This is how I feel about "wilderness" right now

defining accurately the terms of our laws

As we think about our amendment,  one aspect I believe will be of the utmost importance is defining what primitive use is. As we create a law we must be aware of all the different ways developers could find methods that end up using the primitive use land rather heavily, which would result in a loss of a buffer. Hopefully during next class we can discuss this definition.

The Value of Wilderness

One topic Thorndike discusses is the value of wilderness. This is a concept that has come up before in class and in other readings: "What is the value of wilderness?" Why do we care about something that is, by definition, off-limits?

Is wilderness valuable simply because it possesses an otherwise elusive, romantic quality? And along those lines, is wilderness valuable because it is a commodity, one that is constantly decreasing? Because it is a luxury that might one day fade, replaced by an entirely “unnatural” world? 

The more I think about it, the more I realize that the value of wilderness is the crux of Adirondack controversy. What is the value of a place unmarked by mankind? What is the role of man in preserving such a place? And why might we want to take an active role in preserving a place that should, theoretically, take care of itself? How does this actually benefit us?

For some, the value of wilderness is entirely aesthetic. For others, its value is not in the way humans interact with or admire nature but merely in its existence—the simple fact that it is there, and that wilderness exists somewhere to support natural communities, including threatened and endangered species. These are selfless people--I salute them!

But I must admit: I fall into the selfish crowd. I see wilderness as a resource to be used and enjoyed. I love to ski and hike. I love to peer over a mountain ridge, and—in that moment—to feel the satisfaction of being the only human to appreciate such a wilderness. For me, wilderness is something I enjoy interacting with. It makes me feel insignificant and special at the same time. That is why I value it. 

But then, of course, this runs up against the original paradox: can wilderness exist as a human interface? And if humans affect the entire world in some measurable way, can wilderness exist at all? Or are humans an equally wild species blinded by ego? Perhaps everything is wilderness. And if this is the case, then there is no value in it. It simply is what it is. 

Wilderness and Aesthetics

When one thinks of wilderness areas in North America, it is usually Yosemite or Yellowstone that come to mind. One envisions towering mountains and beautiful, pristine lakes. The Stegner article reinforces this notion, with its photos of western peaks and endless vistas. While someone at Avalanche Lake gazing up at Mount Colden or atop Haystack Mountain certainly will find the landscape quite dramatic, the majority of the park lacks the dramatic qualities typically associated with wilderness. If one visits the Ha-De-Ron-Dah Wilderness, the Silver Lake Wilderness or perhaps the Siamese Ponds Wilderness, they will certainly find beauty in the verdant forests, rolling hills, and scattered lakes. However, these areas lack the drama of the High Peaks, and certainly that of the national parks out west.

So how did this vast tract come to be preserved? The Adirondack Park was formed foremost as a timber reserve, as desired by Verplanck Colvin. It was only later that the Adirondacks began to be prized for their recreational opportunities. In contrast, most of the famous national parks were preserved solely for their aesthetic beauty and recreational opportunities. It is very interesting to me how as the idea of wilderness being essential to Americans began to prevail, the role of the Adirondack park shifted from being strictly a timber and water reserve but also a playground. In increasingly environmentally depressing times, it will be interesting to see how the human view of wilderness evolved. Earlier, preserving wilderness simply required setting aside land, and pretty much banning logging and settlement there. In the future, with global warming looming as a serious threat, preserving our wild lands may require major lifestyle changes to be made by all of us.

New Definitions

Policy making is nearly impossible. Class on Wednesday was both exciting and endlessly frustrating in that, although we all had great ideas regarding our amendment to the SLMP, they were often broken down by numerous loopholes. By the end of class, we hadn't even begun to come up with the actual wording for the amendment, or methods for convincing others to vote for said amendment, because we were so stuck on finding foolproof solutions to the discovered loopholes. I think I've decided that foolproof just isn't an option. If we could come up with so many loopholes in such a short amount of time, it seems likely that someone can almost always come up with a way to skirt around the regulations, or modify them, if they simply think for long enough.

I hadn't even thought about this before, really. When we originally came up with our amendment for private land easements in lieu of the public ones that currently cut into wilderness land, we thought that we could just continue to call this easement land "Primitive Use Land." Then, in our class-wide conversation, a classmate asked what the specific regulations were for this new classification of land. It was then that I realized how precise and specific policymakers need to be in order to be most effective in mitigating the possibility of ambiguity. We couldn't simply translate the public "Primitive Use Land" regulations onto private lands; we needed to create an entirely new land classification specific to privately owned land. And although this was another frustrating realization, it was also a good one because it made clear the fact that this pre-existing land classification was specific enough to what it regulates that it could not be any more far-reaching. A new definition of private primitive use land was necessary.

No One Likes a Tattle-tale

Although Cronon's view on wilderness receives mixed reviews, my thoughts on the park and the natural world in general have aligned considerably with his. Every time I read something that describes a particular area or piece of land "valuable" or "worthless", I always ask myself - to whom? Cronon emphasizes the representation of wilderness, which I believe to be very important when it comes to protecting the park.We, as a species, are the ones interacting with nature -- looking at it, writing about it, learning from it, and we therefore determine its worth based on what we think of it. I can understand why this is not a popular idea, since many readers interpret this as somewhat accusatory. However, I don't think this necessarily the case. I think it's simply an accurate commentary on a particular inevitable experience that is intended to make us more aware of it. The only way to find a solution is to understand every aspect of the problem, even if that means admitting the potential harm in human romanticism of wilderness. He is attempting to keep humans from getting in their own way.

APA don't go away

The main point that I took away from the readings last week was that there was a lot of drama surrounding the APA after it created the APA Act and the SLMP. So much drama that someone tried to set fire to the agency’s building, and people were calling and threatening the agency. The executive director himself was incensed with how the Agency was unraveling and how the Park continued to move towards self-destruction.

Yet the part I found most odd was how weak the APA members were, especially considering they were the ones running Agency meetings. No one wanted to propose something that might offend a certain group or municipality. No one wanted to be bold enough to take a stand (while every resident of the Park would be screaming for change). Most surprisingly, they were reluctant to do anything for fear that people might not like them.

In all my years, if there’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s that no one likes their government. The government isn’t designed to be liked, especially because they often have to make unpopular decisions for the benefit of the whole. But the APA is absolutely necessary for the Park to be protected. Without a strong APA, the Park governmental structure risks devolving into a conglomerate of self-interested municipalities that can’t take the best interest of the entire Park into account when making decisions.

"The Economic Potential of Rewilding the Adirondacks"

I found this article on The Adirondack Almanack that related to our proposal supporting the reintroduction of native wildlife such as the wolf or moose or as the article refers to them "megafauna." The main argument of the article is that wildlife is one of the major factors that drives tourism revenue, citing the reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone leading to higher percentage of visitors hoping to catch glimpse of the animals. The author, Steve Hall, contends that this influx of visitors lead to 35 million more dollars being spent in local economies surrounding Yellowstone. Interestingly many if not all of us saw or met Steve Hall or his wife Wendy when we visited the Adirondack Wildlife Refuge in Wilmington on our field trip. One point that I definitely agree with and have seen in action is the idea that wildlife tourism is not necessarily about what you are likely to see but "what you believe you may see." He also notes that even seeing an animal cross a road could be a huge draw. I have seen this idea in action on Cape Cod where the presence of Great Whites has been selling T-shirt and drawing media attention to the coast for the past few years. Steve also points out that when ROOST (The Regional Office of Sustainable Tourism) took surveys of tourists in the park the only mention of wildlife viewing was the "Wolf Walk" program that he runs at his refuge.  In the conclusion of his article to asserts that this introduction would not only broaden the Adirondack economy but also "promote a real return to 'Forever Wild.'" I thought that his argument made a lot of sense, but after taking part in many of the discussion we have had in class I have trouble seeing his plan coming to fruition without complication and compromise. I also wonder what else he would consider to be "a real return to Forever Wild" in the Adirondacks because as we have discussed in class the phrase invites ambiguity and argument.


Here's the link if you want to read his overview and argument further. I found the article to be a very cool way to wrap up my posts for the class as it provided a certain level of continuity between the experiential and human elements of the field trip and the many themes and discussion we have had in class: http://www.adirondackalmanack.com/2014/12/the-economic-potential-of-rewilding-the-adirondacks.html

Newfound respect

      Like a lot of people, I love making fun of politicians. However, I've never felt so sympathetic towards policy makers until our discussion in class on Wednesday. I think that we could have talked about our proposed buffer amendment for many more class periods, finding potential loopholes and figuring out ways to block them. As it is, I still haven't come up with a solution to the last issue we thought of, that of large businesses building next to small residential areas and so bypassing the spirit of the amendment. While the process frustrated me, I also found it one of the most engaging discussions that we've had in class. Policy making, especially in the Adirondack Park, is an incredibly frustrating and sometimes fruitless process. I don't think anything could have made us appreciate that fact as much as actually going through the process ourselves. I feel incredible respect for the members of the APA, who are tasked with proposing amendments such as these.

Importance of Wilderness

In this week’s reading of Wallace Stegner’s letter to David Pesonen, Stegner writes: “Something will have gone out of us as a people if we ever let the remaining wilderness be destroyed; if we permit the last virgin forests to be turned into comic books and cigarette cases… if we pollute the last clear air and dirty the last clean streams and push our paved roads through the last of the silence, so that never again will Americans be free in their own country from the noise, the exhausts, the stinks of human and automotive voice.”

I think this is a very strong argument for why we need to conserve the wilderness.  If we destroy nature we will be forced to live in a completely man-controlled environment, which cannot be good for our spiritual health or our sanity.  Like McKibben alluded to in the afterward of The Great Experiment in Conservation, if nature is destroyed there would be no escape from the constant disturbing city smog.  It would not make sense to talk about the Adirondacks as ‘wild’ anymore; the entire meaning of the Adirondacks would change.  Without a doubt, the wilderness in the Adirondack Park will face problems in the foreseeable future as development and recreation increase and the climate augments.  The Adirondack Park in 100 years will not look like it does today.  I hope that even though there will be significant changes, the Park will still be considered a wilderness and a home to thousands of different species and humans.

Ecology Vs. Economy

Environmental concerns often are seen in the Adirondacks as being "at ends" with the economics in the park.  Often what I've heard cited are details concerning preventing infrastructure being laid in the park, which makes transporting and living more difficult than normal.  Additionally, residents bring up the fact that massive developments such as the Tupper Lake could potentially bring money into the local economies.
An article in the Almanack has somewhat changed my perspective about how ecological concerns could actually bring in money to the Adirondacks.  Specifically, the act of 'rewilding' the Adirondacks could potentially bring some additional interest to tourism in the industry.  Even more specifically, top tier predators such as the wolf can heavily draw a surprising amount of tourists into the park.  In Yellowstone, it was noted that roughly 4% of attendees go just to see the wolf in particular.  The industry of wild watching could greatly be expanded in order to not only promote a heavier tourism industry (and subsequent awareness of how the food chain/ecological populations work!) but also help the process of population control.

Leaving a Trail

For my final blog post I chose to discuss a quotation I found at the very beginning of the calendar Janelle showed us last class. The quotation form Ralph Waldo Emerson says "Do not go where the path may lead, go instead where there is no path and leave a trail". I thought this quote was very ironic to the paradox that is the Adirondacks, and a very interesting choice for a calendar published by an Adirondack group. There has always been a constant battle about the balance of using the park as a resource and the desire to keep a land untrammeled by man, both of which are impossible at least in the way the park is now established. This quotation though, puts an emphasis on the human experience in the park where the main point of humans in the park is to "leave their mark". Ironic because of the huge emphasis to cut out these sorts of human impacts. We as humans have this mentality that we need to cover every square inch of the Earth and basically tell the world "I was here" so seeing a quotation chosen by an Adirondack group who I would assume has ideals similar to those who want to preserve the land contradicts a lot of what they stand for.

Stone Barns

This year I have become obsessed with this restaurant/farm CoOp in NY called Stone Barns. Mostly, its because they seem to have wonderful farming practices that use crop rotation and mixed crop planting systems to fertilize the ground and prevent unwanted plants from growing. This is a refreshing change from pesticides and fertilizers! Recently, they have used hungry animals as a way to fertilize grassland while also chomping on invasive species. 

http://www.stonebarnscenter.org/farm/news/the-grass-is-always-greener.html

Im not sure if there is anyway to implement this type of method throughout the ADKs but it might be useful to farmers, like those at Asgaard.

A Philosophical Quandry

For me, one of the biggest takeaways of this course was our society's engrained anthropocentric view of the world. I think that this idea is so central to the issues surrounding the Adirondack Park because so many of the conflicts that we have come up against have had to do with people interpreting and directing the Adirondack story in whichever ways are best for themselves. All too often we expect the land to provide for humans as if that's what it's there for--we want to use the Park as a place for recreation, resources, ecological services, economic boosters, and more. One major theme of the course is the nature of humans to dictate what we want the Adirondack Park, or any wilderness space, to be and do in a way that will benefit us directly. It seems instinctive to view the world through this human-centric lens, but the reality that we most often forget is that this earth and all its bounty does not exist for the purpose of serving human needs. In some ways, this is difficult concept to wrap my head around, and I certainly don't fully understand the implications of it. Just because this world is not meant to provide for humans alone doesn't mean that we shouldn't take advantage of it, right? But at what point (if at all) do we favor the wellbeing of our planet and its other inhabitants over ourselves? Do we have a moral/ethical/otherwise obligation to care for this land (and specifically the Adirondack Park)? What is even the best way to do that? After much thought, I came to one last question that I think sums up this anthropocentric view and more clearly reminds us of that view's glaring flaws:

If a tree suitable for lumber in the Adirondack Park falls down and no person is around to use it, is it a wasted resource?

Obviously this question is modeled after the classic philosophy quandary about the sound of a tree falling with no one around to hear it, but I think that it extends well to the discussion we've had all semester about the Adirondacks. What is the purpose/use of the Adirondacks? Does that purpose change if we take people out of the equation? Most of all this question gets at the idea that there is no one locus that defines what is or is not a resource and when that resource is wasted. While a lumber company might shake their heads at this loss of revenue, the microbes and worms and fungi in the dirt might be delighted to have a new, nutritious treat to consume. For other plants on the forest floor this might be their chance to see the sun and actually thrive in the understory. The fact of the matter is that as much as we might want to believe that our interpretation of what the Adirondacks should be and do is the right one, we can also be sure that the squirrels and the beavers and the Eastern White Pines all have very different answers to those same questions.

What it comes down to, I think, is what Terrie and Schneider have termed the Adirondack narrative. Ultimately, there is no single Adirondack story. The inside of the Blue Line is uniquely interpreted by every visitor, resident, policymaker, and environmental advocate that holds some connection to the land, and that is not just limited to humans.