The park works great as is. No need to change things. Just keep buying up land for preservation, and work with the towns to ensure they stay within their boundaries and don’t pollute. I kind of like that there are little towns dotted around the park - it means better food and lodging options than you’d get in a national park. Also, the towns help make it easier to get to more remote places: it would be much more trouble to get to, say, the CL50 if the town if Cranberry Lake weren’t there for you to spend the night at before and after your trip - you’d have to do a couple hours of driving before and after your hike, which is annoying. More towns also makes for a better through-hiking or through-paddling experience, since it’s easier to re-supply. Speaking of through-paddling, the Northern Forest Canoe Trail starts in Old Forge in the southwest part of the park, and goes 700+ miles to the northern tip of Maine. I’d love to do it someday.

I don't think the Adirondacks should ever be a national park. Between the two different ski mountains, rv parks, water park, hotels, and the tens of thousands of private homes, it would be a disaster if the state ever took it over. I would like to add though that the state still regularly tries to buy up private land to add to public area of the park. And the state has some pretty tight regulations on what the landowners can do. Not to mention that the state has agreements with many private landowners to let the public use areas of their land.

The Adirondacks were largely the model for the National Park Service. (Yellowstone predates the Forest Preserve, but it became a national park by accident, because Wyoming wasn't yet a state.) In large measure, New York got the idea first, and Theodore Roosevelt took it to Washington with him. In the length of time that they've been protected, it's not that much of a surprise that the policies surrounding them have evolved to be more nuanced than what we see coming out of Washington. The constitutional protection also gives them an unmatched level of stability. None of our National Parks - and most certainly not our National Momuments, National Forests, etc - have nearly that stability - the Congress, and in some cases the President, can erase them with the stroke of a pen. Most of the people arguing in favor of the Adirondacks being a National Park seem to think that the forest would enjoy a higher level of protection, but I don't believe that's correct. Worthy of note is that the portion that's owned by the state is still bigger than any of the 'classic' National Parks. (Death Valley, some parks in Alaska, and the marine reserves are larger, but they're recent developments and really still being sorted out.) The nuanced management and enormous size also means that there's a greater sense of freedom. I live an hour from the Blue Line, and if I want to hike the Park, I pretty much can pull on my boots, hop in my car and go. (I keep an already-loaded backpack in the car!) No fussing about with permits, and very few restrictions. About a third of my trips are cross-country, departing from the established trails. I can make camp basically anywhere I find a big enough flat spot. (Well, within reason. I can't camp above 3500 feet elevation, nor within 200 feet of a trail or a waterway.) The detailed trip planning that I always do is for my own safety, not for dealing with bureaucrats. Where else, well, practically anywhere, could I go for a 140-or-so mile backpack and meet maybe a dozen people (except at the two town stops I made to reprovision)? And without having a paperwork nightmare to arrange it? Everyone inside the Blue Line hates the APA. Half believe that the APA is out wantonly to rape the land for development, and half believe the APA is out to depopulate the Adirondacks entirely. As long as it's hated equally by the pro-conservation and pro-development zealots, I think it's probably doing a pretty good job. One thing that a lot of people overlook is that the state continues to pay property taxes on the Blue Line land that it acquires, at whatever rate per acre is assessed on private undeveloped forest land. This is a big fraction of the local government budget in those areas.

My back yard! Just finished a 6 day camping trip in the ADK's! Love it up here! I used to wonder why it wasn't a national park just based on size its huge!! The 46 high peaks can get a bit overcrowded but its somethings they have been working on alot lately. But their is soo much more to the dack's than just the high peaks! Tons of history here "Fort william henry on lake george. For ticonderoga on Lake champlain! Great camp santanoni! St. regis canoe area is awesome too! Good trout fishing on many rivers! The wildlife is awesome! People down to earth as long as you treat the land well. I'm 42yrs old and have lived here my whole life and barely touched all that's here. Good topic! ADK's for life!

Great video! Well thought out and appreciated the historical cliff notes. I LOVE this park and frequent it, it’s truly a unique and cared for space.

Wow! Very well done video. I had no idea about any of this! I live in Colorado and have never made it to the northeast. This park would certainly be worth visiting if I ever make it up to that neck of the woods. Thanks for sharing.

Great video! I've lived in the ADK my entire life. No human system is perfect, but I'm extremely proud to call this area home. As many others have said, the people that live here feel a deep connection to the land and nature itself. Just as the Iroquois, it's part of our identity. Most of us grow up hunting, fishing, gardening, felling trees and processing them into firewood, etc. It's almost instinctual to protect this land if you've ever lived here. Part of the beauty of this area is regulation only goes so far. At a certain point, the individuals and communities themselves regulate each other. This is the kinda place you could get beat up for littering, seriously...

I reside in the Adirondack park and it is absolutely gorgeous! I couldn’t ask for more beauty to call home!!

Living in the park is a way of life. Much of the architecture and styles of towns mesh well with the surrounding mountains and wilderness. The winters, even with modern living are still incredibly harsh at times, but, and even winter itself is generally full of small town festivals. It’s a beautiful place, with many amazing communities. Small towns where the firehouse is still a gathering place, you know your neighbors and you’re outside enjoying nature because it’s just how it is. Hiking the trails, fire towers, or the 46 high peaks in different seasons brings a view of nature that is missed by most. The milky way being visible in the night sky and the stars seeming bigger and brighter. People living in the Adirondacks welcome tourism, as long as you respect the land. Hiking, carry out what you carry in. Camping, respect the areas of the high peaks where no camp fires are allowed, even when overnight hiking. Please come, hike, fish, kayak. Enjoy the mountains, see the amazing and diverse eco systems and wild life. Get a look at what New York truly is.

Thoroughly enjoyed this video. Lots of food for thought.

I'm so thankful this just popped up randomly on my feed. I live in the Adirondacks (15 mins from lake George). 6 years ago I bought a house here... Well actually 2. An acre of land with 2 houses on it. The mortgage company made us separate the land first and dealing with the APA was such a hassle. It took 7 extra months to close. This video really helped me understand the reasoning for it. Well done.

I got to do a 3 night trip in the high peaks back in 2018. It’s an amazing park! I didn’t know any of this about the park. Great video! Thanks

Your deliberative style works so well here to explain the balance of aspirational and practical that makes the Adirondacks so different from our national parks. This is quite an achievement.

LOVED this video! I feel like each time I watch one of your videos, I learn more and more about what goes into becoming a National Park and why some state parks should not always become one. After watching this video, I now support your opinion as to why the Adirondacks should not be a National Park. Keep up the great work!

I agree with you. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

Great video sir. And I agree with your opinion whole heartidly.

What a well researched and presented video. Thank you. The way the Adirondacks are managed may not be perfect... but it is about as close as you can get. The balance of preserving nature and personal freedoms is indeed a difficult task. Like many who live and frequent here... once the Adirondacks get into your blood... it penetrates your soul and never leaves you.

Thank you for doing this .

Great presentation!

Love going up there we've been going hiking and camping ,1 day would like to get a home up there love it so much we need more places like that

My family settled in the Adirondacks in the 1850s our Homestead still stands I’ve lived here all my life my grandfather frequented, the hills by hunting there’s no shortage of state land or protected land, but I think the private land needs to stay private

I’d love to see a video on whether or not Oregon/Washington’s Columbia River Gorge should be a National Park. the place is amazing and more impressive than almost every park in the NPS.

We had similar discussion regarding creating a National Park in the Columbia Gorge outside Portland, Oregon. It is a beautiful place with many large waterfalls, sheer cliffs and the largest river on the West Coast of the Americas. But too much land was private and recreational. Government ultimately decided to make it a National Scenic Area and work with private land owners on managing the land.

Wow, I appreciate such a thorough video on a topic that hits home to me. I frequent the ADK consistently year round to hike, backpack, mountain bike, ski, snowshoe, climb, you name it. I am up there so often to the point where I will be purchasing a home within the blue line in the coming years. I understand your position whole heartedly in regards to keeping the ADK away from National Park status, and I agree with you. The entire region should not be. But, I have a few thoughts. The problem with state regulation of the region is well, the state itself. Much of the funding for the region is controlled within the state capitol (Albany) which is not even in the Blue Line. Making a decision at the top and seeing it poorly trickle down to the folks who actually live and work within the land is just all kinds of wrong. The lack of rangers/staffing on trails is a case in point example of this. A lack of hiker education and funding for such programs would mitigate a lot of SAR's in the first place too, but again it is not funded. Ironically enough seeing the hikers atop the Whiteface summit in jeans made me cringe a little, but we will let that one fly since you can drive to the top ;) Another sector is source of income from the region. Believe it or not, the majority of income generated from within the blue line is not amongst popular tourist towns such as Keene, Lake Placid, Tupper, Saranac, etc, but rather prisons. It is important to realize that channel of income and how it pertains to uhhh "forever wild." It is also important to realize a shift in regulation as the Ausable Mountain Reserve has implemented a permit system which restrict access to the public easement from the DEC which goes against "forever wild." Would going to a national park fix this? Not exactly, nor do I have the expertise to know the nitty gritty, but I can try to give my opinion on what is best. The White Mountain National Forest in New Hampshire for example is not a national park, but it is a national forest. So, it is federally funded and regulated. In the case of the DEC implementing a permit system at the AMR mainly due to a parking problem, the WMNF implemented a careful way to expand parking and education. See the difference? Granted, the Whites are a lot smaller than the ADKS, but I think the ADK could benefit from something like this. Certain regions, such as the highly trafficked High Peaks, can be designated as National Forest, shifting the funding and staffing to make it beneficial to all without impacting the private land owners and local businesses in the region. Given how blown away I am at seeing how little the APA has been doing lately, this is also another reason to go this route. But eh, I am just another stupid hiker, what do I know...

I went to summer camp there as a young kid called Adirondack Woodcraft Camp, and I still remember the mist on the pond in the early morning and the natural beauty as though it were yesterday whereas now I can't remember what I did last week. Without the public and private divide there, I would not have had that experience and I think that can still exist for people who experience the area. Though I am a preservationist at heart, the park has been managed so well in the past 100 years, that I think is should remains as it is, to say nothing of my opinions on eminent domain the sanctity of private property. I hope the park can continue to feel like a wilderness for ages to come.

I notice “Cadillac desert” on the bookshelf. A great read!

Good one One of the best parks with the best uses

Adirondack 46er here. I totally agree, the system in place now works very well and should be kept. A few tweaks im sure could be made but beauty is maintained while development in some areas is allowed. It's a good middle ground.

Get videos, keep up the great work!

Hey man, you do great vids. I appreciate that you’re making efforts to acknowledge indigenous history when talking about public lands. I’ve noticed something you said tho, and I’d like to correct it. Please don’t erase the Haudenosonee (Iroquois) conquests. They practiced imperial expansion before white people ever stepped foot on this continent. Representing them as “harmonious” and “peaceful” strips them of their agency, and plays into the “noble savage” myth. Also, the Haudenosaunee are still around, so present tense might be more appropriate when talking about them. Same goes for other tribes.

Well done. I agree with you.

NYS DEC…Department of Environmental Conservation. I appreciate your history and perspective. Very educational.

I live here and I agree with you 100% Thanks

For a lot of people out there, 6 million acres isn't very easy to get you head around. For people outside the US the Adirondack Park is about: - 18% bigger than Wales - 4% smaller than Sicily - 5% smaller than Crimea - 19% bigger than Israel - 6% smaller than Rwanda - 1/8 the size of Senegal - 1/3 the size of Tasmania - 1/6 the size of Bangladesh - 2/5 the size of Sri Lanka - 2/3 the size of Kyushu - 1/2 the size of Costa Rica - 1/7 the size of Uruguay It's pretty big for a park.

Yes this park should be a National park. I live in New York and I am 1.5 hours from the park. I also spend a lot of time in the Adirondacks park. I fish hike my summits and fire towers. I also think the Catskills mounts should be a National park to. Thank you for the information.

I live just north of the park and have a camp in the park, while I love hiking and exploring the park it is also a big drag on our economy since we need to drive 4 plus hours on slow windy roads to get to the interstate. It makes everything up here besides farming unprofitable. If we had an interstate strait through the park I could be to central NY in a bit over an hour. Trade offs to everything but it seems few consider what it does to the many thousands that live on the other side and have to deal with the costs.

Anyone looking for a cool piece of history, look up Theodore Roosevelt in the Adirondacks

Nice recap well done. Adirondacks are a special place. What books are on the shelf?

❤Thank you

Just from your opening you have one major reason not to make it an NP: the sheer size would require multiple administrative units; building or adapting those, increased staffing, improving infrastructure, etc. And you followed that up with the second reason: too many private landowners. Would they have to be evicted or bought out? Is NY doing a good job running it as s state park? If so, and they aren't asking for federal intervention, FOR NOW? I say no. The way the park is run in conjunction with the community isn't easily replicated. NYers love that park & feel a sense of ownership they wouldn't ordinarily have with it being federal controlled. I think it's unique priv/pub partnership, the way locals know and understand the changing resources or needs is empowering as well, and maybe that connection is what will steer the future of park management. (Plus, selfishly, we've got so much that needs to be repaired & conserved in the active parks right now. Yes, purchase funds are finally available, but the rest is desperately needed for repairs in existing parks.)

Do the Catskill Mtns next!

There are quite a few agencies working to preserve, conserve, protect the park and all its resources. They are working to keep the Adirondack Park Agency responsible and true to its mission. They advise on legislation that impacts, water, salt on the roads, air quality, maintenance of ‘forever wild’ areas and other issues. They work to educate residents and visitors. Any of these organizations would be grateful for your membership or donation. They include, but not limited to: Protect the Adirondacks; Adirondack Council; Adirondack Land Trust; Lake George Land Conservancy; Adirondack Wild: Friends of the Forest Preserve; Darrin Freshwater Institute; The Adirondack Water Institute at Paul Smith’s College; Adirondack Architectural Heritage; Adirondack Mountain Club; Adirondack Research Consortium.

I agree. This experiment as a preserve on the state level is good. It seems NY has made a determined effort to find a way for this coexistence to work. Is there a way the state/federal system could cooperate? would that even be helpful to the preserve? How much land has the state actually bought back over the decades?

I live right above the Adirondack park, and frequently hike, rock climb, skii, mountain bike, etc. In the adks. While I think there are amazing aspects to National Parks, but I don’t think the Adirondacks really fit that. The Adirondacks have their own amazing history, that you talked about well, and I think a lot of the history and significance of the Adirondacks as a place would be somewhat ruined if it became a national park. The Adirondacks have demonstrated that nature and humans can be balanced. There are also many treasures in the park that I’ve discovered, and I think would be ruined if it was made a National park. There are patches of old growth forest, hidden lakes, amazing biodiversity that are only known by a few

Technically it's a part of the Forest Preserve so it's not an NYS State Park in the strict sense. That's why it, and Catskill Park for that matter, are called just Park and not State Park

AGREED !:-) 💜🙏⚡️

I’m subbed regardless but add some more maps on your background and hopefully viewable for the viewers

In the Spanish National parks in the Pyrenees, there is human activity as there has been for 1000s of years. It is posible

GRATZ ON THE SHOUTOUT ON JOHN OLIVER!!!!!!!!

I think you should do a show on turning West Virginia into a National park. NY Adk is a preserve. Not a park. It is the watershed for the Hudson River, and Developing it would damage the Hudson River which provides water for the lower part of the state.

I like how the park is a mix of private ownership and conservation. People are able to live well in a rural environment that respects both the needs of nature and the needs of man. IMO most of upstate NY should work like this outside of cities and farmland. So yes I wouldn't want it to become a national park and instead just give more private land to the state like it has been slowly gaining more for decades.

It sounds a lot like the White Mountains of NH. Lots of wilderness, ski areas and small towns. It seems to work so I say leave it as it is.

I'm curious which places in the US could have been national parks (based on natural beauty) had land usage evolved differently. In other words, what are the most scenic places in the US that aren't national parks? In addition to Adirondack: Big Sur in California, Napali coast in Hawaii, San Juan islands in Washington and Lake Tahoe in CA/Nevada come to mind.

What we often forget when discussing “should this place be a national park” is asking “what about the local community?” Many small villages up in Appalachia are now ghost towns because of the establishment of Shenandoah National Park and the Blue Ridge Parkway. It was, in many ways, a destruction of a way of life that people had lived for well over a century and a half, if not more. We ought consider the common man as much as preservation of nature.

My answer is no. A few miles from me is the New Jersey Pinelands National Reserve which sounds a lot like Adirondack area. What this did was add at least two more layers of government bureaucracy. There are towns inside of this area. Everything is a fight such as running a new water or gas pipes from one town to another through the area. A National Park should be pristine and stay that way. Neither the NJ Pinelands or Adirondack Mountains are pristine because people have lived there from the beginning. An ideal for a future video would be trying to define what the differences are between "park", "monuments", "historical park", "reserve", "preserve", "battlefield" etc.....

PLEASE GOD NO. It is already WAY TOO BUSY here. This is my home and half the park is over run in the summer

coexisting with nature is one of humanities largest failures. We have built concrete jungles to the stars and launched mechanical marvels to other worlds. But the one thing we haven't yet conquered is our own greed. We see earth not as a gift from the universe (not necessarily religious or spiritual) but as our birthright. As something that we have been born to rule over, and its a shame, because it was here long before we were here and will likely be here long after we're gone. I would personally like to see MORE coexistence with nature and less resistance to it. I think national park status has pros and cons, and I would like to see the people living there taking care of it. Maybe make that a mandate of purchasing land from someone within that park, that you don't develop the land beyond what is required for you to live a comfortable life, and that you'll dedicate your time to the lands and the peoples that choose to visit. Don't know how that would look in proper legalese but, I'm sure someone could figure it out.

Another point of history: the Forest Preserve was largely acquired when the state took the lands for back taxes. There had previously been a vicious cycle - a timber company or paper mill would buy a tract of forest land for a song from the state, come in and clearcut it, pay handsome dividends for a few years out of the timber, then go bankrupt, leaving the state to seize the now-worthless land. In thirty years, fast-growing species would have recolonized enough that the wood was good for at least paper, and the cycle would begin anew. Eventually the state figured out that it was getting the short end of the stick both coming and going.

I miss my home a lot :(

Another bit of salt I've got for people is here In Maine, you often can't breathe on weekends in the woods around national forests and parks in the areas where smoke accumulates, because so so so many people with campfires going just smoke it right to heck. I'm talking 30 minutes from any kind of store or civilization, and you can't even breathe because of all the smoke from tourists at campgrounds in the national forests. In places I could sit as kid twenty years ago and not see anyone for weeks no less. The idea that national forests are natural in any way is horribly mistaken.

Meanwhile, there's the San Juan islands where people just buy up vacation houses they never use and turn entire islands into a weird rural mess of fancy houses. The vast majority of the islands have "NO TRESPASSING" signs plopped all over the beaches. There's very little community (except on the biggest islands with some actual towns), little preservation, and pretty much no point to the masses of vacation homes. Now *that* region would make for a spectacular national park. They recently made a national monument, but it was just combining islands that were already park beforehand. Even well known park areas like Stewart Island and Obstruction Pass are just small areas of park surrounded by private land that really ruins the whole experience.

Great answer young man! Not the answer I expected! We have enough outsiders trying to make decisions for this area. We don't need more people or organizations making decisions for us who have never been here. Or have never contributed money in licenses or taxes. It's amazing to me, that I can take 10 days to paddle and hike , and never see another human. Yet if you want resorts with people, there is that too. Hamilton Co. Has the lowest population density east of the Mississippi if you want seclusion. Or rent a cabin on a lake in private areas for a great time !

It's one of the New York's greatest accomplishments.

It belongs to the residents of New York State and has wilderness areas superior to all other states in the continental U.S.. More old age forest. Clean clear rivers and lakes. The ability to wander the woods by yourself. The animals live natural lives and coexist with residents. For an outdoorsman this area is wonderful. If you have breathing problems or allergies, you benefit from living there. Very little farming. Just mountains, trees, lakes, rivers and animals. The size of the park is growing. Privately owned lands within the park are sometimes sold to the state and added to the amount of publicly owned land. There aren't a lof of jobs there and this most likely keeps the number of residents from increasing. Any considerable increase in residents will most likely change the positive characteristics of the park. Teddy Roosevelt was in the Adirondacks when he was informed about his assuming the presidency.

The Bronx, should be recognized as America’s First National Dump !

Also, NYS is interesting in that we really do not have a lot of federal land at all. We have the Finger Lakes National Forest, which is a hodgepodge of old farms that failed during the Depression that the US govt reforested. But no real national parks, just the national monuments like Ellis Island.

As someone who works in the Adirondacks and has worked for it, as well as currently working for a museum about the Adirondacks, I think this was a reasonably good video but does miss some major parts. Primarily, while yes the Adirondacks have a major history of extraction it also was one of the the origins of nature recreation. Because of its mix if developed and natural land the region drew visitors of all walks if life. The rich stayed in luxary hotels while most folks could at least take the train up and enjoy a day. The Adirondack guides could make a living off taking these folks to see the region. Teddy Roosevelt adored the region, he literally became acting president while on vacation here. The Adirondacks defined what a park could be. If the region had been totally locked off as state land it would be impenetrable to all but the most dedicated of hikers. While that a nice concept in theory, it would quickly result in a loss of love for the land. The Adirondacks exists because it is more than just a preserve, more than a park, more than a vacation getaway. It doesnt just preserve land but also a way of life. The Adirondacks being so uniquely split between private and public land makes it a place like no other. That is what needs to be conserved.

The adk is perfect the way it is I go there twice a year and plan on retirement there leave the way it is it works.

As an outsider who has never been there or hiked in the east coast (I am spoiled for scenery living in the west coast), I think it should be a national park, but also isn't a high priority. I just think it should be one solely on it's uniqueness, scenic value, and ruggedness, considering it is one of the more rugged sections of mountains in the east coast. A lot of the east coast parks don't have the impressive awe-factor of massive mountains. Shenandoah and Smokey Mountains don't have any sort of real awe to them; they're more like forested hills-pretty of course but not majestic in the way you'd call mountains "majestic." The northern New England and NY mountains do sort of have a bit of that majestic mountain feel, being more alpine and rugged than the southern Appalachians, yet the NPS has pretty much nothing from this area of the country to represent the mountains of the Northeast. And Acadia doesn't count because it is on the coast, and Maine Woods doesn't even fulfill it quite right because it isn't as mountainous or rugged as the ADK or say, the White Mountains of NH and the Presidentials. If I were to suggest new parks in the US, soley based on what is severely lacking in the system as far as getting a "complete" set, I would put the ADK very high on that list, along with the Presidentials and White Mountains. I would also suggest designating to round out the national collection: Columbia River Gorge National Park (Oregon/Washington) - similar situation to the ADK park in terms of trying to balance natural preservation with community growth within the scenic area Mount St Helens National Park (Washington) Mount Hood National Park (Oregon) Owyhee Canyonlands National Park (Oregon) Sawtooth Mountains National Park (Idaho) Oregon Volcanoes/High Cascades National Park (area around Mt Washington, Sparks Lake, and Three Sisters in Oregon) Hells Canyon National Park (Oregon/Idaho) Mount Shasta National Park (California) Mount Baker National Park (or inclusion within the North Cascades NP, as well as expansion to include Slate Peak and Washington Pass into NCNP)

I would say yes for this reason. If New York State ever becomes business and industry friendly, and massive growth takes place like Florida and Texas,you can kiss the forests goodbye. Believe me,money always rules the day.I see it everyday in Texas and when I lived in Florida. When big money moves in, nothing is sacred. I used to live in upstate New York, and visited the Adirondacks all the time. Can you imagine riding up through there and seeing expensive mansions dotting the hills and mountains,it would be heartbreaking. The Texas hill country used to be beautiful,but every year more and more homes are built by people that have the money to do so and it ruins it. They may have made the Adirondacks a forever wild place, but if big money and industry comes upstate New York,trust me,all bets will be off. Big money moves mountains.

The 'Daks is the greatest park in the United States

bruh the Iroquois are still here in Upstate New York lol, idk why you're using past tense like they don't exist anymore

A lot of the wilderness could be preserved as a contiguous national park without diminishing the communities and systems in the rest of the park. The money paid by the federal government could also serve as a grant for new state parks and preserves

I agree with this not becoming a National Park. We have come to rely way too much on our government to take care of us and the things around us. Keeping it the way it is allows the people who live there have the responsibility to take care of themselves, the land around them, and most importantly take care of each other and work toward a goal of preservation.

New York State has done a fantastic job of protecting the Adirondack region, and an even better job of protecting state owned Forest Preserve land. The feds could not do a better job. It is a non-starter to have the Federal Government move in to preserve wilderness, and would be resisted. If the goal is simply to preserve wilderness (and not CONTROL everything, which the Feds are known for), and people want a federal role, then the feds should purchase land, or partner with The Nature Conservancy to buy land, and gift it to NYS for incorporation into the Forest Preserve. Otherwise the feds should stay out.

I am very concerned about the idea of Adirondack Park becoming a national park. There are currently just under one thousand miles of snowmobile trails on public and private land in the blue line. Not that the snowmobile community trusts NYS or the Environmental lobby in Albany. We don't. We have a bigger distrust of the federal government and their allies in the national Environmental lobby.

Love this video, and I’m curious about Adirondack’s approach to wildlife conservation (as compared to a national park). For example, it was recently confirmed that a dispersing wolf from Canada was shot in the Adirondack area. Would a multi-use park allow for a beneficial but controversial predator like the wolf to reestablish? I hope they do, for the sake of their ecosystem (and the ecotourism it can bring)!

I short, my answer is yes. I think that this "zoning for nature" idea should be applied everywhere. Regardless of ownership of land, people should not be allowed to undertake activities that cause excessive damage to the environment. This would mean more fragile environments would be zoned for strict restrictions on anything from mining, forestry, building roads, or even digging too many wells, whereas more robust environments could allow more such activities. All over the world, nature is being destroyed in the name of greed, and convenience is a mere disguise for that term. In some places, similar ideas have been implemented, like New Zealand considering a river to be a person in a way, and thus having rights in itself. This is a great way of looking at things, nature having rights itself. We should also understand that the things we are doing to nature "for money" end up costing way more down the line by damaging the ecosystem. When cutting down a tree, the cost of the oxygen that it will no longer produce, and the cost of damages wrought by the CO2 that may be released should be considered alongside the labour costs of cutting it down, as well as other considerations (like not cutting down rare endangered trees because the wood can sell for enough to justify it). Capitalistic concerns like these should be combined with the consideration of nature's inherent inalienable rights and freedoms.

What if only part of the Adirondacks was a National Park?

*Adirondack Park is fine they way it is now!* The posters "neckenwiler" and "ke9tv" say it best! (No point in me being redundant)

I'm gonna argue the unpopular position that some parts of the ADK should become a national park. National parks can be managed more effectively. Some parks of the adirondacks, notably the high peaks, would absolutely benefit from a more centralized approach that would be done by a national park. I understand the benefit of NY States system but in some parts of the ADK it would be more beneficial to just have it all be under national park status Further, look at the map on the wall in the back there, it says national parks. Look at the channel name, it says National Parks. People prefer going to national parks and people know national parks. Having part of the adirondacks classed as a national park would be a boon to the economy nearby and people would know that it exists outside the northeastern outdoors community. An Adirondack high peaks national park give the east coast a large national park would take pressure off the western parks. Finally the issue with some land being private is there is a very real potential for conflict between park goers and land owners, issues that in a country with this many guns, can get ugly. I love the adirondacks and will be going back in mid October but I think that having a part of the system be a national park would be a great addition and change

If New York state told you in 1946 you could keep all gold in this park what would your family try to do some time See new york state law PBL 82

Is this a face reveal???

As soon resident of the park, my opinion is that we are doing fine. It can be a delicate balancing act. But N.Y. state has overall done a great job. We do not need another layer of beaurocracy, nor do we need the political inconsistency of the federal government. The park is protected by a state constitutional amendment. The last thing we need is the currently anti-science, anti-environment federal Republicans having a say here, and possibly trying to sell off our beautiful wilderness, like we see often enough with federal lands out west.

Because the Adirondack Park is constitutionally protected (NY constitution that is), there was one time when the entire state had to vote on a referendum about whether or not a specific ADK village would be allowed to dig new water wells (to replace rust-contaminated ones). There was a real fear that downstate environmental activists would not understand why the referendum had to take place and would mistakenly vote "NO." So there was a big statewide set of commercials urging everyone to vote yes. Without the referendum, this tiny village would have not been able to dig new wells.

I would say no, by giving control to the Federal Government takes away from the State to control there own land.

leave it alone it works pretty well exactly as is

A M E N

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC); not "Control."

Hell, no, the federal government would just screw everything up and try to log the hell out of the land

There is simply no way such a large piece of land can be a national park. The Adirondacks are bigger than the entire state of Vermont and I just don't see the feds having the trillions of dollars needed to buy all that land when there are much more pressing matters to use that money on. This would lead to some places being sacrificed and instead of having some protection provided by Ny would instead have no protection what's so ever. Also I like all the cute little towns in the park it gives it a unique character no national park has

I think the Adirondack should be it’s own state and separate from Albany to nyc. Because they haven’t done much for us accept putting us on the back burner. I love living here it the middle of the park and wouldn’t live anywhere else . So many questions but never an answer

No never ❤

As a European citizen, I hadn't heard of the Adirondacks before. To me it sounds like it has mostly by sheer accident created an almost idyllic balance between human society and nature, not unlike the original native tribes that inhabited the land. That to me indicates that the status quo is indeed the correct one, and modifying it into a national park would be doing its legacy a massive disservice.

No we already have enough bureaucrats in this state we do not need any more, it will just raise taxes. Then there be even more rules and regulations, and less access for the public.

Hello , new to your channel . You mite look into John Levi's channel . He talks about how the parks are used for a cover up .I haven't gotten into that on his vids. But he exposes stuff that's been hidden and coverups . It's amazing what has been covered up . . I slowly read aldo Leopold . He knew what was going on but yet still worked for the forestry service as they obliterated all good science . Yet he took care of his land . This confused me . But now I see how do you fight against to powers at hand . You can not . So submit .he was wise .

Absolutely not, no solar fields, no mine unless steel, no quarries! Enough said.

New York already has 22 national parks, and while some of those are tiny (I think the Statue of Liberty is one right, and its pretty small all things considered), based solely on that raw number, New York doesnt need any more. Share the love No more National Parks in New York until Oregon or Idaho or... hell, even New Jersey (just out of spite) gets a new one

The Catskills are not that different. I would argue making it a State Park would be better. Also consider the New Jersey Pine Barrens. We don’t need to “Nationalize” our wilderness. The federal government is already the single, biggest landowner in many of the Western states, including California.

No. If I can’t walk from point A to points B-Z then it is not National park status. To developed.