DIY BC
Would I be happier living farther from the mountains? Or worse off?
It's great to be close to the Adirondack Park and its 6 million acres and dozens of officially DEC-designated cross-country ski trails. I appreciate all that. But it's hard to be three hours from the High Peaks. That's where there are designated big-mountain backcountry -- that is, self-propelled, no-lifts -- ski trails. But that's no-man's land: Close enough to send their siren call but too far for realistic day trips.
However, there is a real mountain (a hair under 4,000 feet) that's day-trippable. As a bonus, it has a marked, designated hiking or snowshoe route to the summit through state land. It also has an unofficial but frequently don't-ask-don't-tell ski route down. And it's in something of a snow belt and has reliable snow cover through all but the worst mid-winter thaws and, that route being primarily north- and east-facing, holds the snow well.
After weeks of hemming and hawing and logistical hurdles, I finally made it there recently. A friend offered some route pointers, which were much appreciated and valuable. The skin up took about an hour and 40 minutes, some stripping down to the thin layer, and negotiating a few steep, narrow spots but only one skis-off brook crossing. The down was diminished by snowmobile tracks right down the middle of the route, but the sides were still deep and silky.
The reward was that wonderful feeling of planing through deep snow, as if on water, or more precisely, within water, like the hydrofoil on one of those modern America's Cup yachts -- a sensation almost of flying within a fluid. You don't get it often but it's why skiers and snowboarders crave powder and go to lengths non-practitioners of our sports aren't able to fully comprehend.
It was a good day.
It was good even though the route is not for skiers.
Meanwhile, all over the western portion of the Adirondack Park were people who were where they were supposed to be. Snowmobilers were having their day on their designated trails. I don't begrudge them. Those machines zip through the woods and undoubtedly cover a lot of ground. I understand the appeal even though it's not my thing. I also don't blame the state of New York and its various localities for embracing snowmobiling. Snowmobilers buy lots of things and those things are taxed: Primarily fuel, I surmise, but also lodging and restaurant meals and drinks in taverns, and even apre-sledding entertainment even though most machines appear to have headlights allowing for all-hours travel. Much of their money goes back, I surmise, into trail-maintenance fees, including grooming of trails and off-season trail maintenance.
Backcountry skiers, by contrast, spend less. Our gear doesn't require fuel. We just need gas to get to the trailhead. But, I submit, we contribute, too. We buy gas. We buy lunch and dinner. We need a place to stay if we're from out of town. We buy equipment and supplies. We might not do as much as snowmobilers, but we're not insignificant.
Or we could be.
Over in Vermont, the RASTA group out of the central town of Rochester, has built an intriguing trail network with the cooperation of the U.S. Forest Service, the agency being the managing agency of the Green Mountain National Forest. They did it the right way, creating trails and gladed areas in ways I understand are compatible with other uses of the forest. That's what is supposed to happen in public forests: Various user groups benefit from forest management. Backcountry use suddenly has become a part of the economic mix. The Rochester area is the place to go in Vermont for self-propelled down-mountain skiing.
In New York, the same thing happens in state forests. I've enjoyed skiing and biking and hiking on state forest trails maintained by and for a mix of user groups: Skiers, cyclists, hikers, orienteering enthusiasts, horseback riders, trail runners, you name it. The system works.
But the Adirondack Park, with its forever-wild constitutional protection is different. Trails aren't made lightly, if ever. Glades are not to be made, at least not with official sanction. And to be clear: I in no way would want to make any glades. I get the forever-wild idea and agree with it. There should be places that aren't for people, but are for nature alone. Let it be.
Some backcountry skiers have formed a group to advocate for more formal access in the Adirondacks. The Adirondack Powder Skier Association is working on it and recently spoke to the park's main governing agency on this point. Some skiers have made a demonstration of the idea. I admire the diligence, but it's going to be tough, I'm afraid. In another another journalistic run-down a few years ago in Powder magazine, note the comments by the DEC spokesman: There's a mix of "the law doesn't allow it" and failure to understand the scope of the proposal.
But perhaps there is a middle way. In-holdings could be developed as backcountry ski sites. Owners of private property on mountains could, within the land-management parameters of the park agency, DEC and localities, could designate their various roads and forests for limited winter-only public use.
Perhaps skiers could even pay a small membership fee to contribute toward responsible management. It would be on the honor system, of course, but I think it would work. Skiers could get badges or stickers or some other symbol of being a contributor. It would be like public radio: No one's keeping freeloaders from using the service, but those who contribute would have the pride of knowing they're doing their fair share.
Land owners would have a new way of showing their responsible private use of lands. They would be contributing in a new way without significantly, if at all, altering the landscape and ecosystem. Glades and backcountry ski trails, if created and managed correctly, can be part of the ecology and of the economy. Perhaps it's time for skiers to seek out landowners with this idea.
It's great to be close to the Adirondack Park and its 6 million acres and dozens of officially DEC-designated cross-country ski trails. I appreciate all that. But it's hard to be three hours from the High Peaks. That's where there are designated big-mountain backcountry -- that is, self-propelled, no-lifts -- ski trails. But that's no-man's land: Close enough to send their siren call but too far for realistic day trips.
However, there is a real mountain (a hair under 4,000 feet) that's day-trippable. As a bonus, it has a marked, designated hiking or snowshoe route to the summit through state land. It also has an unofficial but frequently don't-ask-don't-tell ski route down. And it's in something of a snow belt and has reliable snow cover through all but the worst mid-winter thaws and, that route being primarily north- and east-facing, holds the snow well.
After weeks of hemming and hawing and logistical hurdles, I finally made it there recently. A friend offered some route pointers, which were much appreciated and valuable. The skin up took about an hour and 40 minutes, some stripping down to the thin layer, and negotiating a few steep, narrow spots but only one skis-off brook crossing. The down was diminished by snowmobile tracks right down the middle of the route, but the sides were still deep and silky.
The reward was that wonderful feeling of planing through deep snow, as if on water, or more precisely, within water, like the hydrofoil on one of those modern America's Cup yachts -- a sensation almost of flying within a fluid. You don't get it often but it's why skiers and snowboarders crave powder and go to lengths non-practitioners of our sports aren't able to fully comprehend.
It was a good day.
It was good even though the route is not for skiers.
Meanwhile, all over the western portion of the Adirondack Park were people who were where they were supposed to be. Snowmobilers were having their day on their designated trails. I don't begrudge them. Those machines zip through the woods and undoubtedly cover a lot of ground. I understand the appeal even though it's not my thing. I also don't blame the state of New York and its various localities for embracing snowmobiling. Snowmobilers buy lots of things and those things are taxed: Primarily fuel, I surmise, but also lodging and restaurant meals and drinks in taverns, and even apre-sledding entertainment even though most machines appear to have headlights allowing for all-hours travel. Much of their money goes back, I surmise, into trail-maintenance fees, including grooming of trails and off-season trail maintenance.
Backcountry skiers, by contrast, spend less. Our gear doesn't require fuel. We just need gas to get to the trailhead. But, I submit, we contribute, too. We buy gas. We buy lunch and dinner. We need a place to stay if we're from out of town. We buy equipment and supplies. We might not do as much as snowmobilers, but we're not insignificant.
Or we could be.
Over in Vermont, the RASTA group out of the central town of Rochester, has built an intriguing trail network with the cooperation of the U.S. Forest Service, the agency being the managing agency of the Green Mountain National Forest. They did it the right way, creating trails and gladed areas in ways I understand are compatible with other uses of the forest. That's what is supposed to happen in public forests: Various user groups benefit from forest management. Backcountry use suddenly has become a part of the economic mix. The Rochester area is the place to go in Vermont for self-propelled down-mountain skiing.
In New York, the same thing happens in state forests. I've enjoyed skiing and biking and hiking on state forest trails maintained by and for a mix of user groups: Skiers, cyclists, hikers, orienteering enthusiasts, horseback riders, trail runners, you name it. The system works.
But the Adirondack Park, with its forever-wild constitutional protection is different. Trails aren't made lightly, if ever. Glades are not to be made, at least not with official sanction. And to be clear: I in no way would want to make any glades. I get the forever-wild idea and agree with it. There should be places that aren't for people, but are for nature alone. Let it be.
Some backcountry skiers have formed a group to advocate for more formal access in the Adirondacks. The Adirondack Powder Skier Association is working on it and recently spoke to the park's main governing agency on this point. Some skiers have made a demonstration of the idea. I admire the diligence, but it's going to be tough, I'm afraid. In another another journalistic run-down a few years ago in Powder magazine, note the comments by the DEC spokesman: There's a mix of "the law doesn't allow it" and failure to understand the scope of the proposal.
But perhaps there is a middle way. In-holdings could be developed as backcountry ski sites. Owners of private property on mountains could, within the land-management parameters of the park agency, DEC and localities, could designate their various roads and forests for limited winter-only public use.
Perhaps skiers could even pay a small membership fee to contribute toward responsible management. It would be on the honor system, of course, but I think it would work. Skiers could get badges or stickers or some other symbol of being a contributor. It would be like public radio: No one's keeping freeloaders from using the service, but those who contribute would have the pride of knowing they're doing their fair share.
Land owners would have a new way of showing their responsible private use of lands. They would be contributing in a new way without significantly, if at all, altering the landscape and ecosystem. Glades and backcountry ski trails, if created and managed correctly, can be part of the ecology and of the economy. Perhaps it's time for skiers to seek out landowners with this idea.
Comments
Post a Comment