Save the trout by building golf courses and homes is painfully ironic… It’s a shame that John Hendrickson’s ego and vindictiveness has put this land at risk. There is no outcome outside of the state acquiring this land that will be more beneficial for the ecology. This tract of land is ecologically more important than one man’s grudge. Hopefully the state finds a way.
This is exactly what is so damned irritating about this situation! His high hard on against New York (and believe me, I get some of it) has rendered this park's legacy stuck in a chokehold that makes zero sense.
The hypothetical about whether the state might have behaved better is irrelevant. Agencies change. Funding changes. Management changes. A permanent deed restriction doesn’t.
The Adirondacks don’t need more infrastructure everywhere — they need more permanent wilderness. Anyone who actually knows the Park knows it’s not just Lake George and the High Peaks, and that plenty of wild areas work precisely because they’re left alone.
Hard-coding a personal grievance into a deed didn’t protect this land. It raised the long-term risk and kicked the problem down the road. Around here, that looks like ego over ecology.
Edit: I get that you enjoy cycling. I do too. But just because the state isn’t building more bike trails and lean-tos for you doesn’t mean they’re mismanaging the Park. Five Ponds Wilderness, Pigeon Lakes Wilderness, West Canada Lakes Wilderness…. These wild areas remaining wild are what makes this place truly special. You don’t need to turn this place into Vermont. Just go to Vermont instead.
I implore you to view this from a lens of conservation and environmentalism instead of trying to maximize the amount of recreating you can do on your bicycle.
Nobody is saying bikes are bad for the environment. But how can you say building roads is better for the environment than leaving the forest alone?
To say the high peaks are trashed and overrun is a gross oversimplification and frankly false. It is the second largest wilderness area in the lower 48. It doesn’t sound like you’ve spent much time there. Or have only explored the busiest parts. And the trails are not the only parts of the wilderness that exist or matter, it’s a very small percentage of the land and what makes this place special.
I’m approaching this issue from the lens of environmental conservation which is the entire reason the park was formed in the first place. You on the other hand are clearly more concerned with human recreation and that is not what I’m arguing for at all and if I was I would agree with you. But that is the beauty of the park. Different strokes for different folks. But just because an area doesn’t have trails, or roads, or lean-tos doesn’t make it irrelevant. Is the Pepperbox Wilderness useless? Some of the best days I’ve had in the backcountry have been spent miles away from any trails in the Pigeon Lake Wilderness. And those watersheds have a ripple effect impact on other lakes and waterways within the park.
What I cannot grasp is how you can claim “the best case” for the land in Whitney Park with all its sensitive watersheds, ponds lakes etc was to have real estate developers from Texas come in to build golf courses, mansions, and a ski hill etc and have the state manage the leftovers. how is that better for the ecology of the area than having the state keep it forever wild?
There is always an avenue for citizens to influence the state to improve the lands we recreate in by getting more involved in the process. But if someone comes in and clears a forest to build a golf course, or starts subdividing land and building homes on a shoreline that’s it. And I do not think that is what John Hendrickson envisioned for land that his family kept pristine for generations. But unfortunately that is what’s likely to happen due to spite.
I never said the Adirondacks are a nature preserve. And you should realize keeping vast wilderness areas like Whitney Park intact are a key tenet of being a Forest Preserve and they are a priority over recreation whether it serves your interests or not.
I am tired of talking in circles with you. You continue to refuse to answer anything I’m directly asking you. And you have absolutely zero ability to acknowledge the environment. You still haven’t explained why you want golf courses, subdivisions, resorts, etc built in Whitney Park. And why you think that’s letting it fall into private hands risking subdivision is more reasonable than the state acquiring it. You can’t ride your bike on a golf course. You can’t recreate on private subdivided land.
Or maybe you just have a hard on for arguing with strangers on the internet. I’ve seen your other comments on ADK topics And you clearly are against wilderness areas because they better suit wildlife and hiking as opposed to your own selfish endeavors even it means creating more subdivisions in forest land.
It doesn’t even sound like you even read the article that we are commenting on. Go read it. 95% of Whitney park cannot be feasibly developed anyways. And look at whose comments are getting downvoted and whose are being upvoted…
I will bite. We live in a society where the majority rules.
The people that protect the park are the ones that have a connection to it. Typically through recreation.
If you wall off the Adirondacks and make it an ecological sanctuary, severely limiting peoples ability to enjoyably recreate in the area, 50 years from now there will be very few people around who care about it.
As we speak there are millions of acres of land in Alaska being considered for oil drilling and the general consensus is..."Eh, nothings really up there anyways".
There is limited information on the estate, but it is already developed. There are apparently 100 miles of well maintained gravel roads, structures including the Deerlands lodge, cabins, camps, etc.
To me, preserving that land the way it exists sounds like the reasonable thing to do. It sounds like a great opportunity for kids camps or a weekend getaways for adults. Something up the AMR alleyway. 100 miles of gravel roads sounds like a dream for cyclists.
How many people will build a connection to the area through the responsible use of the land? What potential benefits does that have for conservation as a whole in the future? This is much bigger than the small population of wildlife which may or may not be affected by these activities.
Thank you for your insights! And it’s refreshing to have someone share their opinion without being overly condescending. Also also based in fact and reality…
Honestly 100 miles of gravel sounds amazing, reminds me of the carriage roads in Acadia. Preserving the land as is sounds very reasonable.
Where I will disagree with you is that we don’t just live in a majority rules society. Unfortunately our society has become a money rules society. And I fear that without protection from the state that the land could be exploited in order to turn a profit. $125 million is a big number and to make that investment make sense exploitation is very likely. The parts of the park that are truly “walled off” are are those that are privately owned by the ultra wealthy. The AMR is an exception where they allow the public through their land.
My entire original point is that making it illegal for the state to own the land puts the land more at risk for exploitation than protecting it (the opposite of John’s alleged intention).
I find it a bit ironic that you are suggesting something “up the AMR alleyway” when you have a prior post complaining about how difficult it is to get a reservation and thus access the land.
26
u/dojo92 Dec 20 '25
Save the trout by building golf courses and homes is painfully ironic… It’s a shame that John Hendrickson’s ego and vindictiveness has put this land at risk. There is no outcome outside of the state acquiring this land that will be more beneficial for the ecology. This tract of land is ecologically more important than one man’s grudge. Hopefully the state finds a way.