DEC plans to remove two fire towers.
- Thread starter Explorer Editor
- Start date
Help Support vftt.org:
Dennis C.
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 461
- Reaction score
- 28
I'm for keeping both of the fire towers on St. Regis and Hurricane mountains, but only if there are plans to fix them up and be useful as "observation platforms". If not, then take them down since there are views without them.
Mostly useless hunks of metal. I know they have a lot of "history," but they really have no current function and you can't climb them, so what's the point? Good move.
RoySwkr
New member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 4,467
- Reaction score
- 285
As I recall, the physical removal of Hurricane and St Regis was scheduled years ago but the group that was going to do it was called up after 9/11
An historian from the US Forest Service in AL proposed keeping an non-accessible fire tower because of it's historic appearance on the skyline - compare to Cherry and Stinson in NH which decades after removal still look scalped
An historian from the US Forest Service in AL proposed keeping an non-accessible fire tower because of it's historic appearance on the skyline - compare to Cherry and Stinson in NH which decades after removal still look scalped
Tom Rankin
Well-known member
I'd just as soon see them go. There are views w/o them, and if they are removed, the region(s) can be classified as Wilderness. That's my argument for removal. The Hurricane tower looks like it won't last a whole lot longer anyway.
At the same time, I've often looked around while hiking or driving and seen the tower on Hurricane. It does give you a reference point for other summits in the area. But I could just pull out a map too!
At the same time, I've often looked around while hiking or driving and seen the tower on Hurricane. It does give you a reference point for other summits in the area. But I could just pull out a map too!
Peakbagr
Well-known member
Removal of the Hurricane tower is far from universally embraced by many, and fewer of the people who live nearby. There are those who are neutral about the tower, and some who see it as a noncomforming piece of junk.
Many look at the Hurricane tower and see is as an orientation point...'if thats Hurricane, then that must be Sentinel....'. Better expressed by Roy.
The mountain's open top doesn't require the tower, but some feel that there are other factors that should be considered above and beyond the bare summit and its status as a non conforming structure.
Many look at the Hurricane tower and see is as an orientation point...'if thats Hurricane, then that must be Sentinel....'. Better expressed by Roy.
The mountain's open top doesn't require the tower, but some feel that there are other factors that should be considered above and beyond the bare summit and its status as a non conforming structure.
1ADAM12
New member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2004
- Messages
- 1,088
- Reaction score
- 129
I was on St REgis back in the 90's and loved the Toweer and I was on Hurricane for the first time this past August! They are pretty cool to see from a far and up close. I just wish the state had the money to restore all of them They are a piece of history I would love to see stay
They are a piece of history I would love to see stay
Tom Rankin
Well-known member
As the creator of this thread, you can still add a Poll to the thread. Click the 'Thread tools' link.
I at least would be interested in seeing how people feel about this.
Peakbagr
Well-known member
From a views standpoint, the tower on Hurricane serves no purpose as Tom pointed out. Its presence is more of a landmark and to locals and people who pass through the area and see the tiny blip in the distance.
When NYS bought the Henderson Lake property, the Mt Adams tower was destined for destruction. Thru the efforts of Doc McPeak and others here, a letter writing, email, and phone campaign to DEC and the Adirondack Mt Club saved the Mt Adams tower. ADK supported the removal of the Adams tower and then reversed it position so long as the tower, cabin and their footprints were restored and maintained.
The critical differences here: There was no view from Mt Adams without the tower. And the Adams tower was restorable.
At the same time, the Adams tower would have been in a wilderness area so there is a precedent for keeping a 'nonconforming structure' when enough people apply pressure. Whether folks feel the same way about Hurricane Mt and are willing to apply the lobbying pressure is the dealbreaker. Many fewer people had visited Mt Adams and no one lived and drove by the sight of its tower. There is a larger potential constituency for Hurricane if people want to make an issue to keep it.
Really appreciate that the Explorer started the thread.
When NYS bought the Henderson Lake property, the Mt Adams tower was destined for destruction. Thru the efforts of Doc McPeak and others here, a letter writing, email, and phone campaign to DEC and the Adirondack Mt Club saved the Mt Adams tower. ADK supported the removal of the Adams tower and then reversed it position so long as the tower, cabin and their footprints were restored and maintained.
The critical differences here: There was no view from Mt Adams without the tower. And the Adams tower was restorable.
At the same time, the Adams tower would have been in a wilderness area so there is a precedent for keeping a 'nonconforming structure' when enough people apply pressure. Whether folks feel the same way about Hurricane Mt and are willing to apply the lobbying pressure is the dealbreaker. Many fewer people had visited Mt Adams and no one lived and drove by the sight of its tower. There is a larger potential constituency for Hurricane if people want to make an issue to keep it.
Really appreciate that the Explorer started the thread.
If NY's fire towers were half as nice as their counterparts in New England with their nice open viewing platforms, it might be somewhat sadder to see a couple NY towers deconstructed. But the fact of the matter is that they are God awful ugly with claustrophobic cabins at the top. I say this having completed the fire tower challenge some years back. The only reason I can see why anyone would want to see any of these things stay is that people have an attachment to "stuff" and dislike change. Who thinks any high peak would be improved by a 100-year-old rusty fire tower? How about one on Colden or Algonquin or the viewless Lost Pond Peak? Yuck. It's not even an environmentalist opinion that I have; rather that garbage belongs at the dump.
Now tell me that the tower atop Carrigain or Ascutney or Glastenbury in New England is coming down and I might be a little sad.
Now tell me that the tower atop Carrigain or Ascutney or Glastenbury in New England is coming down and I might be a little sad.
Last edited:
TCD
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 2,074
- Reaction score
- 143
I like the towers for their historical value, but it wouldn't really bother me if they were to come down, either. What is sad is two things:
Lots of folks here have fairly good reasons why the towers should stay or go. None of that will matter; the decision (either way) will be made by a beaurocrat locked in a windowless office in Albany, with lawyers standing there "interpreting" some nonsensical paper.
If DEC moves forward to remove the towers, and does a good LNT job, it will cost a ton of money, multiple heli flights, etc., all of which would be better used on something that matters to people who live or visit here, rather than to beaurocrats and lawyers in Albany.
TCD
Lots of folks here have fairly good reasons why the towers should stay or go. None of that will matter; the decision (either way) will be made by a beaurocrat locked in a windowless office in Albany, with lawyers standing there "interpreting" some nonsensical paper.
If DEC moves forward to remove the towers, and does a good LNT job, it will cost a ton of money, multiple heli flights, etc., all of which would be better used on something that matters to people who live or visit here, rather than to beaurocrats and lawyers in Albany.
TCD
spicedoubt
New member
If the towers pose no threat or danger, maybe they should forget about tearing them down for now and use those funds to keep some of those state parks from closing this year.
TCD
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2004
- Messages
- 2,074
- Reaction score
- 143
That's exactly what I'm talking about. Good idea.
NY State, through the DEC and APA (and a lot of other agencies) does a lot of expensive stuff that is stupid, unnecessary, and often destructive, and fails to do a lot of inexpensive stuff that would be quite valuable and appreciated.
Nost of this is to satisfy monied folks who have never set foot anywhere near the resources they lobby about.
NY State, through the DEC and APA (and a lot of other agencies) does a lot of expensive stuff that is stupid, unnecessary, and often destructive, and fails to do a lot of inexpensive stuff that would be quite valuable and appreciated.
Nost of this is to satisfy monied folks who have never set foot anywhere near the resources they lobby about.
Jay H
New member
Would these be the same people that removed the canisters too from the trailless peaks?
Jay
I also agree with the above in theory, but the DEC is a separate entity from NYS Parks and Recreation. Two different agencies, two different sets of bosses, two different budgets. Even if the DEC decided not to spend the bucks on this project, they certainly wouldn't be forking it over to Parks and Recreation. Also, just because DEC is recommending that the towers be removed doesn't necessarily mean that there will be money to have it done by the time all is said and done.
spicedoubt
New member
Please!, they give and take money from wherever and give to whatever they see fit. Hence the state park closings. To them its just one budget, just moving money around to fit their own agenda's.
I think we might be breaking the rules now.
Please!, they give and take money from wherever and give to whatever they see fit. Hence the state park closings. To them its just one budget, just moving money around to fit their own agenda's.
I think we might be breaking the rules now.
I refuse to break rules as I consider myself a model of proper internet behavior.
However, without getting into a big, long, boring discussion of the NY budget, which I understand more about than I really wish I did, every agency is given an operating budget that they have to stay within. Here is a list of state agencies. Once the budget is passed, the poobahs that run the state really don't know a whole heck of a lot about every individual project out there. If you were to stop by the Capitol, you would probably be hard pressed to find many folks who've even heard of St. Regis or Hurricane Mountains let alone be able to tell you that they have useless fire towers wasting away on their summits. All the expertise is found way further down the food chain.
And since you said "please," I'll say "thank you."
spicedoubt
New member
Peakbagr
Well-known member
"Would these be the same people that removed the canisters too from the trailless peaks?"
Jay, not necessarily, but the same asinine justification.
Jay, not necessarily, but the same asinine justification.
Peakbagr
Well-known member
In a letter today in the Albany Times Union, Governor Patterson said he'd been 'misunderstood'. Claims he's told the DEC commissioner Grannis that he can go ahead and spend the money 90,000 acres for the Finch Pruyn easements.
Went on to say that the Environmental Protection Fund can be used to purchase the remaining 60k in acreage when the budger is in better shape.
Unfortunately, The Nature Conservancy is on the hook for buying the land. Open Space Institute provided the initial funding and The Nature Conservancy took it over. This is how its worked for years. These fine organizations act quickly with a private OK from DEC, they hold the land while NYS has always quickly rustled up the money to take it off TNC's hands.
By doing this, Patterson sends a message to OSI/TNC that they better be careful of their purchases and who knows where this might ultimately end. They will certainly be much more reticent to move ahead with land acquisitions in the coming years.
Went on to say that the Environmental Protection Fund can be used to purchase the remaining 60k in acreage when the budger is in better shape.
Unfortunately, The Nature Conservancy is on the hook for buying the land. Open Space Institute provided the initial funding and The Nature Conservancy took it over. This is how its worked for years. These fine organizations act quickly with a private OK from DEC, they hold the land while NYS has always quickly rustled up the money to take it off TNC's hands.
By doing this, Patterson sends a message to OSI/TNC that they better be careful of their purchases and who knows where this might ultimately end. They will certainly be much more reticent to move ahead with land acquisitions in the coming years.
