"Aside from the debate over priorities, it’s expensive and polluting to bring heavy earth-moving machinery into the backcountry and pay operators to use it, especially when the alternative is letting nature do the work."
It’s challenging to bring some balance into the new-ending controversies that envelop the Adirondack Park, DEC, and the APA. Such is the fate of public land with the objectives of both maintaining unspoiled wilderness and facilitating public use.
May I suggest some balance here? Perhaps most old logging roads could be left undisturbed while nature takes its course to reclaim them, with the exception of those that are misused by all-terrain vehicles or snowmobiles. In those cases, making the logging roads impassable may be a better alternative to the rutting, erosion, and other destruction caused by our misuse.
No approach will satisfy everyone. But one that acknowledges good points made on both sides of the issue may be the best course.
Cranking up the AC is only the tip of the iceberg! I just read that the warming climate is helping Lone Star ticks spread their range. Their bite can give people a weird thing called alpha-gal syndrome, which is an awful thing despite its cute name. It gives you what is essentially a severe allergy to red meat and other foods and products derived from mammals.
Thanks, Will, for calling attention to a significant ethical moral issue. Bob makes a good point about seeking balance. I am an old ADK 33er, and a longtime advocate of the preservation AND conservation of the ADKs. (Never aspired to be a 46er, I climbed for the sheer beauty and adventure. Repeated a few High Peaks several times, my favorite being Algonquin—5 times).
Not sure if still on map… thirty years ago, there was an old Warren County map that showed a „road“ that went from Right below Hague over to Brant Lake, over ?Tongue mountain? I was young and wanted to bypass the long way around on the roads by exit 24 on the Northway…. Got on the road, it was paved some then dirt, but as I kept going there were two tire tracks like an unused driveway in the woods…one way absolutely no place to turn around…this was in a Chevy Neon! So I had to keep going, white knuckling and heart in throat the whole way, ´til it eventually widened, and there was a state trooper in the clearer part on the other side asking me where did I come from😅. It was a logging road. I was one lucky girl, maybe they should mark those more clearly on maps as impassable roads, or have a separate map, I wonder what today‘s GPS would do. Now I know better, and learned that lesson 30 years ago🙏. Maybe instead of digging them up… nice big barriers, like on the bike trail, and warning signs would be simpler.
I agree with you. Simple warning signs or barriers should discourage intrepid hikers from putting themselves in a treacherous and deadly situation. IT sounds counterproductive to use heavy machinery on logging roads to make them impassable.
Algonquin is a great climb. And I agree with your approach — some of the High Peaks (including Allen, which I made the mistake of climbing a very long time ago) are miserable
How does using heavy equipment that contains hydraulic fluid and diesel fuel and operates at noise levels around 100 decibels to make man made obstacles in the woods make any ecological sense? It seems the methods used by Protect the Adirondacks did exactly the opposite of the organization’s name. Ridiculous!
Will Doolittle's work was consistently sloppy and lazy, shoot-from-the-hip, poorly researched when he worked at the Post Star. He's used his retirement writing to do more of the same.
In his piece above he missed plenty of nuance, and is quick to endorse a hit piece organized by the Department of Environmental Press Office with no actual reporting beyond the gripes of two Rangers involved -- who I'm told do not speak for all Ranger involved in that search.
The Times Union article that Will talks about was weak reporting. It was one-sided, and largely a gripe session free of facts. The Adirondack Daily Enterprise did much better reporting on this matter, filed a Freedom of Information request, reviewed the Incident Reports, and raised questions about decisions by the search teams. The Rangers are questioning Wilderness policy, which is fine, but the Rangers I know would not shy away from tough questions and tough answers. There are lots of questions about the search, completely absent in the Times Union piece, that thankfully were looked at by the Daily Enterprise.
There are no easy answers to these questions. Hiking in the High Peaks involves risk and there are tragedies, as we’ve all seen over the decades, some that could have been avoided, some that could not. The Rangers do the Lord’s work, for which I am grateful, but I’m also grateful for Wilderness Areas, and I know about the risks involved in hiking there, especially when solo hiking in the snow in freezing temperatures in December. In these conditions, a hike up Allen Mtn could be considered one of the riskiest in the Adirondacks, regardless of the hiker’s experience level.
The search focused, based on questionable information and judgements, on the summit area of Allen Mtn and in even harder and more remote terrain north of Allen. Why did the DEC focus on the summit area? The deceased hiker was found 2 miles from the trailhead some 40 feet from the trail. Why was there no trailside grid search? The hiker’s family did not notify the DEC about their missing hiker for two days, even though he was out hiking in freezing temperatures in December. Why?
The searchers had little viable information to try and find a lost hiker in one of the most remote parts of the High Peaks in deep snow, a proverbial needle in a haystack. One Ranger told me at the time of the search that the only way they were going to find the lost hiker was if they stepped on him. The searchers covered an impressive area in really difficult terrain, but in the end their search was miles away from where the hiker died, though they may have walked by him again and again on the trail.
The Daily Enterprise also found that the deceased hiker’s body was brought out on a 6-wheeler ATV. Anybody who has hiked Allen Mtn knows that the trail runs along an old road that connects to the active mine area for a considerable distance, practically right up to the river ford. If the DEC could bring a body out at that location on an ATV, why did they not bring people in on an ATV or snowmobile? It should also be pointed out that the DEC helicoptered in and set up a significant base camp at an old logging landing to stage a part of the search, though the searchers were miles away from where the body was found.
The Daily Enterprise piece raises many questions that merit further investigation beyond rewilding of old roads. Searches and rescues, at their root, involve decisions and assumptions, which are often correct, but sometimes are not. More than a dozen hikers and hunters have gone missing without ever being found, despite heroic and methodical searches. That’s part of what the Forest Preserve is all about.
As Will Doolittle’s editor at The Post-Star I found to be the exact opposite of Mr. Bauer’s assessment. I’ve regularly described Will as our best journalist at The Post-Star and has dozens of honors to back that up. I wish there were more journalists as good as Will today.
Will, apart from a certain person who is lashing out with personal attacks, your insights about rules that don't cover all possibilities is thought provoking and should be considered.
Your choice of poetry always invites us to consider each day of our lives as a precious gift, not to be taken for granted.
Without having done research on this particular hiking tragedy, I will say that my experience tells me that the use of these old roads by ATVs and other motorized recreational vehicles is by no means "occasional." Nature alone will never reclaim them if they are used often by such vehicles. I just feel in my deepest heart that other creatures on this earth deserve the chance to live outside of impactful and distinctly human behavior. This hiker willfully took a tremendous risk and the search and rescue attempt put many resources to use to try and save him, likely disturbing quite a bit of wildlife in the process. Who speaks for the wildlife in the wilderness? And why is one human life, acting independently and perhaps over confidently or even arrogantly, worth more than an entire habitat or ecosystem? Why does wildlife and the wilderness have to continuously pay consequences of selfish human behavior? This planet won't make it if we don't restore what we can and then some. I'm sorry this hiker had an accident but reversing the policy of trying to restore wilderness aggressively and as quickly as possible will benefit humanity enormously, and perhaps give us a fighting chance.
As a north country resident and hiker, I totally see the benefit of keeping old logging rds in fair shape. Our local snowmobile club has to go through MANY hoops for trail maintenance. Goodness knows, blow down/etc. requires use of chainsaws and more than 1 person doing the work. Common sense should prevail.
about eight years ago.. I wanted to launch my sailboat on a lake that the only workable public launch was a 'car top launch' I didn't want to break rules or laws I asked several times if there was a way I could use it maybe just one time.
One time was to ask a ranger at said launch.. he was adament: "NO, this is only for launching canoes and kayaks that you carry down to the shore"
He made this statement standing hext to his big pickup, with a big trailer behind it and a (almost as big) boat draining water from said lake.
To say irony leaked out of his comment like water from a 20ft boat dribbling on the pebbles before us... was a bit too obvious
I never launched my boat on that lake. I followed the rules... not one to damage the environment intentionally.
I don't know where the line should be draw, but missing in this article is the DEC
DOES
drive vehicles in the wilderness/forest land.. and not only for emergencies.
What is sometimes the consequence of presenting a model of we must maintain roads to do rescues.. is that people take more chances than they should, which necessitates more rescues when creates a clamor for more infrastructure.. I know it would seem hyperbolic to say we need paved roads in the wilderness to save people... but on the other hand I see it is more and more difficult to explain dumb.
I’m sorry to disagree with you Will but… the use of the heavy equipment is very short term, clearly the roads last without their disruption. The roads were never there before and they should go. Perhaps improvement to cell phone coverage is needed to help rangers, Hamlets could work on that. Definitely the death of the hiker is terrible but hiking in the winter by yourself creates a difficult situation for the rangers that old logging roads won’t solve.
I don't mind disagreement, as long as it's agreeable disagreement. I mean, if your standard is "things that were never there before," and "before" goes all the way back to the logging done early in the 20th century, you could argue most of the hiking trails in the High Peaks were never there before, say, the late 1800s. I'm less concerned by some ATV use than I am by rangers' inability to get deep into the backcountry fast enough to rescue someone. And, despite what Peter B. has to say about the impossibility of doing that, it has been done, in the winter, in the High Peaks, of hikers who were off the trail. It is possible. Of course, he was taking risks, but I don't think that has ever been a reason to give up on a rescue. These things happen in popular hiking areas and in many, if not most cases, the hikers themselves have made mistakes.
"Aside from the debate over priorities, it’s expensive and polluting to bring heavy earth-moving machinery into the backcountry and pay operators to use it, especially when the alternative is letting nature do the work."
It’s challenging to bring some balance into the new-ending controversies that envelop the Adirondack Park, DEC, and the APA. Such is the fate of public land with the objectives of both maintaining unspoiled wilderness and facilitating public use.
May I suggest some balance here? Perhaps most old logging roads could be left undisturbed while nature takes its course to reclaim them, with the exception of those that are misused by all-terrain vehicles or snowmobiles. In those cases, making the logging roads impassable may be a better alternative to the rutting, erosion, and other destruction caused by our misuse.
No approach will satisfy everyone. But one that acknowledges good points made on both sides of the issue may be the best course.
Cranking up the AC is only the tip of the iceberg! I just read that the warming climate is helping Lone Star ticks spread their range. Their bite can give people a weird thing called alpha-gal syndrome, which is an awful thing despite its cute name. It gives you what is essentially a severe allergy to red meat and other foods and products derived from mammals.
Thanks, Will, for calling attention to a significant ethical moral issue. Bob makes a good point about seeking balance. I am an old ADK 33er, and a longtime advocate of the preservation AND conservation of the ADKs. (Never aspired to be a 46er, I climbed for the sheer beauty and adventure. Repeated a few High Peaks several times, my favorite being Algonquin—5 times).
Not sure if still on map… thirty years ago, there was an old Warren County map that showed a „road“ that went from Right below Hague over to Brant Lake, over ?Tongue mountain? I was young and wanted to bypass the long way around on the roads by exit 24 on the Northway…. Got on the road, it was paved some then dirt, but as I kept going there were two tire tracks like an unused driveway in the woods…one way absolutely no place to turn around…this was in a Chevy Neon! So I had to keep going, white knuckling and heart in throat the whole way, ´til it eventually widened, and there was a state trooper in the clearer part on the other side asking me where did I come from😅. It was a logging road. I was one lucky girl, maybe they should mark those more clearly on maps as impassable roads, or have a separate map, I wonder what today‘s GPS would do. Now I know better, and learned that lesson 30 years ago🙏. Maybe instead of digging them up… nice big barriers, like on the bike trail, and warning signs would be simpler.
I agree with you. Simple warning signs or barriers should discourage intrepid hikers from putting themselves in a treacherous and deadly situation. IT sounds counterproductive to use heavy machinery on logging roads to make them impassable.
Algonquin is a great climb. And I agree with your approach — some of the High Peaks (including Allen, which I made the mistake of climbing a very long time ago) are miserable
How does using heavy equipment that contains hydraulic fluid and diesel fuel and operates at noise levels around 100 decibels to make man made obstacles in the woods make any ecological sense? It seems the methods used by Protect the Adirondacks did exactly the opposite of the organization’s name. Ridiculous!
Will Doolittle's work was consistently sloppy and lazy, shoot-from-the-hip, poorly researched when he worked at the Post Star. He's used his retirement writing to do more of the same.
In his piece above he missed plenty of nuance, and is quick to endorse a hit piece organized by the Department of Environmental Press Office with no actual reporting beyond the gripes of two Rangers involved -- who I'm told do not speak for all Ranger involved in that search.
The Times Union article that Will talks about was weak reporting. It was one-sided, and largely a gripe session free of facts. The Adirondack Daily Enterprise did much better reporting on this matter, filed a Freedom of Information request, reviewed the Incident Reports, and raised questions about decisions by the search teams. The Rangers are questioning Wilderness policy, which is fine, but the Rangers I know would not shy away from tough questions and tough answers. There are lots of questions about the search, completely absent in the Times Union piece, that thankfully were looked at by the Daily Enterprise.
Here’s the Daily Enterprise piece: https://www.adirondackdailyenterprise.com/news/local-news/2025/06/dec-hikers-remains-were-found-miles-from-last-known-location-near-allens-summit/
There are no easy answers to these questions. Hiking in the High Peaks involves risk and there are tragedies, as we’ve all seen over the decades, some that could have been avoided, some that could not. The Rangers do the Lord’s work, for which I am grateful, but I’m also grateful for Wilderness Areas, and I know about the risks involved in hiking there, especially when solo hiking in the snow in freezing temperatures in December. In these conditions, a hike up Allen Mtn could be considered one of the riskiest in the Adirondacks, regardless of the hiker’s experience level.
The search focused, based on questionable information and judgements, on the summit area of Allen Mtn and in even harder and more remote terrain north of Allen. Why did the DEC focus on the summit area? The deceased hiker was found 2 miles from the trailhead some 40 feet from the trail. Why was there no trailside grid search? The hiker’s family did not notify the DEC about their missing hiker for two days, even though he was out hiking in freezing temperatures in December. Why?
The searchers had little viable information to try and find a lost hiker in one of the most remote parts of the High Peaks in deep snow, a proverbial needle in a haystack. One Ranger told me at the time of the search that the only way they were going to find the lost hiker was if they stepped on him. The searchers covered an impressive area in really difficult terrain, but in the end their search was miles away from where the hiker died, though they may have walked by him again and again on the trail.
The Daily Enterprise also found that the deceased hiker’s body was brought out on a 6-wheeler ATV. Anybody who has hiked Allen Mtn knows that the trail runs along an old road that connects to the active mine area for a considerable distance, practically right up to the river ford. If the DEC could bring a body out at that location on an ATV, why did they not bring people in on an ATV or snowmobile? It should also be pointed out that the DEC helicoptered in and set up a significant base camp at an old logging landing to stage a part of the search, though the searchers were miles away from where the body was found.
The Daily Enterprise piece raises many questions that merit further investigation beyond rewilding of old roads. Searches and rescues, at their root, involve decisions and assumptions, which are often correct, but sometimes are not. More than a dozen hikers and hunters have gone missing without ever being found, despite heroic and methodical searches. That’s part of what the Forest Preserve is all about.
Will has always held a fanaticism about blasting me and other environmentalists's work. Anybody who wants a sample of his lazy reporting over the years can read "The Unbearable Wrongness of Will Doolittle": https://www.adirondackalmanack.com/2013/03/peter-bauer-the-unbearable-wrongness-of-will-doolittle.html
Peter is my closest reader and most impassioned critic
As Will Doolittle’s editor at The Post-Star I found to be the exact opposite of Mr. Bauer’s assessment. I’ve regularly described Will as our best journalist at The Post-Star and has dozens of honors to back that up. I wish there were more journalists as good as Will today.
Will, apart from a certain person who is lashing out with personal attacks, your insights about rules that don't cover all possibilities is thought provoking and should be considered.
Your choice of poetry always invites us to consider each day of our lives as a precious gift, not to be taken for granted.
Without having done research on this particular hiking tragedy, I will say that my experience tells me that the use of these old roads by ATVs and other motorized recreational vehicles is by no means "occasional." Nature alone will never reclaim them if they are used often by such vehicles. I just feel in my deepest heart that other creatures on this earth deserve the chance to live outside of impactful and distinctly human behavior. This hiker willfully took a tremendous risk and the search and rescue attempt put many resources to use to try and save him, likely disturbing quite a bit of wildlife in the process. Who speaks for the wildlife in the wilderness? And why is one human life, acting independently and perhaps over confidently or even arrogantly, worth more than an entire habitat or ecosystem? Why does wildlife and the wilderness have to continuously pay consequences of selfish human behavior? This planet won't make it if we don't restore what we can and then some. I'm sorry this hiker had an accident but reversing the policy of trying to restore wilderness aggressively and as quickly as possible will benefit humanity enormously, and perhaps give us a fighting chance.
EXACTLY!
As a north country resident and hiker, I totally see the benefit of keeping old logging rds in fair shape. Our local snowmobile club has to go through MANY hoops for trail maintenance. Goodness knows, blow down/etc. requires use of chainsaws and more than 1 person doing the work. Common sense should prevail.
about eight years ago.. I wanted to launch my sailboat on a lake that the only workable public launch was a 'car top launch' I didn't want to break rules or laws I asked several times if there was a way I could use it maybe just one time.
One time was to ask a ranger at said launch.. he was adament: "NO, this is only for launching canoes and kayaks that you carry down to the shore"
He made this statement standing hext to his big pickup, with a big trailer behind it and a (almost as big) boat draining water from said lake.
To say irony leaked out of his comment like water from a 20ft boat dribbling on the pebbles before us... was a bit too obvious
I never launched my boat on that lake. I followed the rules... not one to damage the environment intentionally.
I don't know where the line should be draw, but missing in this article is the DEC
DOES
drive vehicles in the wilderness/forest land.. and not only for emergencies.
What is sometimes the consequence of presenting a model of we must maintain roads to do rescues.. is that people take more chances than they should, which necessitates more rescues when creates a clamor for more infrastructure.. I know it would seem hyperbolic to say we need paved roads in the wilderness to save people... but on the other hand I see it is more and more difficult to explain dumb.
i.e. climate change for example
I’m sorry to disagree with you Will but… the use of the heavy equipment is very short term, clearly the roads last without their disruption. The roads were never there before and they should go. Perhaps improvement to cell phone coverage is needed to help rangers, Hamlets could work on that. Definitely the death of the hiker is terrible but hiking in the winter by yourself creates a difficult situation for the rangers that old logging roads won’t solve.
I don't mind disagreement, as long as it's agreeable disagreement. I mean, if your standard is "things that were never there before," and "before" goes all the way back to the logging done early in the 20th century, you could argue most of the hiking trails in the High Peaks were never there before, say, the late 1800s. I'm less concerned by some ATV use than I am by rangers' inability to get deep into the backcountry fast enough to rescue someone. And, despite what Peter B. has to say about the impossibility of doing that, it has been done, in the winter, in the High Peaks, of hikers who were off the trail. It is possible. Of course, he was taking risks, but I don't think that has ever been a reason to give up on a rescue. These things happen in popular hiking areas and in many, if not most cases, the hikers themselves have made mistakes.