Ethics of the Evolutionary Right

How do you qualify a species as "native"?  This question has recently come to the forefront of the environmental conservation movement.  Many people question whether or not we should reintroduce species that were recently forced out of their "natural" habitat by human actions or invasive species. While these plants and animals are traditionally seen as "native" species, that, of course, is a relative term.  Ecosystems are constantly in flux, and while species that we recognize as "native" because they are currently in a specific region are not necessarily indigenous.  Like us, species migrate and evolve to fit the different conditions in which they live.  So, when a species that was once native to an ecosystem is removed, and that ecological community adapts to survive without its missing component, is it our job to jam nature back in its place?  Is it our right to remove a "weed" that successfully out-competed what was already there, and deny it its evolutionary right to live, breed, repeat?

In the mid 1900's, not a single wolf existed within and around Yellowstone National Park, though just a century before, the park was teeming with the species.  Hunting and "predator control" removed what humans believed to be threats to their safety (NPS).  However, decades later people believed wolves had a right to yet again live in the park, and that it was their job as a keystone species to keep the ecosystem in balance.  After approximately 45 years without this top predator in the region, the ecosystem had begun to shift to accommodate for its loss.  Of the natural responses, tree species were undergoing succession due to increased grazing by herbivores that were normally preyed upon by wolves.  Changes such as these scared environmentalists.  It was mans' fault for killing the wolves in the first place!  We have to put it back the way we found it and clear our ecological conscious!  Thus, in 1994, wolves were reintroduced to Yellowstone.  Though the National Park Service claims this program is leading to an increase in biodiversity within the park, there is no way to predict the reintroduction of wolves would not have thrown the entire tropic structure it once stood at the epicenter of off.

I think first and foremost that the most vital strategy we have to learn and incorporate into environmental conservation is a "hands off" policy.  If the environment is there, and if humans are unnecessarily exploiting it, STOP!  It is not our place to take resources from other living creatures.  Similarly, what gives us the right to shape the environment in the vision of what we think it should, or used to, be.  If we remove species a "native" species from an area, sometimes we have to step back and let nature run its course and deal with the consequences and guilt later.  That being said, there is a difference between regional extirpation and mass global extinction.  While global extinction can be prevented but not reversed, regional extirpation can be both prevented and reversed.  Fellow humans, stay on the safe side of biodiversity, and prevent both global and regional extinctions through sustainable actions.

Sources:
United States. National Park Service. "Wolf Restoration Continued." National Parks Service. U.S. Department of the Interior, 20 Apr. 2015. Web. 27 Apr. 2015. <http://www.nps.gov/yell/learn/nature/wolfrest.htm>.


This article was be peer reviewed by Ben Cooper on April 28th.

Mud Runs

This past weekend I participated in my first mud run in Deansboro, NY. I have competed in many regular road races in the past but there was something thrilling about rolling around in piles of mud with thousands of other people. The race was also a great experience because its’ purpose was greater than just a fun race. The run benefited several wonderful charities including the Compeer program which serves adults and children with mental health issues through supportive friendship and mentoring relationships in Utica.This race is not the only of its kind, as just last year 4.2 million people participated in a mud run worldwide (“Obstacle Race” 1). However, as I ran the course, I began to notice that water was being pumped in to make the ground wetter to increase the depth of mud, and the ropes to aid people up the rugged terrain were tied to thin trees that were being torn at unnatural angles.

Although, it benefits a great cause, this run has not always had great support from the public. Amesbury, Massachusetts filed a complaint against “Spartan Run” a brand name nation wide mud run who hosted a 4.8 mile contest there in August 2014. Town officials argued the race damaged wetlands and buffer zones, as well increased noise pollution due to traffic and parking. I saw these same issues at the mud run I participated. in  The “Spartan Run” brought in some economic activity to Amesbury, but town officials remain confident they would never host a mud run again (Regan 1). This conflict between potential economic gain, and environmental impact is a concept I have been grappling with all semester. It is a lot easier for me to say I would always chose what is best for the environment when it is in class, but it is much harder when it is a real life application as is apparent from my decision to participate in the mud run.

As I competed in the mud run it was hard for me to only think of the environmental consequences. I saw how important the Daniel Barden Mudfest was to those who miss him, and love to see his message of kindness and community spread through the event. The course is designed so that no one can do it alone, it builds friendship by its very nature. I left the event a little more confused about what the right answer is. I certainly do not like the way the event has the potential to wreak havoc on an ecosystem, but I do like the message it stands for and the widespread positive impacts it has.

                                                             Works Cited

"City: Race Damaged Wetlands." Eagle Tribune. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Apr. 2015.

"Obstacle Races and Mud Runs."  Obstacle Race World, 2015. Web. 27 Apr. 2015.

Thank you Abby U for editing

Our Greatest Loss

            After reading Robert Glennon’s “A Land Not Saved,” it became apparent to me that the Adirondack Park, as it exists today, may cease to exist in time.  As people continue to demand further development in the park in the name of economic progress, and politicians, unaware of the historical and aesthetic value of the park, give in to these demands, the fate of the Adirondack land will fall into the hands of housing developers, event committees and business owners.   Evidently, humans run the risk of not only impacting the Adirondack landscape, but, destroying it entirely.   I have heard many conversations like this, regarding human actions and their influence on the climate and the environment.  Yet, for me, there is a larger question at hand: how will loss of the Adirondacks affect society?  Later generations may only recognize a dried up, deforested landscape that once was the Adirondack Park and therefore will not morn its absence.  But I believe that without the life lessons introduced by landscapes like the Adirondacks, society will be at a loss.

            For me, the Adirondack Park, and the outdoors in general have proven to be a valuable source of physical and intellectual growth.  I grew up spending portions of my summers and falls enjoying the Adirondacks’ mountains, lakes, and forests, and it was these experiences that have shaped me as a person.  Jumping into seemingly bottomless lakes, I learned to be a more confident swimmer, and hiking in the woods I found that it is not always a good idea to fend too far from the trail.  I learned how to kayak, row a boat, and more importantly, paddle myself out of oncoming thunderstorms, working through panic and fatigue.  One could argue that life lessons such as these could be taught through attempts to ride a bike or throw a baseball.  However, there is something authentic about being on a lake or in the woods that triggers the human body’s autonomic nervous system and its problem solving ability.  For me, it was thinking and acting for myself that made these lessons stick.

            The Adirondacks also serve as a fertile ground for academic development.  In fact, the Ancient Romans first tapped into the intellectual value of the outdoors with the establishment of outdoor forums where political debates and academic discussions took place.  Similarly, artists, scientists, and philosophers in the United States found great inspiration in the outdoors, specifically in the Adirondack wilderness.  This was exemplified during the 1858 Philosopher’s Camp during which Ralph Waldo Emerson produced the poem Adriondac, William James Stillman fashioned the painting Philosopher’s Camp, and Louis Agassiz discovered a freshwater sponge.  My own experiences have spoken to the educational value of the Adirondacks as well.  Specifically, I go on hikes and camping trips with family and friends for the sole purpose of engaging in open discussions, conversations, and debates related to class subjects, political issues, and personal beliefs.  The Adirondacks quite literally offers an open space that beckons people to converse, listen, observe, and learn, making the educational value of the park indubitable.

            It is important that we acknowledge what we as a society will lose if the Adirondacks, and other similar landscapes, continue to be destroyed.  Future generations may be blissful, content and occupied by television, smart phones, and tablets in the absence of the Adirondacks.  Yet, people will most likely lack in physical and cerebral understandings gained from kayaking through a rainstorm, painting a serene landscape, or finding their way back to a trail.   Thus, efforts to protect and preserve the Adirondack Park must not only consider what humans are doing to the park, but what the park is doing for us.

Adirondack Park Accessibility for Individuals with Disabilities

For most of its visitors, the Adirondack Park is a wonderful place to enjoy nature, disconnect from cities, and participate in a variety of recreational activities. Unfortunately, visitors with disabilities are not able to experience the benefits of the park to the same extent due to the park’s lack of accessibility for disabled individuals. Some of the regulations of the Forever Wild clause need to be breached in order to make the public land in the Adirondack Park compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which “ensures equal opportunity for persons with disabilities in …State and local government services…” (ADA.gov). This conflict between the ADA and the SLMP has lead to many lawsuits. One of the biggest victories for accessibility advocates was the result of a lawsuit in 2001, which ordered the DEC to spend $4.8 million over five years to increase the accessibility of public areas such as campsites, boat launches, picnic areas, etc. (New York DEC). While this was a huge step towards an accessible park, this mandate didn’t improve disability access to wilderness areas where motor vehicles are prohibited. It isn’t realistic to make the entire park accessible, but legislators should work to make the park as accessible as possible to create equal opportunities for all visitors.

In 2010, a disabled veteran Maynard Baker filed a lawsuit against the DEC and the APA that challenged rules prohibiting motorized access and floatplane use to wilderness areas, including 38 lakes and ponds within the park, arguing this restricted access violates the ADA. One opponent of this case, John Caffry of Protect the Adirondacks, claims the ban on floatplanes should remain because “there are plenty of people with disabilities who have no interest in using floatplanes to access wilderness lakes” (Mann). While his argument explains why floatplanes aren’t necessary for all individuals with disabilities, it does not effectively combat Baker’s claims. Caffry thoughtlessly lumps all individuals with disabilities together and generalizes that “many of them prefer” accessing wilderness lakes by motorless means of transportation. Just as not all able-bodied people are the same, not all individuals with disabilities have the exact same preferences or abilities. Yes, some individuals might be able to access wilderness lakes by canoe, but others may not be able to do so, in which case the use of floatplanes is necessary in order to allow them the same opportunities as every other visitor to the park.

After two years of heated debate, Baker dropped the lawsuit because of the accumulating cost of litigation, stating, “no person of modest means, like many of us in the Adirondack Park, can singlehandedly challenge the state on such issues. Help from deep pockets is needed” (Adirondack Daily Enterprise). While Baker dropped his case, he continues to argue that certain allowances should be made for individuals with disabilities so they can experience wilderness in the Adirondack Park just as able-bodied individuals can. Even though some of these allowances may have a slightly negative effect on the environmental conservation efforts of the Forever Wild clause, the benefits of inclusion and accessibility for disabled individuals are much more important. 

Update 5/1/2015: Thank you to Emily Snider for your thoughtful feedback and suggestions to improve this post.

Works Cited:

"Americans with Disabilities Act." 2010 ADA Regulations. United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, 2010. Web. 27 Apr. 2015.

"Historic Agreement Provides Additional Access for the Disabled." Accessible Trails. New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Aug. 2001. Web. 27 Apr. 2015.

Kassel, Lara. "Access to Summer." Center for Disability Rights, Inc. Center for Disability Rights, Inc., 30 May 2008. Web. 27 Apr. 2015.

Knight, Chris. "Disabled-access Floatplane Suit Dropped." Adirondack Daily Enterprise. Adirondack Daily Enterprise, 29 Nov. 2012. Web. 27 Apr. 2015.

Mann, Brian. "Lawsuit Challenges Access to Adirondack Wilderness for People with Disabilities." Lawsuit Challenges Access to Adirondack Wilderness for People with Disabilities. North Country Public Radio, 11 Mar. 2011. Web. 27 Apr. 2015.

The Quadruple Crown

               One of the first trails of its kind, the Appalachian Trail (AT) is one of three complete National Scenic Trails (along with the Pacific Crest Trail and the Continental Divide Trail) that makes up the Triple Crown of long distance hiking.  This iconic 2,000+ mile trail, first proposed in 1921 by Benton Mackaye, was cleared and completed a mere seven years after construction began in 1930 (Gambino 2009).  While this trail follows the Appalachian Mountains from Georgia to Maine, it does not intersect the Adirondacks, a geologically isolated and unique region in northern New York.  Inspired by the success of the Appalachian Trail, Congress in the 1980s passed legislation to allow construction of a new National Scenic Trail, the North Country National Scenic Trail (NCNST), which would follow a 4,600 mile track through the diverse landscapes of the northern United States, including the Adirondacks. 

               The NCNST has not experienced the swift, uninterrupted construction enjoyed by the Appalachian Trail.  Only about half of the trail has been completed since its proposal more than thirty years ago because of disputes over proposed routes and trail building costs (ecological and economic).  One highly contentious region along the NCNST is the Adirondacks.  Three proposals for possible routes through the Adirondack Park have been suggested: the Northern Route, the Southern Route, and the Central Route.  The APA ultimately rejected the Northern Route in the 1990s because of its traverse of the High Peaks region, an area already barely supporting the high volume of tourism is experiences without an influx of thru-hikers.  The Southern Route is also unlikely to be approved—its long detour through the southern Adirondacks requires extensive trail construction and includes several dangerous road and river crossings.  The most likely candidate as of 2014 is the Central Route, which passes in between the proposed Northern and Southern routes, avoiding high traffic areas and requiring the least new trail construction (NCNST 2014).

               While the Central Route appears the most promising, the language is deceptive: while it “mostly” follows existing trails (51%, or 81 miles), the remaining 49% requires 38.3 miles of new trails and 39.1 miles of road-side walking (Ingersoll 2014).  Because of limited land-use along the proposed Central Route, building the required trails imposes little ecological cost to the land, but the 39.1 miles of road-side hiking endangers the hikers and strains park traffic (Ingersoll 2014).  Further, walking along a road is not attractive and will discourage hikers from attempting the thru-hike in the Adirondacks.

               The Adirondacks represent one of the most exciting landscapes along this new National Scenic Trail, and unless a decent trail traversing the park can be agreed upon, the Adirondack section may never join the rest of the NCNST.  The North Country National Scenic Trail offers a wide array of landscape diversity across the Northern and Mid-Western United States, and the Adirondacks should take advantage of the opportunity join this route and boast its forests… not its roads.

Thank you to Jenna Crawford for her editorial comments.

References:

Ingersoll, Bill.  14 July 2014.  “Routing a National Trail through the Adirondacks.”  Adirondack Almanack.  URL: < http://www.adirondackalmanack.com/2014/07/bill-ingersoll-routing-a-national-trail-through-the-adirondacks.html>.

Gambino, Megan.  13 July 2009.  “Tales from the Appalachian Trail.”  Smithsonian.com.  URL: <http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/tales-from-the-appalachian-trail-34902244/?no-ist>.

North Country National Scenic Trail: Revised Draft Adirondack Park Trail Plan.  June 2014.  Department of Environmental Conservation.  URL: < http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/39658.html>.

More Land for Fun Activities! Huzzah!

Last week, New York State acquired a 6,200 acre land tract adjacent to the High Peaks Wilderness Area known as MacIntyre East.  The state purchased the land, which includes parts of the Hudson and Opalescent Rivers between Mount Adams and Allen Mountain, for $4.24 million from the Nature Conservancy in a deal that Governor Cuomo announced as a part of the Earth Week celebrations (Brown 2015).  With the new purchase, outdoor enthusiasts can rejoice, as the now open-to-the-public land boasts hiking, hunting, fishing, climbing, and most notably paddling.  MacIntyre East contains seven miles of the Opalescent River, which is well known for its world class whitewater (and this adrenaline pumping gem of a paddling film: Whitewater Kayaking the Opalescent's Hanging Spear Falls - A Red Bull Film), and more than five miles of the upper Hudson, including a long stretch of flat water suitable for recreational kayaking and canoeing.

Though the land acquisition is great news for anyone who loves a good outdoor adventure, the yet-to-be-decided classifications for the purchase will determine the land's accessibility and if motorized activity is allowed.  Most environmentalists and naturalists want the tract added to the High Peaks Wilderness, which would prohibit motorized activity, while others want at least part of the land to be classified as Wild Forest.  A Wild Forest classification would allow some motor vehicles, and would increase accessibility to the more remote sections of the tract, such as Allen Mountain - a high peak (Brown 2015).  Currently, there is a dirt road within MacIntyre East that extends to within two miles of Allen's summit.  If the road is open to motorized traffic and a new trail is built, an ascent of Allen would no longer be an 18-mile roundtrip hike from Upper Works, but a much shorter and much more accessible hike from a dirt road.

The debate over the classification of MacIntyre East clearly demonstrates the challenge between balancing environmental protection and accessibility.  Prohibiting motor vehicles would have the environmental benefit of reducing accessibility and therefore use of the land.  More accessible trails and waterways tend to see the most environmental damage due to trail erosion, human-transported invasive species, and improper waste and garbage disposal.  However, increased accessibility to MacIntyre East might divert some of traffic away from the overly popular Marcy Dam and Johns Brook Lodge areas and lessen the environmental impact there.  Moreover, motorized vehicle access would allow more people to enjoy the beauty of remote areas of the Adirondack Park (though, technically by increasing accessibility to an area, one reduces its remoteness...).

Personally, I would like to see the state designate MacIntyre East a Wilderness Area.  Although motorized activity would allow more people to enjoy the land, it can also degrade the experience for others.  If motorized activity is prohibited, the road itself could still make the land more accessible by providing a gentle path for hiking/walking and a nice ski-approach trail to Allen in the winter.  If cars and snowmobiles were allowed, the land would ultimately lose its wildness.  Though it would be nice to drive a car up to within 40 feet of world-class whitewater or within a couple miles of a summit, it is not necessarily better than the sense of satisfaction of the physical and emotional challenge of exploring more remote places.  Perhaps it is the remoteness of the places we go that makes them so special and so worth traveling to.

MacIntyre East - shown in pink

Many thanks to the wonderful Laura Kwasnoski for her helpful comments and insight that made this blog post possible.


Brown, Phil. "State Acquires 6,200 Acres of Former Finch, Pruyn Land." The Adirondack Almanack. 23 April 2015. Web. 27 April 2015.

Building a Wood and Canvas Canoe

Canoeing is one of the best ways I know to experience nature. From a comfortable canoe seat, you can almost always see more than a hiker or driver could. You would see more from the seat of a canoe than you could from a small airplane, or even a helicopter. Since native american times canoes have been widely used in the Adirondacks, but it is not often said what goes into building a good wood and canvas canoe. In high school I built one, and was astonished by the amount of time that goes into building just one.

The first hurdle is finding the proper wood. Cedar is used for the ribs and planking, while the stronger gunwales are made of ash. While the gunwales can be made of other similar hardwoods, there is really no substitute for cedar for the ribs and planks. Cedar is light, very resistant to rot, and above all lightweight. The only problem is that "clear" cedar, cedar without any knots or uneven grains, is extremely hard to come by, and therefore fairly expensive. In the picture below, steamed cedar ribs have been bent around the canoe mold. Of the 48 total ribs, we broke about ten due to grain irregularities.

After all of the ribs have been bent successfully, they need to be evened out on the outside, so that the planking will rest on neighboring ribs equally. Using a home made sanding block, the whole canoe is worked over. The next task is the planking. Planking takes a very long time, since every one of the planks has to be cut and fit perfectly over the complex shape of the hull. The planks are fastened to the ribs with approximately 3,000 canoe tacks. Each needs to be nailed in from the outside then "clinched" or bent over on the inside so that they do not poke the paddlers. Clinching usually leaves a dents all over this ribs, so a thorough sanding of the inside is required. 

At this point, even though most of the wood is already in the canoe, it weighs only about half of what it will upon completion; it is so light that it can be easily picked up with only one hand. After the planking has been completed, the canoe is removed from the mold, and hung in a canvas harness for several days until the canvas takes its shape. Several coats of canvas filler are then worked into hull. These layers will lend the canoe a substantial amount of its weight in addition to keeping out water. 

While the filler is left to dry for a few days in the sun, all the finishing work takes place. Seats are built from sturdy maple and then cained. Thwarts (the pieces of wood that span the gunwales) are fashioned and four coats of varnish are liberally applied to the inside, making the canoe much heavier but giving it a nice glow. After a few coats of classic, dark green canoe paint and the installation of protective metal strips over the stems, the finished canoe is ready to be taken on an adventure. 

There is really no substitute for a wood and canvas canoe. Metal canoes are less comfortable, and make thunderous noises every time they are tapped. They are difficult to repair, and don't look very good on the water. Plastic canoes, although somewhat better, do not feel quite right. Nature should not be experienced from a plastic tub. With proper care, wood and canvas canoes can last many years, and usually only require a re-canvassing to be as good as new. 

Note: This is the final post, revised after writing center appointment on 4/25/15.