Some P-R money spent

[Doc]

So I was reading an article in the Canandaigua Daily Messenger about another land purchase by the DEC. Good news .....eh? Well as they say, the devil is in the details .... lol. The purchase is two parcels in the Adirondacks called the Finch-Pruyn and Follensby land parcels .... approximately 60,000 and 14,000 acres respectively, located in the heart of the Adirondacks for $70 million. This purchase is primarily funded by Pittman-Robertson funds ..... the extra tax money that hunters pay on every purchase of hunting, fishing and trapping equipment. So basically, we hunters are paying for the land.

But wait ...... there's more. Currently the land is leased to hunting clubs and individuals, however if the DEC designates the land as "Wilderness" (as has been customary with any DEC purchases in that particular area of the Adirondacks) every cabin and improvement will have to be removed and Every road must be permitted to return to a natural condition with no motorized vehicle traffic permitted. In other words the land will become inaccessible for anything other than a few hikers and backpackers. Most likely, the land purchased by hunters taxes will not be used by hunters but hikers instead.

That's kind of an interesting way to spend P-R money in case anybody was wondering where it winds up being spent. I'm sure the hikers will appreciate our donations.

[MuzzyLoader]

Thanks Doc for that 'good', 'bad', and 'ugly' report.  You've managed to quite upset me!

[fasteddie]

I have gotten into some arguments with non-hunting friends that hike and bike about the Hunters funding their trails .

[Lawdwaz]

It would sure be nice to get some of the P-R money and have a place for guys to shoot that aren't in a club, kind of like a PUBLIC range.  All that money spent buy "shooters" on guns and ammo with a 11% tax for what?? 

70 MILLION for more land in the Adirondacks? 

[Doewhacker]

So you mean to tell me no hunters hike back in to hunt? Seems like a good idea to preserve some more of the Adirondacks and no one is saying you can't still hunt there correct? Just no cabins, roads, or four wheelers, sounds good to me. Some areas could do with less civilization, the Dak's is one of those areas.

And by the way I am a hunter that hikes too, my guess is you fellas want me to pay to walk around in the woods.. :

[Doc]

There are people who take weeks to backpack the Adirondack trail too but that doesn't mean that doing the same thing when hunting is a very practical thing to do. There is an old saying that hunters must abide by that hikers never worry about. " never go any farther hunting than you are able to drag the deer out from". When you're talking 74000 acres of land and then eliminating all roads and other forms of access, you pretty much are saying that hunters are not welcome in most of it. I am willing to bet that 99.9% of all the Pittman-Robertson donators will be absolutely unable to use any of that land for hunting. That's kind of like justifying using P-R money for horse trail constuction or some such goofy thing.

Frankly, I don't really care how many hikers use that land and I really don't care if any of them do, but when setting up state land that is for all practical purposes good only for backpacking, I would appreciate it if money coming exclusively for hunters be used on projects that benefit hunters. Either that or start making these non-hunting, non-fishing, and non-trapping people foot the bill for those things that we have been shouldering for them for decades.

In terms of creating more "forever wild" land, I think we have enough. More and more people are being excluded from enjoying nature by such exclusions. The physically infirm, handicapped, and aged are automatically being told that "here is some more wild areas you will never be able to visit or use because we are taking access away from you. You don't like it ...... tough! Oh and by the way, thank you for your donations of excise tax money that we are going to use to screw you".

[SteveB]

Doc - excellent post. Thank you.

[Dinsdale]

States been trying to buy the Follensby Pond property since 1972......so this isn't exactly a new idea.

R-P monies are the use it or lose it variety. Due to the way our state conducts business, land aquisition is one of the few ways to do anything with it.

Lawdwaz is correct; many states have public shooting ranges paid by for R-P funds. Liability laws in NY perclude this state from doing so;

http://www.nrahq.org/shootingrange/pitmann.asp

You can see many do, I've been to some of the nicest ranges you will see....and they are state owned.

Most local towns would prefer The Nature Conservancy retain ownership, as do the hunting clubs that currently lease the property. The tax implications are looming for many of them.....

For those interested here is some reading;Hunting club perspective;

http://prfamerica.org/2009/HuntingAccessShouldBeSaved.html

This is a good article on how these lands were targeted for preservation(mostly started with Pataki administration);

http://www.adirondackalmanack.com/2009/04/how-conservation-easements-have-saved.html

Here's a good map of the entire 161,000 acre F/P lands.

http://www.adirondackalmanack.com/2008/08/adirondack-finch-pruyn-lands.html

The 70,000 acre section is the Essex chain of lakes in general.

I do as much if not more hiking/backpacking for hiking sake(although I think I'm always scouting.LOL), and can see issues on both sides. You are incorrect assuming this are of much interest to hiker crowd, they tend to stick to trails, not bushwacking.There are few here and no plans for contructing more due to the land designation. The real losers are the club land leasers, they are done like it or not. It does open their former private lands for all; but at the expense of their improvements.

When TNC holds the lands; they allow for multiple use, including logging. I think diverse habitat is the biggest loser here. Once stands mature, game doesn't really like the big woods, and only storm damage spurs diverse habitat. Something my local Catskills suffer from greatly.

[Mr VJP]

I've hunted the Adirondacks for a week with a muzzle loader.  I was 14 miles into the woods too.  You can still get there on horseback, which is what I did.  you can take a deer in there and have no trouble getting the meat out when it comes time to go at the end of the week.  Makes for a real wilderness experience.

You can also easily back pack and hunt Grouse for a week.  that's not a bad week of hunting either.

[Doc]

Yes, and you can go in there with just a loin-cloth and a Bowie knife if you want to also...... so what? Or you can quit your job and stay in there for a month if that's what you want to do. Or you can do any number of crazy things justr to say that you used some inaccessable land for hunting. However, pretty much all of hunters are not really going to do any of that and you know that. So the point still stands that P-R money is to be used for primarily non-hunting and fishing and trapping uses and pretty much all of those that finance the purchase (sportsmen via P-R mandatory excise taxes) are never going to be able to ever access it for hunting in any sort of practical sense.

[Mr VJP]

I disagree.  I look forward to an area that would be a true wilderness hunt area, devoid of vehicles, litter, noise and other modern inconveniences.  Men have successfully hunted that area for over 300 years, and native Americans even farther back than that.

Have modern day hunters become so dependent on the excess trappings used in the hunting field today, to not be able to hunt at all without them?  The change in the law in no way prohibits hunting, so legally, hunters have no case. 

And I can assure you the change will not intimidate me.  On the contrary, it will become even more alluring as a place to hunt like a purist in peace and solitude, as well as a challenge that tests a man's self sufficiency and woodsmanship. Currently, there is no area in NY that provides for such adventure.

[Dave]

Doc, Thanks for the depressing update. Screwed again, just like everything else you pay and get nothing for it.

Dave

[Doc]

Doc, Thanks for the depressing update. Screwed again, just like everything else you pay and get nothing for it.

Dave

Well, if there was indeed a shortage of these kinds of "forever wild" lands, I might even be in favor of adding more for those that are able to take advantage of that rare kind of hunting experience. But the fact is that for those few individuals who are able to take advantage of these kinds of purchases, there already is far more of that kind of land than they could ever be able to hunt. When I think of Pittman Robertson funds and their proper use, purchasing land that is far more suited to hikers than those that actually supply those funds is not exactly what I would call acceptable. When I think of all the potential uses of that money and how it could really be used for wildlife and habitat management and other programs that are actually useful, I can't help but be quite disappointed in hearing about those funds being squandered in that fashion.

[Dave]

Totally agree Doc. They should spend our money on something that would benefit all sportsman. Not a bunch of hikers and backpackers who invest nothing at all.

Dave

[growalot]

So help me out with this...for I don't hit those types of areas.....The state never manages any access roads to these areas? and I thought the DEC had recently re-grouped their efforts to manage timber on these lands ...if for no other reason than generating funds...Would that not open up logging trails?.....aren't there waterways accessible from more populated areas one could traverse?

Other than those with physical challenges to movement.... I'm not seeing the problem....and I would think...really in this age of disabled access requirements...the state would have to make sure  some sort of access be made...isn't this just about keeping ATV's and dirt bikes... 4x4 trucks from tearing up an area?

Also does this make the hunting leases void?...and if so does that not equate to ppl with out disposable incomes  have a new place to hunt?

[Culvercreek hunt club]

And I can assure you the change will not intimidate me.  On the contrary, it will become even more alluring as a place to hunt like a purist in peace and solitude, as well as a challenge that tests a man's self sufficiency and woodsmanship. Currently, there is no area in NY that provides for such adventure.

Take a peak at a map of the Daks. There are tons of areas that fit the description you seek

[steve863]

I don't want to sound uncompassionate toward physically challenged people, but I see absolutely NO reason why excessive amounts of money needs to be spent to help these people get into the most remote regions in places like the Adirondacks.  Yeah, maybe spend some money in campsites, state parks or other areas to make things easier for them, but why does anyone need to worry about getting them into very remote areas??  Doesn't make sense.  So do we now build paved hiking trails to reach the highest peaks just so we can roll a wheel chair to the top for the few physically challenged people who want to go there??  Call me uncompassionate, but lines have to be drawn somewhere to what is feasible.

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Call me uncompassionate, but lines have to be drawn somewhere to what is feasible.

Agreed.....and the line is drawn in dollars and cents

[nyantler]

I don't want to sound uncompassionate toward physically challenged people, but I see absolutely NO reason why excessive amounts of money needs to be spent to help these people get into the most remote regions in places like the Adirondacks.  Yeah, maybe spend some money in campsites, state parks or other areas to make things easier for them, but why does anyone need to worry about getting them into very remote areas??  Doesn't make sense.  So do we now build paved hiking trails to reach the highest peaks just so we can roll a wheel chair to the top for the few physically challenged people who want to go there??  Call me uncompassionate, but lines have to be drawn somewhere to what is feasible.

Agreed... even us healthy, in shape guys, have some limitations that keep us from doing things we'd like to do.... although for some that limitation would be their wife

[Culvercreek hunt club]

Joe, you talk pretty tough with out her watching....give me her number I  have a couple posts I want her to read 

[Doc]

I don't want to sound uncompassionate toward physically challenged people, but I see absolutely NO reason why excessive amounts of money needs to be spent to help these people get into the most remote regions in places like the Adirondacks.  Yeah, maybe spend some money in campsites, state parks or other areas to make things easier for them, but why does anyone need to worry about getting them into very remote areas??  Doesn't make sense.  So do we now build paved hiking trails to reach the highest peaks just so we can roll a wheel chair to the top for the few physically challenged people who want to go there??  Call me uncompassionate, but lines have to be drawn somewhere to what is feasible.

No, I don't think anyone is suggesting that new roads be built for handicapped access (at least I'm not). That certainly wasn't part of the original discussion. On the other hand, there may be those that would question taking away access to places where it already exists via declaration of "forever wild" designation.

My whole argument with all this is using Pittman-Robertson money in this fashion. I don't believe it is appropriate since it is a purchase that almost all hunters will never be able to use (handicapped or not). If the state wants to get money for this kind of foolishness let them go thru the regular legislative processes and let's see how eagerly the state will part with the cash in these kinds of economic times. But use P-R resources for activities that will benefit those that fund them.

[steve863]

I don't want to sound uncompassionate toward physically challenged people, but I see absolutely NO reason why excessive amounts of money needs to be spent to help these people get into the most remote regions in places like the Adirondacks.  Yeah, maybe spend some money in campsites, state parks or other areas to make things easier for them, but why does anyone need to worry about getting them into very remote areas??  Doesn't make sense.  So do we now build paved hiking trails to reach the highest peaks just so we can roll a wheel chair to the top for the few physically challenged people who want to go there??  Call me uncompassionate, but lines have to be drawn somewhere to what is feasible.

No, I don't think anyone is suggesting that new roads be built for handicapped access (at least I'm not). That certainly wasn't part of the original discussion. On the other hand, there may be those that would question taking away access to places where it already exists via declaration of "forever wild" designation.

My whole argument with all this is using Pittman-Robertson money in this fashion. I don't believe it is appropriate since it is a purchase that almost all hunters will never be able to use (handicapped or not). If the state wants to get money for this kind of foolishness let them go thru the regular legislative processes and let's see how eagerly the state will part with the cash in these kinds of economic times. But use P-R resources for activities that will benefit those that fund them.

I just can't agree that "almost all hunter will never be able to use" this land.  No one is barring them from hunting it, hunters just need to understand that it will be a different type of hunting, i.e. a more demanding one.  Some people hunt private land, some people hunt heavily hunted public land, some hunt over food plots, some still hunt, some never seem to get off their ATV's.  All are different types of hunting.  It's up to the hunter to decide what will best suit them.  If anyone is to blame for this land becoming "forever wild" and closed to motorized travel it's the private company who sold it, and not the DEC who used P-R funds to buy it.  I surely don't mind having some hikers benefitting from this purchase.  If anything we can use it as bragging rights that hunters are in the forefront to preserve nature, wildlife, and outdoor recreation for everyone no matter what their outdoor interest may be.

[growalot]

I'm sorry I mentioned the handicap accessibility....It was a question among others as to what constitutes forever wild and access...surely as a point of practicality the state would have to maintain some sort of access...for it would be too costly and impractical to allow access that is already established ...to go by the wayside should it be be needed in the future...for what ever reason....not allowing motorized vehicles doesn't equate to in accessible....

But still wouldn't mind a few of the other questions answered by some one that knows...please

[Doc]

Plain and simple ..... This is just another example of the government taxing a certain segment of the population and then misusing the funds. I think if any of us were to sit down and examine all the various ways that Pittman Robertson funds could be used, there are darned few hunters that would choose this way.

The fact is that "forever wild" lands are the worst utilization of lands from a wildlife and habitat management standpoint. Allowing forests to mature and create a suffocating over-story benefits a very small percentage of wild-life and plantlife and eventually creates a fairly worthless and sterile eco-system that is of little use to anyone or anything. To take hunter donated funds to create this is ridiculous. Locking away vast tracts of land by removing practical travel is not only a misuse of hunter's contributions, but is also purposely moving to deprive citizens of existing access to publicly purchased assets. And by the way, I do believe that even among hikers, you would find that a huge majority still use some form of motorized access to begin and end their hikes in a timely fashion that suits the practicalities of life.

[Mr VJP]

Would you feel better about it if they required everyone on the land to wear blaze orange?