Editor’s note: This “It’s Debatable” column ran in the Aug/Sept 2024 issue of Adirondack Explorer magazine. In this regular column, we invite organizations and/or individuals to address a particular issue. Click here to subscribe to the magazine, available in both print and digital formats: www.adirondackexplorer.org/subscribe.
The Question: How should the state value High Peaks solitude?
Solitude is one of many requirements
The Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan sets out the rules for management of the Adirondack Forest Preserve. The master plan balances three key requirements for management of wilderness areas. The “imprint of man’s work” should be “substantially unnoticeable.”
Wilderness areas should also provide “opportunities for solitude” as well as provide for a “primitive and unconfined type of recreation” that is human-powered and unassisted by any kind of machine.
The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) contracted with an experienced consulting firm to bring “Visitor Use Management” (VUM), long used around the U.S. and especially at national parks, to its Forest Preserve management with two plans, one for the central High Peaks Wilderness Area in the Adirondacks, and another for Kaaterskill Falls in the Catskills.
The High Peaks Advisory Group named VUM planning a core recommendation. One VUM principle is that plans must comply with the laws, regulations, and policies that govern the land area in question.
The High Peaks Wilderness has strained against the master plan’s competing requirements because of its popularity and high public use, especially on holiday weekends.
I’ve participated with the VUM plan’s stakeholders group that provides feedback to the DEC and its consultant. I started the process with great enthusiasm, which has been tempered as I’ve watched the process evolve. We’re not getting a full-blown VUM plan, but rather a VUM-lite plan, which was limited in scope for unexplained reasons by the DEC.
The VUM-lite plan is heavily focused on solitude because it’s the easiest of the competing wilderness management requirements to assess.
The consultant conducted surveys of several hundred hikers on the busiest trails. Their findings were interesting yet contradictory. For example, while hikers on a High Peaks summit expressed concerns about crowding, they also said they enjoyed the social experience of being on a summit with other people.
No data was gathered on wildness, natural resource impacts, or trail conditions. No data was gathered on solitude possibilities on lesser-used High Peaks summits while bushwhacking off-trail, or during periods of low use.
In many ways, we don’t need a VUM-lite plan for the central High Peaks Wilderness, we need the real deal, but that’s not what we’re getting from the DEC. I hope that the VUM-lite plan will help to improve management of the High Peaks, but I’m concerned that it will not be a serious step forward and will be an opportunity squandered.
— Peter Bauer, executive director of Protect the Adirondacks, lives in Blue Mountain Lake.
Solitude is found elsewhere in our special park
During my 27 years as a resident of the Tri-Lakes area, I have spent countless days hiking, running, climbing, skiing and paddling in this amazing park that we call home. I am worried about the direction the state Department of Conservation (DEC) seems to be heading with the development of the Visitor Use Management (VUM) plan for the High Peaks Wilderness Area.
At both VUM public meetings I have attended, there has been much discussion (from a small vocal minority) about solitude and “viewsheds” (views from the top of peaks).
I started traveling to recreate in 1990, and have visited every conceivable type of city, state and national preserve/park/wilderness area in the USA. There are always attractions (the Bright Angel Trail in the Grand Canyon, the hot springs of Yellowstone or the rock climbs of Cirque of the Towers in the Wind River Range). It is ludicrous and unreasonable to expect solitude in these “crown jewels.” They are the most sought-after areas for recreation, offering spectacular scenic vistas and the best hikes and climbs.
The central High Peaks Region and the 46 High Peaks are such jewels. If you want solitude in the Adirondacks, I can recommend numerous trails or places. But for better or worse, the trails of our 46 High Peaks aren’t the place to look for solitude.
Attempts by the DEC to force solitude upon our local wilderness areas will most certainly require some sort of user limits (be it a daily user cap, a reservation system/permit process, or reduced visitor parking). Each is discriminatory, unfair and exclusionary in many ways. Importantly, most users do not expect or demand solitude when visiting popular “crown jewel” locations. Those who insist on solitude will only obtain it by denying/excluding scores of other users and limiting access to our public lands.
The Adirondack Park is a special place, unlike any other studied by DEC’s consultants, Otak.
Residents live inside our park, and no one crosses a gate to access most of our wild spaces. Part of the unique beauty of this place is the spontaneity of choice, the ease of access and the freedom to pursue primitive and unconfined recreation—all things that a misguided boondoggle for solitude and viewsheds will inevitability destroy.
— Outdoor enthusiast Bill Schneider lives in Saranac Lake.
Photo at top: A scene from a hike to Algonquin Peak from Adirondack Loj. Photo by Mike Lynch.
A great article and I understand your point of view about the difficulties in achieving solitude in the HPW. Where my opinion differs is that it doesn’t have to be all or none with the 46 High Peaks. Crowded peaks are almost encouraged by the Adirondack 46r club. I myself am a lapsed menber of this group. And this is why:
Consider each of the 46 High Peaks. Many are, and always will be popular to the general hiking public. But this amounts to about 15-20 peaks. How many people are dying to summit Couchsachraga for instance, unless they have to check it off their 46 list. Are peaks without summit views a big draw? Perhaps the 46r requirements could be altered so that only 10-15 select HPs are required and another random 10 peaks (perhaps not even over 4000 feet!), PLUS several remote lakes, trails, locations scattered around the Park. In other words, eliminate the REQUIREMENT to hike ALL the traditional 46 peaks, but change the goal to 46 “prime locations” around the Park to check out. Or, if deemed more desireable, the locations could all be in/near the HPW.
What would this do? It would take a great deal of pressure off of “trailless peaks”. and peaks with poor views and that are far from roads. This would increase the possibility of finding some solitude on remote or lesser-traveled peaks since they are not a requirement to become a 46r.
Frankly, having an organization committed to REQUIRING people to climb ALL 46 traditional high peaks is anathema to finding solitude on any given peak and encourages the “overuse” that we are trying to get a handle on. Unfortunately, this discussion always seems to be a hot potato, but in my opinion, the conservation needs of the HPW should trump any hiking club’s membership requirements.
I don’t have the answers, but I think we need to start working outside of the box we find ourselves in. Let’s not ignore the elephant in the room.
Well said! It is not reasonable to expect that all the space, all the time, in a wilderness area will provide solitude. Uninhibited access, and/or “spontaneity of choice” is a great Adirondack treasure and it would be a shame to lose or confine that in an effort to micromanage the experience of the high peak summits.
A curated experience is not equal to wilderness solitude and there is endless room for solitude in the Adirondacks for those who wish to find it and have the creativity to do so – even in the high peaks wilderness and on it’s summits.
I agree with Brent that a “curated” wilderness experience is not a true “wilderness experience”. If solitude is your most important requirement when you head off into the mountains, you should have no problem finding attractive terrain that you don’t have to share with anyone else. For instance, there is a trailless area in the southeast corner of the former Dix Mt. Wilderness Area where there are at least six summits with good views. There are no herd paths or any other indication that you aren’t the first person to trod that ground. And there are many other similar areas in the Adirondacks where you can create your own experience of solitude rather than asking the government to do it for you.
Reducing parking, as described in the article won’t do anything. There are lots of people illegally parking all the time. Just look at the Ampersand/Middle Saranac trailhead area on any summer/fall day. Occasionally they ticket a few cars but basically it isn’t enforced. It is a terrible accident waiting to happen. I also don’t think that people care that much about “solitude”. Over the last 2 decades the state has added over a hundred thousand acres of conservation easements, and lots of “river corridors” to the forest preserve and basically nobody uses any of it. We just kicked out the hunting clubs and had NYS pick up the tax burden.
“I also don’t think that people care that much about “solitude”. ”
This could be true, but how does Nature feel about it? The HPW above ~4000 feet are islands of micro-habitats. Plants, animals, and soils tend to be more sensitive up there with alpine species especially so. Whether or not people care about “solitude” should not be the only factor in this discussion. It is a Preserve after all, not just an area for the enjoyment of hikers. For a while, Ed Ketchledge was a soldier in minimizing erosion and plant trampling on the summits. But with his passing, many of these alpine principles are no longer in the fore, but it is being limited to “solitude” – which is neither universal nor quantifiable.
Again, a balance needs to be found between human usage and the sensitive ecology of OUR High Peaks. Not all humans will be happy with the result. Compromises will need to be part of the solution.
“Whether or not people care about “solitude” should not be the only factor in this discussion.” I didn’t say it was? I was simply stating the fact that nobody really utilizes all of these other more remote places. Also, if we really want to protect alpine environments we would not allow any dogs in the high peaks, even on lease. They are one of the biggest factors in destroying alpine vegetation. And post Covid if you ban dogs it would probably be more effective than limiting parking. They would have to go somewhere else to hike with their dogs.
Leash not lease. Sorry.
Good point on dogs in the HPW!!!
Welcome to the Overrundaks! Having lived here over 6 decades I can assure you the Overrundaks have been pushed to the limits by invasive species. It has been a fairly rapid process thanks to changes in technology like plastic car top boats, motorized bikes, cell phones, internet, gps, improved roads & trails, SRT’s and 2nd homes. Climate migration will drive more invasives to the Overrundaks. Most outsiders can’t handle the truth, the invasives need to be controlled not disbursed throughout other less traveled areas. The Park should have tolls to enter like other Parks in this country. All trails should be subject to daily traffic limits. All invasives should pay a recreation fee for hiking, biking, canoeing, kayaking, paddle boards and any future devices used to invade the Park. By invoking recreation fees and tolls we will aid the invasive species with life skills like planning ahead in using the trail parking Registration system. It will instill a sense of pride in the Overrundaks demonstrating to invasive species the licensing fee and tolls are used for limiting further invasive traffic. So everyone has a chance to see the Overrundaks there should be limits on allowed repeat visitors. This rule would help stop suggested disbursement intrusion to the less traveled forever wild areas. It seems every invasive seem compelled to posts a new suggestion on were to go and how to get there. We have every inch of the Forever Wild trails, campsites, canoe carries and toilets mapped and posted to the World Wide Web so is it still Forever Wild? The alternative is to ignore the truth and be all things to all invasives and kiss the ADIRONDACKS goodbye!
Your missive is laughable.
I’ve had Cascade all to myself numerous times. Plenty of Solitude. It’s pretty easy to get it too.
This is also a spot that has been totally out of control at other times. Hundreds of people on the summit at the same time. Illegal parking all along the road where the trail starts. It’s too easy to get to.
Story from 2017
https://adirondack-almanack-single-newspack.newspackstaging.com/2017/09/crowded-peaks-hiking-cascade-will-500-people.html
Solutions to preserving fragile alpine vegetation are mostly behavioral, which makes it pretty challenging. Volume isn’t necessarily the issue there. A high volume of well behaved hikers has little and focused impact on alpine vegetation, while a low volume of poorly behaved (or unaware) hikers can do quite a lot of damage.
Micromanagement of wild places comes at a cost. The permitting and lottery systems of the western parks tip the scales toward a commercial experience reminiscent of Disneyland and it’s fastpast systems. Even if you put the time and effort into getting the right collection of permits, the experience feels fully managed or curated. It is subjective I suppose, but It’s harder for me to enjoy that then it is to have freedom of spontaneity and know it may take some creativity to avoid busier areas/times.
On dogs, on a recent trip out west I noticed a lot of areas are not allowing dogs on the trails anymore. Most of the places we went on a three week road trip.
The focus on “visitor experience” is flawed on multiple levels.
First, as tourism scholars and others have noted, as tourism destinations grow, users with lower thresholds for use are displaced by users with higher thresholds. Visitor experience surveys about “solitude” at such places are useless — unless the goal is to confirm that no matter how crowded someplace is, visitors will come and enjoy it.
Second, this creates a vicious cycle of incrementalism that is never sustainable for natural environments. Whether it is sustainable for built environments and man-made tourist attractions is debatable, too.
This is why, rightly or wrongly, the APSLMP insists that all lands and waters have absolute limits on the amount of use that they can sustain (“carrying capacity”). “Solitude” is a red herring that doesn’t make sense conceptually without such limits.
Any mechanisms proposed to limit use have been called “exclusionary”, “unjust”, “discriminatory”. But, find a place where incrementalism has gone unchecked, and ask: What is more exclusionary? Is Disney Land and surrounding Orlando, Florida a more inclusive and equitable place than the most restrictive parts of the Adirondacks? (Is Keene, New York a more inclusive and equitable place to be than, say, Wanakena?)
Finally, I have a crazy proposition: the problem that we have isn’t really the lack of regulations or Visitor Use Management. It’s the sense of entitlement that we demonstrate when we oppose them.
I hate to go all Captn. Obvious on everyone here, but Solitude is a requirement/provision of the Wilderness Act which the APSLMP derives it’s land classification definitions from. Management is required to provide “opportunities” for solitude, not guarantee them everywhere at all times. Arguing about the merits of solitude might be less useful than participating in the classification process if/when possible.
JMO-
The minute you ‘publicize’ the idea of having places of solitude with any self-appointed organized group, it will be become anything & everything but a place of solitude. Common sense can see where it would lead to. More publicity. Regulations. Entitlement. Eventually some kind of paid pass. etc, etc….
There are so many places one can seek out in the ADKS if one desires solitude. I personally can count them on both hands where I go and rarely see a single soul, if ever! People just need to do their own research, scout out for themselves and avoid the ‘hot’ spots where tourists frequent. Those who truly want solitude for solitude’s sake will just do it. We don’t need to be handheld, let alone regulated by ‘someone else’ with every little endeavor we choose to do for ourselves. To me, it’s just another way to give up your own personal sovereignty. And do we not have enough of that already?
You really want solitude? Go find it. Enjoy it. And then keep your secret place to yourself! Because the truth be told: there’s plenty of untouched or rarely touched terrain available for one to explore– Alone. Just do it.
I agree about not publicizing places where one might find solitude. Notice that my comment did not specify any of the peaks where i suggested one could find solitude. Yes, research and find those places yourself.
Solitude is a moving target for land management. As noted, without the needed carrying capacity data, solitude is a useless metric. ????
I kind of agree. The problem is that one person’s idea of the right carrying capacity is different than others. A person could argue that the land could carry the capacity like you see in lower manhattan. I would argue that is a bit overused for a place the high peaks. But you could probably do it…
Paul, I understand your point but none of this need be subjective. Their are myriad sources based upon reams of research and peer review that define/establish standards and criteria for measuring Carrying Capacity, Limits of Acceptable Change, etc. It’s science not sorcery. There is even a Recreation Opportunity Spectrum that federal agencies use when determining appropriate uses for specific areas – your examples of downtown and mountaintops in Wilderness areas would fit on that spectrum. The problem, as I see it, is that these things simply arent applied and are difficult to enforce – especially when you’re primary objective is keeping everyone happy, not hearing complaints, and pleasing special interests. While not entirely incompatable, it’s a high hurdle to prioritize tourism/access and natural resource protection simultaneously.
Solitude in the High Peaks, now that’s funny. “Based on the average intergroup encounter, visitors could encounter as many as 32 other groups in a 4-hour span on the Algonquin trail corridor, and as many as 40 for the Van Hoevenberg trail corridor
In terms of solitude, group encounters averaged occurrences every 7 minutes on the Algonquin trail while the Van Hoevenberg trail was every 6 minutes. Mount Marcy experienced urban walk-way-level crowding” (Findings from the 2021 High Peaks Wilderness Complex VUM Study). The only solution to overcrowding and the destruction of this region’s environment is limiting use. You can’t have “wilderness” with people at these levels and expect it to remain wilderness.
Overtourism is a huge global problem, both in cities and in outdoor recreation areas around the world. It is the same story everywhere: Venice, Italy; the Alps, Mt. Fuji; Mt. Everest; the national Parks, and the ADIRONDACKS. The Tourism Industry has way too much power. The constant chasing of tourism dollars, which by and large do not create good permanent jobs with benefits that can feed a family, is extremely misguided and is ruining communities. There is no longer any balance between tourist-based overdevelopment, quality of life for LOCAL people, and environmental protection. There. Are. Too. Many. People. Vacation rentals are pricing the average family out of a home. With no affordable housing, you lose your work force and your general population. Schools are already closing. Soon we will be left with nothing but second homes, hotels, and tourist shops. Communities will die. We need the political courage and will to get things back into balance instead or constantly promoting New York State as a tourist destination. Overdevelopment for tourism is simply not sustainable. Limitations on the sheer numbers of people on the trails and lakes have to be considered and if a lot of good smart people get their heads together, it can be done.
There is plenty of solitude in the High Peaks. It is all about timing when you go. Weekdays. Winter! I would prefer to see more investment in trail building and maintenance and signage to spread out the crowd to lesser known trails and peaks. A public shuttle system with long hours. Have orda run it using same bus and driver fleet as ski centers use in winter. Invest in more trail stewards and of course more rangers! Also give the rangers a higher equipment budget. They shouldnt have to spend their personal money on proper winter boots and clothing.