By Philip G. Terrie
In the June 21, 2025, Albany Times Union you can find an interesting article by staff writer Patrick Tine: “Rangers claim search for hiker was impeded by wilderness restoration rules” (also available online at the Adirondack Explorer website). It concerns the search conducted last December for a missing Canadian hiker.
Leo DuFour, an apparently experienced and knowledgeable climber, left his car in a parking lot in the southern High Peaks on November 29 and set out, alone, to climb Allen Mtn., one of the most remote, hard-to-reach summits in the Adirondack Park.
Two days later he was reported missing, and the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) initiated a massive search, hindered by deep snow, incredibly rugged terrain, and plummeting temperatures. DuFour was not found; the search was scaled back on December 9. His body was discovered in May, two miles from the trailhead and many miles from where the DEC searchers concentrated their efforts near and around the Allen summit.
Among Adirondack hikers, paddlers, climbers, and hunters—among, in fact, nearly everyone who enjoys the Forest Preserve—the DEC search and rescue teams are universally admired. Their dedication, skill, endurance, and willingness to tolerate miserable conditions have saved lives throughout the state. Both woefully unprepared as well as experienced hikers who simply have had bad luck have been located in the dead of night, carried down steep, icy, often snow-drifted peaks in miserable weather, and returned to their families. The DEC rescue teams are the underpaid and, in the wider public, often under-appreciated heroes of the remaining New York wilderness.
But in the Times Union article two rangers argue that their job is made more difficult by state policy, chiefly the state’s decision to render old roads—on land acquired from lumber and paper companies—impassable to motorized vehicles, which are prohibited in Wilderness Areas.
It is the official policy of our state to protect wilderness in the Adirondacks, and we have large designated Wilderness Areas in the Forest Preserve. The Adirondack Park State Land Master Plan (SLMP) defines “wilderness” thus: “A wilderness area, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man–where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.
A wilderness area is further defined to mean an area of state land or water having a primeval character, without significant improvement or permanent human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve, enhance and restore, where necessary, its natural conditions, and which … generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable.”
This definition, obviously, means no roads. Existing roads must go. When acreage previously belonging to lumber or paper companies is added to a Wilderness Area, as acreage west of Allen Mtn was in 2018, improvements, including buildings and roads, along with their culverts, are removed or made impassable. The SLMP also asserts, “interior facilities will be designed to emphasize the self-sufficiency of the user to assume a high degree of responsibility … for his or her own health, safety and welfare.”
Before someone predictably jumps in here, let me make it clear that I understand that “wilderness” is a cultural construction. No one is claiming that all of the parts of our Park that we identify as “wilderness” are pristine or untouched. We all know that most of the Forest Preserve has been logged at one time or another. The word “wilderness,” moreover, carries a lot of cultural baggage. It can be said to be ahistorical or racist in the way it frequently erases the pre-European history of North America, where Indigenous cultures, often in places we now treasure as National Parks, had been thriving for millennia. An Oglala chief, Luther Standing Bear, put it succinctly: “Only to the White man was nature a ‘wilderness.’”
But the people of New York, beginning with Article 14 of the state constitution, have decided that we want some parts of the Forest Preserve left alone. We want these areas to be largely unmanaged—“untrammeled” according to the SLMP—because we understand that nature left to follow only its own timeless processes is a place for adventure, personal achievement, and spiritual growth. We want (some, not all) lands previously logged and even penetrated by primitive roads to rewild, to be subject to natural processes and not fiddled with and maintained by our machines and relentless drive to improve the natural world.
We recognize that old roads do not in any way fit into the definition of wilderness in the SLMP. We also know that if we simply leave those roads alone, hoping that over the decades they will eventually degrade and disappear, some people will find a way to get their trucks, snowmobiles, and ATVs onto them and will thus impede or prevent rewilding. It undoubtedly seems paradoxical—and to some readers it will appear ridiculous—to insist that we use human labor and machines to rewild these roads, but if we are to have wilderness we must not only protect it, we must encourage it. The Forest Preserve belongs to all the people of New York. If a majority wants it managed differently, the democratic process can effect policy changes.
The Rangers quoted in the Times Union article might be correct in saying that left intact these roads might occasionally facilitate access and rescues. There is logic to that argument, but what happens if we pursue it? The High Peaks Wilderness Area, a remote corner of which claimed hiker Leo DuFour last winter, is a big place, 275,000 acres. People get lost and injured in it almost every week. It would obviously be safer if we left a few roads in it. But it would be less of a wilderness. It would be even safer if we built new roads in it. There is an incredibly rugged wild spot between Mt. Marcy, New York’s highest peak, and its near neighbor, Mt. Haystack. It’s called Panther Gorge. It’s a difficult place to reach, it’s an almost impossibly hard place to navigate through, and it’s spectacular. Panther Gorge would be safer if we built a road through it. Is that what we want?
A few days after the Times Union ran its article, a somewhat different piece in the Adirondack Daily Enterprise shed further light on what actually happened during the search for DuFour. Chris Gaige, staff writer at the Enterprise, submitted a Freedom of Information Law request to the DEC and examined the DEC’s Incident Report, a detailed day-to-day account of an exhaustive and nearly superhuman attempt to locate the missing hiker. It concludes with the discovery of his body on May 10.
Despite valiant efforts and while enduring wretched conditions, the DEC inferred from a couple of logical but ultimately misleading clues that DuFour would be found near the summit or somewhere off to the north. As it was, his remains were found far from the summit, right off the trail he would have been following back to his car, about two miles from the parking lot. I can understand the wish of searchers for an easier way to move people and equipment into and out of the woods, but in this case it does not appear that the use of any nearby degraded road would have improved the chances of finding DuFour alive. Officials are still waiting for the results of an autopsy to show the cause of death.
People who hike in the wilderness, especially when they hike alone in remote country in uncertain weather, know that they are taking a risk. Neither old roads nor new roads can guarantee a successful DEC search if people get lost or injured. Risk is one part of the appeal of the wilderness experience. And the absence of roads is an essential piece of what defines a wilderness area.
Philip G. Terrie is professor emeritus in American culture and environmental studies at Bowling Green State University. He is the author of Forever Wild: A Cultural History of Wilderness in the Adirondacks and Contested Terrain: A new History of Nature and People in the Adirondacks, Second Edition. Terrie’s latest book, Wild Forest Lands: Finding History and Meaning in the Adirondacks, will be published by Syracuse University Press in September.
Photo at top: Allen Mountain search. NYS DEC photo.
The Adirondack Almanack is a public forum dedicated to promoting and discussing current events, history, arts, nature and outdoor recreation and other topics of interest to the Adirondacks and its communities
We publish commentary and opinion pieces from voluntary contributors, as well as news updates and event notices from area organizations. Contributors include veteran local writers, historians, naturalists, and outdoor enthusiasts from around the Adirondack region. The information, views and opinions expressed by these various authors are not necessarily those of the Adirondack Almanack or its publisher, the Adirondack Explorer.
Do we remove culverts from old roads that are later used as trails? That seems like a bad idea for the environment. Also, we actually build bridges (not just leave them) and staircases why are they okay but the old logging road has gotta go? One makes life a bit easier for a ranger the other for a hiker?
My main criticism of the “rewilding” effort is that it consumed state resources that could have been used elsewhere to improve trails so that they remain as narrow and wilderness-like as possible. On the other side of the Opalescent River, a major lumber road now on state land had, in less than 20 years, naturally gone back to being a trail at no cost to the state. Nevertheless, in an emergency, it will be possible for small motor vehicles to use it for many years to come without any danger that unauthorized use would happen. I fully agree that there is no reason to build a road into Panther Gorge to make it ‘safer’, but the old truck trail to Marcy Dam does remain passable by small emergency vehicles and that has saved countless hours of DEC rangers carrying injured hikers. (As for the infamous Jeep that drove there in 2020, a new bridge just in from the gate is now only wide enough for a small rescue vehicle.)
The McCulley lawsuit aginst the NYSDEC over the illegal confiscation of so called abandon roadways within Park (Jack Rabbit trail) highlights what many believe is the tip of an iceberg of illegal action conducted by NYSDEC with the blessing of the environmental lobby done to create this “Wilderness”. A full legal investigation is warrented by the federal government into all the abandon roadways and right of ways within the Park to determine if they are really are abandoned. The reason for a federal government investigation is simple, NYS can not be trusted.
This is a sensational idea. Once these vile perpertrators of non-abandoned abandonded roads are identified, we can build an Algonquin Alcatraz and house them there indefinetly and without process for their crimes against humanity! I’m sure this leads all the way to the top, so ICE Barbie will need to do a press conference – maybe the alleged abaondoners could be paraded through Lake Placid in those carts they used during the French Revolution on there way to Camp? Then and only then can we, as a society, finally feel safe.
You have a really bad case of TDS, Please seek help!
Thank you, doctor. They’ve started me on bleach and horse dewormer and I’m feeling better already.
I haven’t commented here in a long time. Genuinely, no sarcasm – glad you’re doing well & still kickin it, Balian.
Of course you have because you are like the typical liberal; smarter than everyone else and can’t figure out why people have differing opinions all while your politics is destroying the America that was established on hard working people. Maybe higher education can help (hahaha).
Spoken like a true Trump dead-ender.
Algonquin Alcatraz. Unfortunately these days its difficult to know what is real and what is satire. And where, for example, Elise Stefanik might want to help spend that $45 billion now allocated for new ICE detention centers.
One has already been constructed in remote, hurricane vulnerable Everglades and a second one is being constructed in another location in Florida. (Probably out of eye site of visitors to Disney World )
I can see Stefanik claiming that a “crisis” at the northern border warrants a facility up here.
And a facility in NY to house immigrants who cross the border illegally or commit a crime is a bad thing??
Oh I forgot you’re one who doesn’t have an issue using taxpayer dollars to feed, clothe and house immigrants.
It must be difficult for you to imagine that you might ever be an immigrant or refugee.
No it hard at all. Because I would do it the right way. Like before I moved to Canada to be near my wife’s family during difficult times. I applied to become a Canadian citizen so I now have dual citizenship like my wife and children. I do not have any sympathy for anyone who has been here for any period of time and done nothing to gain citizenship. They are here illegally. Doesn’t matter if they work, have a family, etc. they are here illegally. And I definitely do not think taxpayers should be paying anything towards immigrants that have come to NY in the last 2-3 years. Why is it our responsibility to make sure they are clothed, housed and fed?? No one can ever answer that question for me.
I am not sure what difficult times you or your family faced, but it sounds like you had the good fortune to be welcomed to Canada while retaining your US citizenship.
Thousands of refugees are fleeing political violence and are not in a position to seek admission to another country in advance. They aren’t leaving their countries in order to scam Americans, but are trying to save themselves and their families.
You can be sure that most individuals here “illegally” would welcome paths to legalize their status.
Generally modern democracies err on the side of aiding those in need, even if it’s possible that some who are not deserving, are able to benefit.
In the past, aiding refugees was not encouraged in the US by some. For example, it was not until late in the war – 1944 that the US began to assist refugees fleeing the Holocaust in Europe because of immigration laws at the time. After 1944, apparently the only refugee center for those fleeing the Holocaust was in New York, from 1944-1946. Here’s more on that history: https://www.nps.gov/places/fort-ontario.htm#:~:text=Fort%20Ontario%20is%20a%20historic,Jewish%20refugees%20fleeing%20the%20Holocaust.
NYSDEC lost the lawsuit, just in case you all forgotten.
Balian, this is not “sensational” have you followed the legal cases in the courts and the fact that NYS eventually lost and it was shown that that road was closed illegally? And it is clear that many roads were “closed” the same way w/o following the legal procedure for a road closure.
Read more here:
https://www.adirondackexplorer.org/outtakes/old-mountain-road
I am Paul, but thank you for the link. My use of the word “sensational” was not in the literal sense as in sensationalising an issue. I meant it sarcastically, as in “really great.”
But it is “sensational” and the environmental groups have lost all sense of logic.
“The reason for a federal government investigation is simple, NYS can not be trusted”, and the feds can be trusted? There is no government that can be trusted, just look at ours as the shining example. Doesn’t matter what party is in power they both lie like rugs and are corrupted by the wealthy.
“Risk is one part of the appeal of the wilderness experience. And the absence of roads is an essential piece of what defines a wilderness area.”
This is critical in the discussion about Wilderness, how the lands managers conduct their work, and the public’s expectations of safety.
I agree. While it is debatable whether to actively “rewild” abandoned roads or let them rewild naturally, I do not think it is debatable whether roads should be associated with “wilderness” areas. Even motorized vehicles in search/rescue efforts in “wilderness” areas can be debated. But again, a road, whether used or unused, is not a sign of wilderness.
As long as the road was abandoned and closed legally (which is highly questionable for a number of roads now on state land) allowing it to re-wild on its own seems fine to me. Just be patient, no reason to spend money and time for something that will happen w/o our help.
Paul,
I tend to agree. The only reason I could see to ACTIVELY rewild a road would be to minimize erosion threats, keep brooks and streams naturally flowing, block invasive species, or to initially block illegal vehicle access. Every abandoned road is unique and needs to be evaluated in that light.
I have no qualms about effective roadside gating until a “rewilding” road is impassable to vehicles – which, depending on the location, typically doesn’t take very long. The gate should allow emergency access to the road for a year or two at least. But these roads should obviously not be relied upon as a primary tool for search and rescue because they are not maintained. A single, huge, fallen green ash across the road will likely require too much critical time to clear in a time-critical emergency situation.
“keep brooks and streams naturally flowing” – I think this is the point of culverts. Why take them out? Are they cutting this old road back so far that this will get to its original flow? Just let it erode back to a normal flow. Again be patient, it make take a few thousand years but the woods have time.
Reason #1 – they easily become clogged and cause the impoundment of water behind the clog.
Reason #2 – many culverts were not placed properly. A culvert where the outflow results in a 2-3 foot sheer drop to a pool makes it impossible for natural migration/movement of many aquatic organisms – essentially reducing habitat and the ability to flee unhealthy conditions.
A roadway through wetlands is effectively a long dam interspersed with culverts. Unless the culverts are maintained and properly installed, they seriously interfere with natural aquatic processes in the habitat and can result in barriers and unnatural flooding.
Properly planned, engineered, and maintained culverts are typically fine. Quick and dirty culvert installations by logging crews not so much. They were just concerned with the road not washing out every year.
The “old roads” should be made impassable because if they are not the public would use them with motorized vehicles. To think that these unmaintained, abandoned roads would have helped is just crazy. How many days/resources would be needed to make the roads passable again. Don’t maintain a trail for years and the downed trees would block it’s reasonable use with motorized vehicles. Solo hiking in the winter Adirondacks is not the best idea. So if that’s what you must do to prove yourself than do it and don’t expect to get rescued in time to save you when trouble befalls you. Let your family and friends know the risk you are going to take because you “want to”.
Right, an underrated perspective. All respect to all rangers – they do an amazing and tough as hell service – but people are also responsible for their decisions. It’s tragic that this kid could not be rescued. I am very pro the state helping people. There also has to be a limit when someone intends to take such a great risk.
I was unaware of the gap in time before the victim was reported missing. Was it really “two days later”? That is a big head start on hypothermia in those conditions. Another important part of this unfortunate tragedy.
The “Forever Wild” zealots have certainly gone too far pushing rewilding, not only on “wilderness” parcels, but also on “wild forest.”
So you would support the creation of “Mild Forest”… ? ????
“The “Forever Wild” zealots have certainly gone too far pushing rewilding, not only on “wilderness” parcels, but also on “wild forest.””
Every UMP – whether Wilderness or Wild Forest – is debated at length and both public and stakeholder input is taken. Use of abandoned roads for “emergency use” always comes up and is considered. Rewilding is considered part of returning the area to nature. It is no different than allowing the forest to grow.
Inferring that “zealots” determine the final policy is ludicrous. If abandoned roads are to be maintained for strictly emergency use, that usually falls to the local governments, and is never a big selling point. Bottom line is, most users want a wilderness experience in a Wilderness area, and do not consider rapidity or ease of rescue as a high priority. Most people realize that increasing remoteness increases risk.
Many of the roads on Wild Forest parcels I frequent are not maintained by the DEC. I know some that have never had any maintenance in the 40+ years I have been using them. Luckily you can use a small chainsaw to clear stuff w/o being bothered too much.
Maybe just a budget thing, but even on ones where the UMP said they would be maintained, they are not.
Thank you, Phil Terrie, for reminding us that New York voters decided that Wilderness is to be not only state policy, but promise, too, part of our gift and legacy to the next generation. Our state constitution inspired the National Wilderness Act. Now with the firing of U.S. forest service wilderness stewards, educators, and temporary seasonals, New York is once again in a position to, one day in the future, reignate national leadership in Wilderness stewardship and protection of resources and values.
I am sorry to see that this administration has only retained 90% of the forest service employees of the past administration. But I wonder if this deficit spending is threatening the long term survival of the Forest Service at all? As painful as it is we must do things now to make sure there is a Wilderness to steward in the future.
Call me a bad guy, but that is how I see it. Some of us that depend on federal funds for our work are looking at 50%+ cuts I wish it was only 10.
When backpacking the NPT, and my feet, knees, shoulders and back are aching, when the muddy, rocky, rooted trail starts following a smooth, dry logging road, I do not complain when the walking becomes easier. Leave the roads to re-wild on their own and use as hiking trails where appropriate. Work on the 46er trails where most of the foot traffic occurs.
The public only knows part of the story about what happened to these old wood’s roads, and it has played out for many, many years now. There have been a few commentaries and reports about them posted here but connecting the dots is probably difficult and fuzzy for most. For employees it’s been amusing.
When these lands were about to be added to the Forest Preserve, a machine was contracted for use to keep ATV’s out, make some berms, remove a bridge (or two) a culvert (or two) all at or near the boundary line as has been the long-standing practice. Deconstruction of the extensive roads with massive, 30-foot-high berms and 30-foot-deep ditches was not a plan anyone knew about, except allegedly, perhaps, one person. I am not sure that manger actually planned this, it is not clear, this may have all been a machine operator who wasn’t supervised adequately. He may have just got too far out, didn’t get proper instruction and these berms were the result. There have been a lot of excuses and finger pointing over the past 7 years. The rangers didn’t know, that’s for sure.
Then an SAR happened (Not the one in this article) rangers went to utilize these old roads and found out, obviously frustrated. The search went on for days and as Rangers complained it seemed like everyone at the department was learning of these massive berms, visible by satellite, miles into what is now wilderness at the same time.
Interestingly, the employee, responsible for contracting the machine to build berms to prevent ATV use didn’t initially use the term rewilding when asked to explain what happened. That term emerged much later, when they were in hot water, they sought help from green groups. You can find articles about it in the archives here. These articles were understandably trying to find out why a machine was back in trying to level out these intrusive machine piles which trammeled the new wilderness.
The Department was trying to fix it, not repair roads, but one employee had the ear of the green lobby and was now using the phrase “rewilding” telling them “Look the DEC doesn’t want to Rewild.”
Hopefully that sheds some light on why the rangers were frustrated on these particular old roads.
Anonemployee, you are correct and obviously fairly close to the situation, No one has ever answered why the regional forester could take matters into his own hands and destroy the EXISTING interior roads and none of the “ higher-ups” in Albany knew this was occurring. People should be fired for what has happened, yet it has largely been covered up. Why? I applaud the rangers for speaking up and bringing this debacle to light, If they had access to these roads it would save them many critical hours in a SAR.
It is obvious by a lot of the comments that many people actually have no idea what has actually taken place and most certainly have not seen the results of Tate’s destruction.
I would encourage everyone to get the facts and contact your elected officials and demand some accountability. Support the Rangers.
That is not correct. The trenches were dug after the October 2019 floods and the closure of Gulf Brook Road due to “washouts”. (I walked the road it’s full length in 2020 and I could have fixed the so called washouts in one day with a pickup, some gravel, a shovel and a rake.) State already had taken possession. Seems someone didn’t want the public to see what was going on.
They’re not arguing for the old roads to be used as roads for everyone. You can keep a “road” and restrict motorized access for emergencies only. Allows more opportunities for hikers, skiers, and horseback riders.
Yes, in this case, the roads probably would not have helped in Leo’s recovery. But it would have saved the Rangers time and miles of hiking into a remote area to start their search. They would have been able to cover more ground. It may not have been able to help Leo, but what about the next?
Several issues with this commentary. First, there is an assumption that a logical extension has been proposed vis a vis creation of new roads to help facilitate search and rescues (SARs). None of the Rangers have said such, not even those who complained of the destruction of the existing roads, so it was a poor point to make.
Second, the author (and others) make the assertion that the roads which have existed for decades are a terrible blight upon the wilderness and have no value (to the extent they are worth retaining). As Tony Goodwin well argues, nature will gradually reclaim these old roads but they’ll still be in a condition where they can be used by SAR crews in the event of an emergency. Also, the footprint of these roads is a fraction of a percent of the acreage of the wilderness surrounding them. That is, even with their existence, the wilderness feel, overall, will still be retained. Those who’ve hiked to Allen know this. Again, nobody is calling for NEW roads, just retention of the existing roads for SAR purposes. Oddly, those calling for their destruction seem to think that it will mark the beginning of the end of the Forest Preserve if they are retained.
Third, regarding the commentary on where Dufour’s body was found, ie, it was found closer to the trailhead than near the summit, hence, the use of the road made no difference in the search effort. I have seen such claims elsewhere beyond here and all I can say is: what a blatant example of Monday-morning quarterbacking. As some of the rangers in the Dufour search have commented, the snowfall was such that his snowshoe tracks were barely discernible. Please tell me, what logic could the Rangers have used going in, before even hitting the trail, to discern that Dufour was likely not anywhere on the slopes of Allen? Do you have statistics that would back this up? And know that the search for Dufour is not the first, nor will be the last, on Allen. Furthermore, all such who do go missing may not always “land” in the same area Dufour was found.
Fourth, these roads assist the Rangers in being able to get SAR personnel and gear in as quickly as possible, so not only can more ground be covered in a quicker fashion but through an expenditure of less energy by the men & women on the ground. Yes, to unnecessarily have to hike in with heavy loads expends more energy, energy which can be used by a SAR crew to cover more ground, quickly. Any Ranger will tell you that not every place at any time can facilitate a drop from a helicopter.
And, finally, re: the comment: “Risk is one part of the appeal of the wilderness experience. And the absence of roads is an essential piece of what defines a wilderness area.” Yes, indeed, there are risks! But if the means were there (but now gone via intentional destruction) they could have been used to facilitate potentially successful SARs. Mind you, Dufour had a family. I spent three years on a SAR team and our mindset was that we not only wanted to get the missing back alive and safe, but also put their family at ease by knowing there were people out there looking for their loved one. It did NOT matter to us what led the individual to get into their predicament, whether it was through blatant unpreparedness or sheer dumb luck.
Also, Rangers do not have the option of refraining from searching for someone like Dufour, no matter how they got lost or injured. It’s like saying a doctor can refuse to treat a patient with lung cancer because they smoked.
Again, NOBODY is calling for new roads to be built for use in SARs. You have Rangers, those who are on the frontlines of these searches (and who also put themselves at risk), simply asking to leave the existing roads alone. They can be gated to prevent (albeit not 100%) unauthorized access, go untrammeled be vehicles for the most part, and left to gradually go back to nature while still being in a condition to be used by the Rangers. Unfortunately, there are people who are taking a black-and-white approach to this issue.
“They can be gated to prevent (albeit not 100%) unauthorized access, go untrammeled be vehicles for the most part, and left to gradually go back to nature while still being in a condition to be used by the Rangers.”
So Wilderness Lite with enhanced rescue capacity should be a new management classification. Letting a road revert to a natural wildness and that road being in a condition suitable for dependable use for rangers needing to use motorized vehicles for a potential rescue is goofy thinking…
Todd apparently you haven’t seen many wilderness roads.
Yea, what should be the budget for maintaining emergency only management roads within Wilderness Areas? One big storm and tens of thousands of dollars could be needed to repair the road surface and clear blowdown. Roads and the Wilderness designation are incompatible. The Adirondacks are small enough, breaking up habitat with roads whether for administrative use or public use is best avoided. Decommissioning roads is worthy work.
Just make them primitive travel corridors. No change to wilderness classification just the width of the road bed is the corridor. Left and right is still wilderness and doesn’t change.
Basically what they did with fire towers.
And canoe areas where planes can land.
It’s been done. It hasn’t ruined the Adirondacks.
The problem is people don’t want to use nuance to think about things. They want this romantic idea of wilderness that doesn’t and will never exist in this part of the world.
How is digging dozens of 6 foot deep trenches over miles of road (which is what they did, I’ve walked it) either “rewilding” or in keeping with returning the lands to their natural state? The answer is it is neither. Those trenches will persist for hundreds of years. The road would have naturaly grown in within 15 or 20 years. Another example of idiocracy.
I don’t think anyone disagrees with you. It was a waste of $$ and a terrible disruption of already compacted/damaged soils. There are better ways to block access.
I was walking through the area on the East side of the Opalesent one day returing from Allen Mt first turning off Adirondack Park Road then turning onto the dead end road that stops at the Opalescent River. There were workers on the dead end road throwing deadfall into the holes that were dug. And the holes were all the way across the road. And about every 60 yards or so. I asked and the workers said they were working on “Renaturalization.” I knew there was nothing natural about what they were doing. Later I heard it said as “Rewilding.”
Now, on the west side of the river, theres a road to Bradley Pond Trail; or, the way to the Santanoni Range. The first two miles is owned by Open Space Institute (OSI). OSI started out leaving the road as is (apparently beyond the two miles more digging has occurred). Well since then two culverts were washed out as well as a bridge. One section of road near a culvert that overflowed was regraveled because the gravel that was there was washed away and regraveled with coarser rock. Since the replacement gravel washed out again. I was just on that road last week and now there are a half dozen or more defall trees over that road too. You might get an ATV back to the Bradley Pond trail with some effort some offroad traction boards and chainsaws. Bottom line…the road would have been reclaimed if nothing was done.
The irony of using heavy machinery to make something wilderness shouldn’t be lost on anyone.
I am absolutely a fan of article 14, the forest preserve, the concept of wilderness, but at some point you have to understand nuance. A road was built, it can serve a greater good for a plethora of uses. Leave it and make it a primitive travel corridor. Problem solved.
Phil Terrie raises many important points in this article, as do the 34 commenters so far. However, and with apologies to all, I must wonder if this should be our focus, when competent leadership, truth, and the very future well being of our people here, in Texas, and elsewhere seem to be an open question?
Moreover, I keep asking myself why we Adirondack citizens (and voters), seem to lack the political will to DEMAND fact-checked truth, professional conduct and practical bi-partisan governance from ALL our political leaders? If you care about our future, I suggest that a good place to start is with freedom of speech and fact-based media:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2025/jul/05/trump-attack-us-media
TRUMP IS WAGING WAR AGAINST THE MEDIA – AND WINNING.
THE GUARDIAN 7/5/25
“As the president’s attacks are met with a distinct lack of resistance, critics warn that freedom of the press is eroding in plain sight”.
“Moreover, I keep asking myself why we Adirondack citizens (and voters), seem to lack the political will to DEMAND fact-checked truth, professional conduct and practical bi-partisan governance from ALL our political leaders?”
Indeed – but why single out Adirondack citizens? This is a world-wide phenomena. As voters, we continue to “hire” people who have no inclination to govern. Their inclination is to gain and HOLD power for the rest of their lives! That is not governing.
We need to think more about term limits than crucifying the media. And if these “lifers” can find this power so appealing, what is feeding that appeal? Corruption? Officials should not be getting rich while holding public office. Those are oligarcs.
Why people don’t demand fact checked truth. People believe lies for a variety of reasons, including confirmation bias, emotional appeal, and the desire to maintain a desired worldview. Lies can be more easily believed when they align with pre-existing beliefs, evoke strong emotions, or are presented in a way that is easily understandable and memorable. Additionally, social and political environments can amplify and spread misinformation, making it more likely to be believed. Politicians know this and can spin a yarn to further their agenda, whatever that might be. The “No Kings” protests were well attended by millions across the country, what was the result,nothing. I have zero concern on abandoned roads in the Adirondack Park. I’m ok with SAR teams using whatever means necessary to save a human life. Even using the dreaded motorized vehicle in a forever wild forest.
Great article/analysis P. Terrie. I agree with you.
NPR recently had a woman wild fire fighter on from California. She spoke of having some clear cuts, selective cutting, for fire breaks and controlled burns. One drought and poof the ADK will be as bad off as any of the 10s of millions of acres that have burned in Canada. Or isn’t global warming a thing any more?
A gutted NWS won’t be able to provide the warnings re wind etc that might be needed in a wildfire emergency?
Compare spending- POTUS golf trips just since Jan 2025 have probably cost taxpayers 56 million.
( Oh and don’t let catastrophic flooding and the deaths of children spoil the next golf game…)
Linda, Is there any evidence that POTUS’s golf has cost the taxpayers 56 million, where are you getting that from? Just curious, it seems like we have fallen into a world where people can just make up stuff and see how much they can get people angered? I am not disagreeing, it may be totally true but what is it based on?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pennlive.com/sports/2025/07/donald-trump-went-golfing-again-taxpayer-cost-for-the-trips-just-hit-an-incredible-new-milestone.html%3foutputType=amp
https://www.pennlive.com/sports/2025/07/donald-trump-went-golfing-again-taxpayer-cost-for-the-trips-just-hit-an-incredible-new-milestone.html
Thanks, assuming the “Penn Patriot News” is calculating this accurately it looks like a lot of these costs are travel and security the president would need no matter where and what he was doing but yes there must be some additional costs related to the size of what the must surveil. I remember seeing Georg Bush the father going to church in Kennebunkport Maine one summer after he was president. The number of coast guard boats that were required to cover the was amazing, along with all the additional security. I will say yes this is probably an expense we should ask for this president to cover more of. Not sure this has much to add to a DEC rescue post? All, have a good weekend.
frank,
Slice-and-dice forest & fire management has benefits and risks – BUT is not currently permitted on FP lands. Why? Decisions were made over a century ago to return those damaged lands to a “natural” forest.
A natural forest is not without natural risk. Blowdown, disease, floods, wildlife overbrowse, and fire are just a few natural asaults on the FP. It can be argued that roads increase risk of invasive spread. Floods can be exacerbated by unnatural forest clearing. Open areas and wind corridors can also exacerbate fire and blowdown events.
Man-made incursions into an intact forest community “can” have certain benefits in some situations, but negative consequences in other situations. So it is indeed debateable wheter the net result is beneficial. And it still flies in the face of returning FP lands to a wild/natural state – ie, old-growth, mature forest. That is what colonists and industry took from the Adirondacks over the last couple centuries. The FP was devised to reverse that loss and encourage a return to an old-growth situation – on those lands at least.
If accelerating climate changes do not allow a return to the old-growth we are expecting, so be it. It isn’t likely anyway because Nature was essentially handed a blank slate left from our despoiling the Adirondacks over a century ago. But best to let Nature take care of the consequences of climate change as it has always done. Nature doesn’t need humans to further interfere in our arrogance and ignorance.
Well said, Boreas.
If fire is a natural risk why do we put it out right away even if it’s naturally caused? I know – it is too much of a threat to homes and structures in a crowded place like the Adirondacks, but it is far from “natural”. Native American’s have used prescribed burns as long as they have been here. I consider it a natural part of the environment since we are all part of it.
Remove old roads and culverts that experienced rangers think might be useful.
But do this?
“The Avalanche Pass Trail will have crews doing work on it from 7/21-8/1 and 8/4-8/8. During the day there may be times where access along Avalanche Lake is slightly delayed given the replacement of ladders and bridges. Crews from the Student Conservation Association Adirondack Corps and the Adirondack Mountain Club will be doing the work.
The Armstrong ladder was replaced on 7/8/25 (photo below).”
One is maintenence to an existing marked foot trail / thoroughfare. The other is UMP policy on abandonded roads. I don’t really think the two are comparable.
As I have mentioned elsewhere, I am against major efforts to actively destroy/rewild the old roads. But removal of culverts should be considered where they could interfere with the natural functioning of streams – blocking the natural migrations of aquatic organisms. This can be performed more efficiently before the road becomes impassable.
Perhaps not. But I think it is interesting to consider. Both are actions under the UMP that involve ease of access and both greatly impact the wilderness character of the areas. I personally think that an old abandoned log skid road looks more wild than a gigantic staircase going up Ore Bed Brook. Just a thought. You wouldn’t have as many people in the backcountry to rescue if you didn’t make it so easy for hikers to get there. Make them carry up a boat and paddle down Avalanche lake like they had to in the way past. That’s real wilderness.
“Indeed – but why single out Adirondack citizens? This is a world-wide phenomena. As voters, we continue to “hire” people who have no inclination to govern.” Thanks Boreas, for your reply, and, I agree with you, that corruption is spreading worldwide.
But corruption is also increasing due to the cynicism and apathy of too many people who have given up and are content to look elsewhere. Meanwhile, the political corruption gets more audacious, and will eventually swallow up the people and places that we care most about – like the Adirondack – north country.
I think I first heard House Speaker Tip O’Neil use the phrase; “all politics are local”.
I always thought that made a lot of sense. But in order to be successful, local people have to shake off their apathy and come together to build political coalitions that can expose the political con-job currently underway. After that, they need to convince voters that they have better ideas that are worth supporting.
Can we succeed? Only our grandchildren can provide the answer.
There’s absolutely no reason those roads have to go. Just like there is no reason the fire towers had to go. And they now aren’t. There are fire towers in wilderness now.
What you go is make those roads primitive travel corridors and then there is no violation of the states own language.
Furthermore, it’s hard for me to accept that unbuilding (rewilding) a road is good for wilderness. Moving more heavy equipment in to the wilderness seems pretty antithetical to the idea of wilderness.
Those roads can serve a lot of value without interfering with wilderness (which is far more a state of mind than an actual reality in this part of the world). They can aid people in adaptive exploitation (which is coming, it’s just a matter of time till courts rule everyone should have equal access), they make for great ski terrain for noviv and intermediate skiers, they serve horses well, and they serve cyclist. Most importantly they can be used for administration, wildfires and SAR.
Making a primitive corridor from all existing roads makes perfect sense. It doesn’t violate the letter of the law and it doesn’t violate the spirit of wilderness.
In fact it’s arguably more environmentally friendly to leave a hardened road in place then to have people eroding trails. If you ever hike in the High Peaks you know many of those trails are wide enough to drive a jeep down. It’s hard to argue that foot based activities are more friendly than any other activity. If a trail isn’t purpose built for the volume of users or the activity itself, it’s going to appear to be that use accelerates damage.
Finally, I understand I am talking about 2 things here. Recreational access and SAR/admin access. However, they are not independent. They can both make use of Primitive Travel Corridors.
I have hiked the old Santanoni road into Lake Andrew and the mess Connor made is ridiculous. The culverts torn out were left there, on one section a sharp piece is sticking up that could cut an animals paw – indeed I was careful to avoid it the many times I have been back there. If he was so interested in”rewilding” why leave the culverts out there? It would have been a lovely backcountry ski, has beautiful views and scenery along the way. In one area where the culvert has been removed the banks are eroding.
Why dont we just build a 1/2 mile grid of paved roads all thru the Adirondacks
with a cell tower at each intersection
so when we stub our toe in the woods , after our battery goes dead
i can wait for an ambulance to come and pick me up within minutes
I wont even have to plan …….or bring water
we can have a golf cart bring cold mountain dews
to within 50 ft…..