Court Rulings Favor Public Use of Private Land in the Adirondacks

            Conservationists and politicians did not foresee the lasting conflicts that would arise between public and private land owners as a result of New York State’s decision to protect the Adirondack Park. While creation of the park occurred amidst national efforts to preserve many parts of America’s unique environment, the establishment of the Adirondack Park was unique in the fact that New York did not own all of the land comprising the park.  Thus, when New York proclaimed that the Adirondack Park would be kept forever wild, and for public enjoyment, it was unclear how this clause would apply to private land within the park and consequently, debates surrounding public use of private land have surfaced in the Adirondacks ever since.

            The case of Rockefeller vs. Lamora demonstrates one of the early conflicts that emerged in the Adirondacks regarding public access to private land.  Oliver Lamora, a resident of Brandon, the former town occupying the land purchased by William Rockefeller, was convicted of trespassing after he fished on a segment of the St. Regis River owned by Rockefeller.  Surprisingly, in light of the fact that Lamora was relying on the surrounding forest for food, the lower courts ruled in favor of Lamora.  This encouraged other people to trespass on private land and set a precedent, it seems, for  rulings on and views of the use of private land in the Adirondacks.

            In January 2015, the New York Times reported on another case regarding private land use.   This case involved the journalist Phil Brown, who was accused of civil trespass for entering private land during his canoe trip from Tupper Lake to Lake Lila in 2009.  During his trip, Brown elected to paddle on two miles of property owned in Long Lake by the Brandreth family instead of carrying his canoe 4/5 of a mile over state land.  Following the ruling in the Lamora case, the court sided with the trespasser.  In 2010 the Supreme Court Justice in Hamilton County ruled that the navigability and convenience of waterway used by Brown, along with the fact that it runs between two public waterways make it available for public use.  Like the Rockefeller vs. Lamora case, this decision changed the meaning and implications of private land in the Adirondacks.

            In the Lamora and Brown cases, the courts promoted the utilitarian nature of the park.  Conceding to the fact that designating private land cannot always prevent people from accessing food sources and waterways, these court rulings have made activity on and use of private lands in the Adirondacks more permissible.  As a result, the ownership of wildlife and land in the Adirondacks has become increasingly unclear.  Lamora held that nobody owns wildlife and similarly, Brown demonstrated that waterways critical to recreation cannot be blockaded by private landowners.  The Adirondacks was largely created to salvage use and appreciation of the region, and it seems that policies regarding ownership and utilization of land reflect these same interests.  Thus, ownership of the Adirondacks seems to have been granted less to private landowners and more to those who appreciate, and even depend on the natural environment for food, recreation, and convenient transport.

Sources:

Karl Jacoby: Crimes against Nature: Squatters, Poachers, Thieves, and the Hidden History of American Conservation.

Lisa W. Foderado: Ruling Favors Public Use of Adirondacks’ Private Waterways. The New York Times. January 19, 2015.