industries had begun clearing a large segment of the southeastern portion of the Briger Forest.

Suggested Reading

While doing research for my final project on Seneca Ray Stoddard, I came across a few very interesting pages in the beginning of Jeffrey Horrell's book Seneca Ray Stoddard: Transforming the Adirondack Wilderness in Text and Image regarding the evolution of the concept of wilderness. From page 11 to 16, Horrell talks about the change in the concept of wilderness specifically in the context of its use in religious texts. He mentions how, in classical mythology, wilderness implies the supernatural in an uncivilized, passionate state. Horrell then talks about how Christianity gives contradictory ideas of wilderness, referring to it as cursed and scary in the Adam and Eve story, but as a "refuge from corrupt society" when utilized by Christian monks and hermits. I won't rewrite the whole passage, but he continues to provide differing concepts of wilderness over time. We have discussed the definition of wilderness numerous times throughout the semester, and so it was interesting to see how different groups of people use the term and define it. It was definitely a different perspective on the concept that I have not come into contact with much so far this semester. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find this book online, but there is another copy in the library aside from the one that I currently have! Check it out!

Moose Casualties

               Over the course of the past decade, scientists in New Hampshire have observed suspicious amounts of moose dying off due to unknown causes. For the past three years, new York's own scientists have been conducting an investigation targeting our state's moose population to try and find out why. There are currently estimated to be around 750 moose in the Adirondacks, based on sightings, road kill counts, and hunter reports. The basic idea of the survey and study is to find out how the population is fairing, and whether it is growing or declining in size. 

                Starting in the next few weeks, the Department of Environmental Conservation will be working in partnership with the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry, the Wildlife Conservation Society, and Cornell University to conduct this in depth survey and study. In January, when the snow falls, an aerial count will be taken since the animals stand out against the snow. In accordance, Cornell will analyze DNA from moose droppings to learn about the Adirondack moose's eating habits. And the DEC will conduct movement studies using GPS tracking collars.

            New York lies on the southern boundary of where moose like to live. The population was wiped out in the 1800's due to over-hunting, but has recently begun to reappear as the animals have wandered in from surrounding states. Overall, this is a really interesting conservation project on the behalf of several different organizations and institutions, and I believe it will be extremely pertinent to our class when the results are made available.

http://snowyinn.com/ILMooseSign.jpg

http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/A-checkup-for-an-Adirondacks-icon-5926394.php

Road Salt in the Adirondacks

Road salt is a difficult product to escape in the wintery north, even the protected forests of the Adirondacks. Road salt is something we've come to understand as necessary in a society where cars are our main source of transportation. However, road salt is incredibly caustic and has a drastic affect on the surrounding environment. Road salt remains and even accumulates in the soil and water "years, perhaps even decades" after it has melted off the roads. This means that even if all road salt application halted today the environment would continue to suffer. The problem is that road salt application can't be stopped today, it would be dangerous and probably illegal.

There are alternatives but they're frequently under-utilized because their value is misunderstood. Calcium, for example, has a lower impact on the environment and less is needed to achieve the same effect. However, calcium has a significantly higher face-value and is therefore off-putting to state highway departments who are frequently struggling with their tight budgets.

As usual, the battle over road salt is one of safety and usability (of roads, in this case) vs. environmental preservation. Both are of vast importance and neither can be disregarded for the sake of the other, putting the issue at a standstill, just like essentially every other issue in the park.

INVASIVE PLANTS!

Invasive plants are infiltrating Adirondack waters, crowding out local vegetation and destroying wilderness ecosystems!
That was a bit overdramatic, according the the Adirondack Mountain Club website: "Two out of every three waters surveyed in the Adirondacks are free of invasive species." But that does not mean that Adirondack enthusiasts should rest easy. Over the last two years there has been a problem in the Adirondack Park of invasive species clinging to motorboats, which are then put into Adirondack waters for recreational use.  These invasive plants, which include the spiny water flea and microscopic zooplankton, are easy to miss for any boater that does not make regular checks of his/her hull. The surge in invasive species has  caused officials in lake George to implement mandatory inspections of all trailered boats before they are allowed in the water. Local governments and many other organizations in the park want to see these inspections spread to all bodies of water within the blue line. While damages to ecosystems may be the most obvious consequences of the appearance of invasive species, many Adirondackers see another potential hazard in allowing boats to go unregulated.
Fred Monroe, a Warren County Supervisor, states that one of the most damaging effects of these plants is the decline that they could cause in tourism. In a surprisingly pessimistic quote to the Adirondack Almanack, Monroe stated "What were once the mainstays of the Adirondack economy, such as forestry and mining, are either gone or disappearing. What's left is tourism, which is so clearly tied to the health of the waters. If we lose the waters, we have nothing." While I hopefully believe that these invasive species would not completely decimate tourism in the Adirondacks, Monroe's quote does prompt Adirondack enthusiasts to be more aware of what is being transported into the park's waters. These plants pose a real threat both to the health of Adirondack waters and to tourism, which is why mandatory boat checks should be implemented throughout the entire Park.

Snowmobile access

I read tonight on the Adirondack Explorer about the recently passed trails for snowmobiles (http://han.live.mediaspanonline.com/News/11262014_Lyme). I thought the most interesting part was how easy they made it sound to get these approved by the APA. With all of the controversy with the ATVs in the park I think its funny that they are so lenient on the snowmobile use, even adding access trails for them. Again its another issue of balancing recreation and undisturbed wild where it seems the scale is tipping towards the side of tourism and recreation. I think it will be interesting to follow these issues and future revisions based upon the growth of technology in our world. It seems hard to expect people to stop moving forward with technology in the park alone especially when these modes of experiencing nature are ever increasing in popularity.

Adirondacks: Thanksgiving edition

In the wake of Thanksgiving, I want to dedicate this blog post to why I’m thankful for the Adirondacks. As a New Yorker, as an admirer of nature, and as a proponent of the democratic system, I feel blessed to have something like the Adirondack Park so close to home. Everyone says how the Adirondacks are a small-scale experiment that sets an example for how to manage the entire country, and to have that experiment in our backyard is something special.

I’m thankful that a park so susceptible to exploitation (for recreation, vacation, timber) has been preserved as much as it has. And that preservation is a testament to the passions of the people that fight for the park and the democratic system that has been created to sort out competing interests. It’s also a testament to the integrity of the Park’s initial constitution, however fickle it may seem today with the constant legal challenges. The founders of the Park constitution made it a point to keep land forever wild and it’s certainly rare to see that promise upheld today.

As a way of saying thanks for this course, I added a picture of the snowglobe I got from the Adirondack Museum. Though it may look like just a trinket to some, each snowglobe in my collection carries some meaning in the form of either how I got it or the memories that it brings back. This Adirondack one has its own story, and will definitely remind me of our trip to the Adirondacks, everything I’ve learned in the course, and the friendships I’ve made along the way. So thanks for being a part of that story.

Politics and Preservation

While flipping through the Adirondack Almanack, I ran into an article that was quite disillusioning. A Lake George official who is in charge of boating regulations was almost ousted from his post due to a minor snafu. It was revealed that governor Cuomo and the DEC have a grudge against this official because he favors stringent rules for boat washing in Lake George. This helps prevent invasive species from taking over the ecosystem of the lake. Cuomo and the DEC are against this because it would provide an inconvenience for tourists, and cost money to set up boat-washing stations.

This is yet another example of a battle between economics and the environment. If it is too troublesome for tourists to go boating on Lake George, they will surely take their boats (and money) elsewhere, probably a region with less stringent regulations. However, without strict regulations, the lake will become overrun by invasive species. Which is more desirable: A less-accessible Adirondacks in its natural wilderness state, or a convenient quasi-wilderness that provides easy access for tourists? I understand that it is important to think about the economic situation of local Adirondack towns, however I do not think that we should knowingly hurt the environment for economic gains. The problem is, it seems that economics almost always win out. In this case, the official will keep his job, so we will not have to deal with a puppet of Cuomo in his place. Nevertheless, these battles will surely continue to pop up, one after another.

I Do Believe in the Adirondacks, I Do, I Do

There was one line in the Schneider reading that really caught my interest: "'If the state believed in the Adirondacks the state would do more than throw in here a rinky dink little agency with an immense mandate'" (306). I appreciate what Bob Glennon is saying hearing here--the APA can't be expected to do their job perfectly when they're so few in numbers--but I also think that the phrase "believed in the Adirondacks" is a particularly interesting one. To me, that phrase harkens back to the idea that the Adirondacks are whatever people want them to be and do--essentially, the Adirondacks are whatever you believe them to be. For many people, that belief is that the Adirondacks are meant to be developed with second homes and bustling tourist towns and economic/recreational hotspots. For others, they believe the Adirondacks should be treated more in the way of conservation while still others maintain a nearly unlimited number of other conceptions of the Park. What Glennon is (obliquely) getting at with this phrase is perhaps the bedrock of all other conflict and tension surrounding the park. That is, the fact that Glennon can so easily cast off the state as not believing in the park just because they (here meaning the governor and his Adirondack commissioners) do not subscribe to the same belief in the Park that Glennon does, does not mean that they don't believe in the Park at all. It seems that the governor and his lackeys just believe in the Adirondacks in a different way. Perhaps those higher-ups invest more in the "development" aspect of the Land Use Management and Development Plan while Glennon cares more about the "land use" part. It seems to me that as long as these different understandings of the Adirondack Park exist, then the tensions between development and conservation or maintaining wilderness and attracting tourists are going to exist. It looks like these tensions just come with the territory (literally)--because the Adirondacks have the unique quality of being a patchwork of public/private land, it remains impossible to align a single belief or understanding of the what the Adirondack Park should be and do. People who own private land are more often than not going to want different things than what the state or the APA or the DEC are going to want to do with the public land. There are always going to be people who view the land as a home, or a playground, or a wilderness, and maybe some people who view it as all three. The Adirondacks are many things, and precisely what those things are varies depending on who is looking at them. While Glennon's disappointment in the state's apparent disregard of the Park manifests itself in insinuations of not believing in the Adirondacks, I can't help but disagree. Of course I really understand where Glennon is coming from and I do wish that his and the state's plans for the land aligned a bit better (specifically swayed in Glennon's favor), but I do think that the state believes in the Adirondacks; it just seems that they believe in it for its economic and recreational value rather than the wilderness aesthetic and the life-fulfilling scenery that the romantics believe(d?) in.

I think this sentiment shows itself most clearly when Glennon goes on to talk about North Elba and laments that the APA "'should have had the will to drive out there and say, This is gorgeous, it's wonderful, it's an asset'" in order to stop furthering its development (310). I believe that pro-developers, and perhaps even the state, would say the exact same thing. It just happens that they would mean it in a very different way. People like Glennon and people who want to see the land built up will always disagree on how to use these natural, wonderful "asset[s]" and I really don't think that this is a conflict that will be resolved any time soon. It seems to me that the best we can hope for is more people like Glennon or Phil Terrie who make it hard for those assets to be replaced with concrete and electrical wires. As Glennon says, we might not ever know how much better the land is because the APA and advocacy groups are there, but I definitely believe that (according to my own views of what the Park should be and do) the Adirondacks would be much worse off without them.

Tourism Threatens the Saranac Lake

In an article posted on November 18 from North Country Public Radio, Brian Mann brings news of a potential 93 bedroom resort that will sit at the waterfront of Saranac Lake. There was obviously push back from political and pro-environment leaders, but others believe that this will be a huge economic gain for the area. This conflict, economic gain versus environmental protection, is frequently accompanied by tourism. This conflict is also one that represents many trade-offs seen in the Park. Whether it is economic gain or personal pleasure, the environment is always being sacrificed.

The most interesting part of the Saranac Lake issue to me, however, is that the site for development is already a site for three existing motels. We would not be destroying nature to build, but rather reusing an already developed area. Does this make it okay? Is it the actual environmental destruction that would bring the most harm, or the tourism resorts like these will bring in the future?

This is another "sticky" situation where the rules and laws will continue to be interpreted in different ways to facilitate or prevent different goals.

Interconnectivity in the Adirondacks

Last week, I posted concerning environmental depression with Terrie's talk.  There conversely is a flip side to this, a point that brings a positive spin to the continued conflict that rages in the Adirondacks - there is a large amount of interconnectivity between passionate members of the community.

This has been especially relevant while reading through the class and researching for our final project. Terrie, for instance, is highly involved with environmental efforts and the Tupper Lake case, in addition to being an Adirondack historian.  He is also a big member of the Long Lake community, and is friends with one of my friends from the area.  Phil Brown, alongside being heavily involved in his case, is also an Adirondack Almanack writer, and a very committed climber in addition to this.  Don Mellor, one of the most famous climbers, is the mentor of one of the climbers that attends this college and has been spotted by John as he was climbing one weekend.  Both Don and Phil have written articles on one another.

I'm very impressed with both the accessibility and the frequency of times that I hear about these famous Adirondackers.  It's uplifting to know that there are very real people in the region.  This makes the conflicts that occur in the region all the more personal and relatable to me.

Adirondack Issues in Spain?

I thought the chapter in Schneider on “The Global Park” was really interesting.  It is really easy to get caught up in the Park as its own little world, but in reality it is a microcosm, reflecting broader global issues.  This became especially apparent to me recently as I was researching a current event for my Spanish presentation.  There is a park in Spain that is currently facing issues that are parallel to the issues presently facing the park.  10% of the park is an estate owned by the Spanish government called La Almoraima.  It is about 35,000 acres and the government wants to sell it for $376 million as a resort.  The idea is to build a five star hotel, two golf courses, polo fields, an equestrian center, and an airport on the property, which is home to the largest cork forests in Europe, as well as being home to a vibrant array of ecology.  The government wants to sell the land to help boost the currently failing Spanish economy, but it is receiving significant pushback form environmentalists and locals who believe that the land should belong to the Spanish people and that its ecological value is greater than its financial value. 

Although the sale of La Almoraima is controversial, the government has legitimate financial concerns to consider.  The estate has cost the government $2.8 million in subsidies to maintain this past year alone.  The government believes that selling the estate and creating a resort will stimulate tourism and construction.  Many wealthy buyers have been interested in the estate, hoping to purchase it as a private residence, instead as a resort.  They hope to make it a place for the wealthy to hunt game and recreate, as opposed to opening it to the public.  One potential buyer is Salma Hayek and her billionaire French husband. 

Local residents and politicians oppose the idea of the government selling the land and have made their opinions clear at town hall meetings.  They want to protect the land, and believe that the government has an opportunity to preserve an emblematic and untouched estate.  They want the estate to be included in the park in order to save the oaks, pines, and wild olive trees, believing that ecological preservation would promote tourism.  If the estate became part of the park then the planned development of the resort would be prohibited.  The residents do not believe that the financial benefits that the government is anticipating will reach them and that the jobs will go to outsiders.  They would like the estate to be a place for locals and tourism.  They would like the land and the economy to serve the citizens, not large corporations.  Finally, they are looking to preserve the land for their children and grandchildren. 

These opinions are all reminiscent of perspectives we have discussed in class.  The conflict between economics and the environment is very similar to that in the Adirondacks.  What surprises me about this case is the reaction of the locals.  Unlike those in Tupper Lake, these locals are very much against development and in favor of the forest’s preservation for the benefit of the ecology and future generations.  This is a more progressive and farsighted view than the locals have in Tupper Lake.  I would argue that the Spanish locals are more realistic.  What is the cause of these different views?  What can Adirondackers and the Spanish learn from each other?  I think that one of the best ways to improve management of the Adirondacks is to learn from similar situations from the Park’s history and from outside the park.  When analyzing issues within the Park, it is vital to look for answers outside the Blue Line.    

“The Hand of Man is Pervasive Here”

And here I’ve spent months learning about the Adirondacks, learning about forest preserves, land use controversies, and the “Forever Wild” clause, only to conclude that the Adirondacks are by no means a “wilderness.” This is a personal verdict on my part, not one that I want to force on others. I’ve experienced quite a bit of internal conflict in our class discussions and readings, especially with the topic of wilderness. It has been difficult for me to rationalize the concept of wilderness with the concept of steady human habitation and use. For the past few months I’ve flip-flopped between definitions of wilderness. We’ve encountered several definitions, all along the lines of “untrammeled by man;” a place where man is a visitor and does not linger. Yet by now I’ve realized that neither the Adirondack Park nor its preserves fit the bill on any of these descriptions—the Adirondacks are not a wilderness, at least not by the terms discussed in class or in the State Land Master Plan.

The Adirondack Park is not a wilderness because human beings are an integral part of its character. We affect nearly every aspect of the region—we have taken the liberty of dividing the Adirondacks into wilderness and non-wilderness plots, we have (re)introduced “wild” animals, we have recreated ceaselessly—skiing, driving, snowmobiling, ATVing, fishing, hunting… and we have extracted minerals, chopped wood, and removed other natural resources; we have settled the park in profoundly non-wild clusters and have, in places, changed the very integrity of the biocommunity, whether that be directly or indirectly (e.g. acid rain). According to Larry Strait, 65% of ponds in the Adirondacks have non-native fish in them (Schneider, 329). People ask Larry whether or not these nonnative species could have arrived naturally, but the honest answer is that this would have been improbable, or at best, an incredibly slow process. It is hard for me to call the Adirondacks a wilderness, even if I am specifically referring to highly protected wilderness zones, when the most obscure glacial ponds must still have their native species reintroduced by humans.

I’m not trying to disparage the Adirondack Park or the people within. I still think it’s an incredible place, and I believe that its patchwork zoning is part of its charm—the Adirondack Park is a place with an abundance of stories: from conservation to preservation, hiking to snowmobiling, Great Camping to barely surviving… and yet these are all human stories. The Adirondacks are a place defined by the ways in which humans use it, by the ways in which we trammel it. Ultimately, the reality of the Adirondacks seems to conflict entirely with the concept of wilderness that I’ve come to understand.

This brings me to the topic of “Forever Wild.”

I suspect that the term “Forever Wild” is actually where much of the park’s logistical issues and statutory loop holes come from—if we were to replace “Forever Wild” with “Forever Protected,” we would be left with a far more accurate description of the park and a more realistic idea of how we might interact with it.

Sure, “Forever Wild” sounds nice, but it’s just not accurate, nor is it precise enough to define and guide legislative action. The current SLMP is riddled with inconsistencies—it defines “wilderness” as an area untrammeled by man, but clearly, the Adirondacks are a region that will always be trammeled by man. Defining Adirondack forest preserves as “Forever Wild” forces lawmakers to conjure up shaky definitions of wilderness, when in reality, no such definition fits with the park. If we were to remove that terminology and replace it with something more practical, I think that would resolve many a controversy.

The problem with “Forever Wild” is that no one really knows what that means. It beckons romantic, Hudson River School-esque images of beautiful landscapes, but beyond that its definition varies person to person. And although this reflects the ways in which the park itself changes—catering to different people differently, a home to one person, an investment to another—I don’t personally think there’s much use in a definition which is blatantly untrue. 

Sustainability after Sustainability

When judging the projects proposed in wilderness areas, in particular the Big Tupper Resort, the tourism industry first looks to the impact of operating their establishment. They hold sustainability as their standard and defend their right to exist by the efficiency of their machines, their care in avoiding waterways and wildlife, and the direct impact of clearing the required lands. They’re made to maintain certain standards across these criteria, but their assessments would be more accurate and practical if they included their impact in a situation in which the project would have to be abandoned or closed in the analysis. Large budget projects are fickle, and can be easily halted, even after completion, and in such a situation, the uninhabited remains become the only environmental hazard, and continue as such for longer than the original project was in operation. This situation effectively articulates the ecological gap between a resort such as the proposed Big Tupper, a ski-driven operation and hiking/backcountry ski trails. If the state no longer had the funds to maintain trails in the high peak, the high peaks ecosystem would not struggle with their presence in the following years. Within five years, it is likely only an expert would be able to identify where the tails used to lie. But a resort of the magnitude of Big Tupper would endure for centuries after its closing as a near permanent scar on the Adirondack wilderness. Gore Mountain, in contrast, to Big Tupper, consists mostly of trail development, and though wider and more intrusive than hiking trails, would dissipate faster than the lodge at the resort, or the substantially more developed Big Tupper Resort.