Quiet hrs in the High Peaks?!

They've always been active on 73 as far as I know. The 35 MPH zones extend pretty far outside the hamlets and people drive like they are on the Northway.

J. Albers wrote: A concise thesis statement, which is followed by a logical progression of well articulated arguments!!! Muy comprehendo!! :) I get what you are saying and I agree with your sentiment regarding tackling etiquette issues via rules. Part of what makes the wilderness experience special is the lack of rules and personal accountability. However, that system of self-governance works best when there is a centralized and/or closely knit community of folks who hold one another accountable for acting like a shit heel (i.e. post holing down a ski trail). Moreover, it also requires that people have two features: (1) a well functioning frontal lobe that allows arguments for good etiquette to sink in; and (2) the capacity to put the needs of others over your own selfish desires. The problem is that I think that a huge portion of the population does not have either of those features (yeah, I have a low opinion of people....thats why I go into the wilderness to be alone!!). Given this sad state of affairs, I don't know what works better, more rules or the right to hit postholers in the knee cap with a ball pean hammer. I guess I would make the following distinction. In low traffic areas, the best policy is probably community enforcement. In super high traffic areas, however, perhaps rules need to be implemented and enforced so that the moron masses don't overwhelm the rights of the few who are conducting themselves in a responsible manner. For example, while I hate quotas and rules in the wilderness, just imagine what a shit mess Indian Peaks would be if it was a total free-for-all. Nevertheless, if those rules were extended to more sparsely used areas like the Wind River Range, I think I would be complaining loudly. I guess it all depends on the particular situation at hand. Finally, perhaps it would be more accurate to state that this a civil liberties AND personal responsibility issue. I know that a lot of people like to bitch about their civil liberties being trampled, but the flip side of the coin doesn't get nearly as much press. Perhaps there would be less civil liberty trampling in this country if people took their personal responsibilities to their fellow citizens more seriously, i.e. spend a bit more time thinking about your impact on others and less time thinking about your own selfish wants and desires.

It sounds like we're in the same boat. I fully agree that too many people these days lack a sense of self-responsibility, a desire to educate themselves about the areas in which they recreate, and an awareness of how their actions affect those around them.

It also seems that a lot of parks have reduced the amount of education they provide their visitors while increasing the budget for gun-carrying rangers. Unfortunately, it appears to stem from a desire to increase revenue.

The first time I heard the word "downstater" someone was referring to a driver who blew through Keene then almost crashed at the fork by ADK cafe. You guys definetly need some police in the summer! It just seemed like too many for how little traffic there was in the winter

DEC officers are essentially state troopers with even more power because of the environmental tag. Any cops is willing to admit this now, although I wouldn't recommend asking a DEC guy with their attitudes and all. When I got my ticket I did not even have my wallet and was not aware they wouldn't verify the info over the radio immediately. I definitely could have lied about everything and gotten away with it. Then again when I didn't pay the ticket I got a call from the US Marshal's service ten months later saying there was a warrant out for my arrest. You can never tell which way its going to go. When I was issued the ticket the ranger told me he was only going to give me a $100 fine only to have him write a $325 ticket and try to slip it in my pack and walk away unnoticed. The ensuing argument got me threatened with arrest for assault on an officer. There is very little continuity or consistency from ranger to ranger. You really gotta play it different every time.

As far as bear kegs in ADK...I understand that most people aren't smart enough to hang their food so bears cannot get it. But the only time I have ever seen the regulation enforced is arounnd areas where there are actually lean-tos and ranger outposts like at Colden. If they are concerned about those areas then just install food bins and require people to put their food in every night if staying at one of the lean-tos. You can easily cruise around the entire lake (Colden) in half an hour. Ranger makes a sweep at the end of the day...if you hide your food and decide not to use the bin, your risk/ your loss. The main reason it annoys me is because I have never had a ranger say.anything about not having a cannister, ever, while camped out on just a regular site somewhere else. And yes, they have asked. I get it that the rule exists to help protect people as well, but its not like Colorado or Cali where the bears will literally tear your car apart to get inside, we don't have that kind of tourism up here, especially within the interior, it is way too remote. Like someone above me said, you can go out for a week and see less people than the number of days you spend in the woods.

As far as the postholing, it is wayy more annoying. Last spring we went up without shoes expecting no snow and ended hoofing it through 2 feet of powder on the side of the trail. About an hour in some idiots blazed by us cracking about how we were dumb for not walking on the trail and wasting some much energy. As they put a foot through the pack like every three steps. Fast forward fifteen minutea, catch up to them on the trail getting chewed out by a ranger and being told to head back to the car. Ranger waved hi to us and thanked us for not postholing as we slogged and suffered by. Could tell the people he stopped did not even know what the term meant. Be educated and don't be ignorant, it makes it better for everyone eh.

wut

John Husky wrote: You can not out tree-climb a bear.

You only need to out tree-climb your partner. One reason to carry a Bowie in the BC

Ben: Maybe you should try reading responses before commenting, the snowshoe rule is not only to protect skiers. Check out any winter trail after ten morons have walked down it without snowshoes. Also try getting off trail sometime in the High Peaks in winter, you won't make it very far. You sound like an idiot.

Kirby: Lots of cops rolling around rt 73 in the winter. They use the area from Saranac Lake to exit 30 to train the new guys fresh out of the academy because it's safe. Crime here consists of speeders, non-functioning taillights and a couple of good'ol boys who had one too many up at the Baxter. Places to watch out for: Coming into Keene from Cascade Pass, The junction of rt 73 and 9N, coming into Keene Valley from Chapel Pond and just before the Northway.

Ironically during the summer when it's difficult to walk from my house to the Mountaineer without getting run over there is far more prey on the Northway so you'll find them set up down there.

I

Ben stop trolling! I know you have to be upset about that ticket but come on. Think about how many unexperinced hikers get themselves in trouble because they didn't have shoes with them. This endangers more than the dumbass. It puts SAR at risk when they come out to get them.

Mike you're another one talking crazy! Although I would interested in checking out the GoPro footage. I'm going to go type in man bear fight and knife into YouTube and see what I get.

Max A backpack trip of mine ended at the Garden lot. I got there really early and I knew I would be waiting for my ride for hours so I kept walking.. well crawling to Keene Valley. I figured I could use the phone at the Mountaineer to call my wife. As soon as I got on 73 I wanted to turn around and go back. Someone from NJ actually blew the horn at me for crossing the street! I yelled the speed limits 35 mph to which I got the ol F U reply. The guy had his wife and kids with him and was driving a suburban. I figured the best thing to do to enrage him was agree with him. Next he parks up the street from where I'll be walking. I just kept on coming. I pack a knife but it.always seems to be pulled out on humans not animals. Fortunately the guy pulled away before I got there.

Ben, if you manage to stay on the trail all day, you can often get by with occasional postholes. But shit happens, and if you get off-trail you are totally fucked.

I don't like the law, but you can bet that if I find you postholing down the trail I'm going to berate you for it. It's extremely rude and selfish to not have snowshoes up there in the winter.

um wow... no clue things were so regulated up there. Yet another reason to completely avoid NY. And here I was thinking about hitting some pow this winter in the ADKs. I'll stick to the Northeast Kingdom where they just don't have police or rangers and about 375" of snow.

Ben Brotelho wrote:I really don't want to read all of your responses...the snowshoe law is ridiculous definitely. It serves to protect only the skiers (with their fancy expensive gear) and their convenience of having a nice trail. Well...guess what? You're skiing on public property (at least to us NY state residents), and I'll be damned if I'm forced to heed to those who choose to explore the wilderness using a more expensive piece of equipment...being forced to buy/rent/spend money on EXTRA equipment to enjoy public lands seems a tad ridiculous to me.

You start a thread on MP and don't want responses? Complain somewhere else then. But really, the rules are there to keep everyone safe, not just skiers and their "fancy expensive gear." Post holes suck, and you should be thinking about others. It's the same reason you yell "rope" when you toss over the side of a cliff. It's the same reason you look up the hill before beginning your descent while skiing. There are other people in this world who enjoy the same activities you do, and it's really immature to have an, "I'm going to do what I want, when I want attitude." If you're that much of an outdoorsman, a $150-$200 purchase of a pair of snowshoes isn't going to kill you, and it will make for a much more pleasant experience for everybody while in the Dacks.

Yeah, shouldn't have opened the can of worms! I have snowshoes, and I use them when conditions on the trail (or off the trail if that is part of the plan) dictate it, otherwise I try to leave them at home because they're heavy, and having a light pack allows me to travel faster, thus more safely. The rule is ludicrous because it takes away the ability of the public to make their own decisions pertaining to their safety, which is annoying. I will wear snowshoes for my own convenience and safety...but if people want to walk into the woods with a pack, hiking boots, and nothing else, then they should be allowed to.

The snowshoe-rule is essentially an entrance-fee to use the high peaks in the winter, which is unfair and does not resonate with the idea of public lands for public recreation, and the usual freedoms that enjoying the 'Dacks brings.

This has `plagued` humanity since (at least) recorded history: where is the balance between freedom (complete freedom to its core, ex. Allow murder or not?)and order/government? This story with the `Daks` is nothing new...

Individuality (what I desire and will do) versus society/community/ the whole of existence.

Gregory Pouliot wrote: You start a thread on MP and don't want responses? Complain somewhere else then. But really, the rules are there to keep everyone safe, not just skiers and their "fancy expensive gear." Post holes suck, and you should be thinking about others. It's the same reason you yell "rope" when you toss over the side of a cliff. It's the same reason you look up the hill before beginning your descent while skiing. There are other people in this world who enjoy the same activities you do, and it's really immature to have an, "I'm going to do what I want, when I want attitude." If you're that much of an outdoorsman, a $150-$200 purchase of a pair of snowshoes isn't going to kill you, and it will make for a much more pleasant experience for everybody while in the Dacks.

I too am put off by a rule like this and agree it would amount to a tax or fee for winter use. Do they also require you to wear a jacket in the winter? Isn't that a safety issue for you, rescue and other users?

I also would love to get some insight as to why people are skiing down hiking trails??? That, to me, is the obvious dumb dumb move. When we hike around VT (Mansfield and Jay peak areas) most times we hike up a boot pack (w/ postholes sometimes) or create a boot pack and ski down the natural features of the woods/mountains. Seriously, why the hell would you want to ski down a hiking trail? As a prime example - Mnt Washington has designated ski and hiking trails. But regardless of designated trails... why wouldn't you just ski down in the woods rather then the hiking/walking trail? Isn't it like exponentially more dangerous for hikers to have skiers ripping down the same trail?

CaptainMo wrote: I too am put off by a rule like this and agree it would amount to a tax or fee for winter use. Do they also require you to wear a jacket in the winter? Isn't that a safety issue for you, rescue and other users? I also would love to get some insight as to why people are skiing down hiking trails??? That, to me, is the obvious dumb dumb move. When we hike around VT (Mansfield and Jay peak areas) most times we hike up a boot pack (w/ postholes sometimes) or create a boot pack and ski down the natural features of the woods/mountains. Seriously, why the hell would you want to ski down a hiking trail? As a prime example - Mnt Washington has designated ski and hiking trails. But regardless of designated trails... why wouldn't you just ski down in the woods rather then the hiking/walking trail? Isn't it like exponentially more dangerous for hikers to have skiers ripping down the same trail?

Because the hiking trails provide access from the parking lot to the slides. Creating separate ski trails to each slide would be...involved. Once on a slide it is pretty common to boot up if conditions warrant. No regs on booting/snowshoes off trail.

PeterW wrote: Because the hiking trails provide access from the parking lot to the slides. Creating separate ski trails to each slide would be...involved. Once on a slide it is pretty common to boot up if conditions warrant. No regs on booting/snowshoes off trail.

Wasn't suggesting cutting new trails but figuring out how to ski from the slide to the lot would be part of the descent. It kinda comes across as well I don't want to bother to ski down the rest of the mountain so I'm gonna ski down the hiking trail. Just seems somewhat backwards... sure if I wanna post hole my sorry ass up a trail why shouldn't I be allowed to do that? You have the entire forest to ski down, no? Given they have the entire forest to hike as well but really the hiking trail was made for hiking, no?

I could totally see giving a ticket to someone trying to ski down a hiking trail since that creates a really dangerous situation and could kill a hiker (regardless of footware). But giving someone a ticket because they didn't use what some people say is appropriate footwear on a hiking trail (doing what they're supposed to do on a hiking trail, by the way) doesn't seem appropriate from big picture. The law sounds like it was written for skiers by skiers and is unfair... and I'm a die hard skier.

When I ski down Mansfield I would NEVER imagine trying to ski down the The Long Trail. And if I run into it I try to get off it as quickly as possible. And I would never imagine being pissed or thinking that laws should be written to restrain hikers from using a hiking trail in the winter without snowshoes cause it ruins my skiing down a hiking trail.

Am I nutz or something? What am I not getting here? Are these old ski trails that someone decided to hike up and a hiking trail was subsequently made out of old ski trails? The trail sounds convenient for skiers but really just a cop out. Grow a pair and find your way down the mountain like a real BC skier.

CaptainMo wrote:When I ski down Mansfield I would NEVER imagine trying to ski down the The Long Trail. And if I run into it I try to get off it as quickly as possible. And I would never imagine being pissed or thinking that laws should be written to restrain hikers from using a hiking trail in the winter without snowshoes cause it ruins my skiing down a hiking trail. Am I nutz or something? What am I not getting here? Are these old ski trails that someone decided to hike up and a hiking trail was subsequently made out of old ski trails? The trail sounds convenient for skiers but really just a cop out. Grow a pair and find your way down the mountain like a real BC skier.

Are you talking about alpine skiing or x-country skiing? If you're talking about alpine, I'd agree with you. Alpine skiers have no business skiing down a hiking trail. But the skiers most are referring to are x-country skiers, who I believe have every right to use the hiking trails. A lot of trails in the Dacks are heavily trafficked. Unfortunately a lot of this traffic is from people who don't know what the hell they're doing while walking down the street, let alone hiking in the woods in the winter time. I agree that it's a touchy subject. People go into the woods to do what they want and to get away from rules, and there are lots of us. Just be courteous is all. That's the real point of the rules.

The woods in the adk's are thicker (from what I hear) than they are in vermont. Bushwhacking through the woods on skis in the high peaks can get pretty heinous. Also, most of the slide approaches have significant overland sections, so you really aren't "skiing down the mountain" the whole time. The hiking trails provide the only real clear path. I am talking about tele/at skiing.