Adirondack Mountain Reserve presses to make system permanent
By Gwendolyn Craig
Trustees of the Adirondack Mountain Reserve in the High Peaks want to keep a pilot reservation system permanent, though the state Department of Environmental Conservation told the Explorer it was not ready to make a decision.
Both trustees and the DEC said year two of the three-year pilot was a success, but acknowledged challenges remain. While AMR registrations doubled this year to 34,000, more than 1,800 people were turned away for not having a reservation.
More education of the system’s existence and better accessibility for those without cars are a couple of things state and AMR leaders are still trying to address. It’s not yet clear what changes could come in 2023 and beyond, but making the system permanent is under discussion.
John Schuler, general manager of the AMR, wrote to several top DEC officials on Aug. 10. He asked Commissioner Basil Seggos, Deputy Director of Natural Resources Katie Petronis and Region 5 Director Joe Zalewski, what “next steps will be or need to be to make our successful pilot program permanent. I know we are all busy and if we wait too long, we will be behind the proverbial eight ball.”
In an interview with the Explorer, Petronis said the system was still in the pilot phase and would not confirm if it would become permanent. When asked about the National Park Service’s decision to end reservations put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic at Yosemite, Petronis said the state wouldn’t necessarily be guided by what’s happening elsewhere. It also wouldn’t use the pandemic to make any long-term decisions. She acknowledged that visitor numbers were down on state lands this year, with some exceptions at swimming holes.
“We’re really going to be guided by what we’re learning through this pilot,” Petronis said. “I know that doesn’t give you a definitive answer. I think we just don’t honestly know yet. We really have to see what we learn from next year.”
The reservation system
The unprecedented reservation system in the Adirondacks is for a 7,000-acre slice of land in the High Peaks. The Adirondack Mountain Reserve (AMR) is off of Route 73 in Keene, privately owned by a group of trustees, who are also members of the Ausable Club. Trustees signed a foot traffic easement with the state in 1978 that allows the public to cross their lands and access popular hikes like the fjord view over Lower Ausable Lake at Indian Head. The property is a gateway to state-owned lands, too, including nearly a dozen High Peaks like Gothics, Dial and Nippletop.
The AMR maintains a parking area and trails. Hikers walk down Ausable Road past the Ausable Club’s golf course and clubhouse, cradled in the bottom of a bowl of High Peaks. Hikers may then sign in at a trail register before passing by an AMR wooden gate that has a trail counter embedded. Down the few miles are branches to various trails, some of which weave into state lands.
The AMR lot used to fill quickly. Cars and hikers lined Route 73, the 55-mile-per-hour main artery through the High Peaks, until the state and Town of Keene started cracking down with parking tickets, no parking signs and blocked pull-offs and offered shuttle buses and now a free reservation system.
In 2021, the state and AMR began a three-year pilot to address traffic and public safety concerns. From May 1 to Oct. 31, AMR visitors must create a free online account at hikeamr.org and book a time slot in advance. While the DEC and AMR call it a parking reservation system, those getting dropped off, biking or arriving by other means must have a reservation. The system does not apply to other trailheads along Route 73.
Origins of the reservations
Communications obtained by the Adirondack Explorer through Freedom of Information Law show the state and AMR haven’t shared the same views on why the system was put in place. Both have stressed it is for public safety, but AMR trustees also want fewer people on their lands. It’s a strategy they hope will protect the area’s natural resources.
Since 1978, AMR has seen a 462% increase in visitors, records show. Trustees were particularly concerned about Indian Head, where they first proposed limiting hiker numbers.
Petronis said the DEC wasn’t surprised that the AMR wanted to impose some sort of restrictions. It had been under discussion for years. But the DEC did not agree to implement a pilot in 2020. Communications show some tense back-and-forth between AMR and DEC over what was allowed in the easement.
RELATED: It’s Debatable: A permit to hike?
Robert Davies, the former director of the DEC’s division of lands and forests, wrote to AMR on July 29, 2020 that “the public should be limited to those times where there is an observed threat either to the public or the property itself. Even in those instances where there is an observed threat, the language contemplates the closure of the trails, paths and footpaths shall be temporary until such time as the threat is mitigated.”
Davies expressed the DEC’s interest in developing a plan “to divert motor vehicle and foot traffic.”
It appears AMR officials were impatient with the DEC’s pace and announced in a letter to Petronis on Sept. 2, 2020 that they would implement their own hiker limits on Columbus Day weekend for the Indian Head trail.
Petronis wrote back that the DEC “did ask that AMR suggest logistics for consideration of a pilot program to reduce possible foot traffic on the AMR trails,” but that “it did not anticipate that such a request was a commitment to implement this plan by the Columbus Day weekend. … DEC needs additional data, studies and time to work on a plan that is most effective to address impacts to natural resources, public safety and the recreation experience, while continuing to provide public access on the property as granted in the FTE (foot traffic easement).”
Petronis and Davies noted in their emails to AMR a clause in the easement requiring both parties’ consent to close or limit access to a trail.
“DEC does not yet have the information it needs to make an informed decision about the access impacts to the property, and is not aware of any immediate adverse environmental impact or public safety issue on the property,” Petronis wrote in the September 2020 letter. “Thus, any decision to limit access at this point may be deemed arbitrary and could subject both DEC and AMR to protracted challenges and criticism.”
AMR: More to Explore
Safety concerns
Petronis provided AMR officials with information she believed DEC would need “to justify such a pilot.” In response, AMR provided visitor numbers every decade starting in 1978. There were 4,500 people then, which spiked to 25,330 in 2018. Club membership has jumped slightly from 317 to 456. During the summer of 2020, AMR saw 6,000 visitors in July and 7,600 visitors in August, up from about 4,400 and 4,900 in July and August of 2019. There was no data in the document about specific natural resource impacts or public safety incidents.
Petronis told the Explorer that forest rangers, police, town and county officials provided many perspectives about the safety concerns on Route 73. Asked about the AMR’s concerns for the Indian Head trail, Petronis said she was at the start of her job with the department during those discussions.
She felt “from a safety perspective, there was just no question,” about the need for a pilot reservation. “Whether or not there has been a marked impact to natural resources based on our level of assessment, we don’t yet know on the AMR property.” While AMR has provided their own information, Petronis said the DEC needs to do a “next level look.”
Permits in the preserves
While AMR is the first location in the Adirondack Park to institute a parking reservation system, forest preserve neighbors to the south in the Catskills’ Peekamoose Valley have had something similar for a few years.
2022 takeaways
Of 10,122 reservations, 6,013 hiking parties showed up this year. According to a news release, 3,801 reservations were canceled, and 3,776 were rebooked
Reservation system staff turned away 1,842 for not having a reservation; 635 of those were in October. The weekend of July 2 and the first two weekends in October saw the most number of people.
The AMR and DEC have one exception for allowing people in without a reservation. In an attempt to give access to people without cars, those with Greyhound bus tickets dated within 24 hours may use that as their ticket to hike. The AMR said fewer than five people used that option this year.
The state and AMR are aware of the nearly 3-mile gap hikers using the bus ticket option have between the Greyhound stop at Keene’s Noonmark Diner and the AMR. That’s another thing the DEC is still looking to improve, Petronis said.
Registrations on the AMR’s website doubled to 34,000, according to a news release. Registrants were from all 62 counties in New York, with Saratoga County having the most at 1,955. Albany and Monroe counties were close seconds. Registrants hailed from all 50 states, as well as four Canadian provinces.
Schuler said the AMR’s financing of a digital outreach campaign has helped spread the word.
“While we have had success getting information out to the hiking community through news coverage, we would still have people show up at the AMR lot saying that they had no idea about the parking reservation system and had traveled from Pennsylvania or Ontario,” Schuler said, in a news release. “We never want anyone to show up not knowing that they need a reservation, so we funded a paid digital media campaign to reach those audiences, and we feel like it made good progress toward informing people.”
Petronis said she’s still concerned about no-shows and people turned away. The DEC and AMR have struggled with the idea of same-day and on-site reservations, Petronis said, because that would defeat the purpose of tamping down vehicle traffic. She hopes it’s something they can address in 2023.
Touting the benefits
In a statement to the Explorer, Schuler said AMR is seeing improvements on their property.
“The solitude of nature has returned,” Schuler wrote. “There is less trash and incidents of camping, building fires, etc. on the property.”
Seggos, in a news release, highlighted the collaboration between AMR and DEC. “We continue using the valuable input shared by hikers, local leaders, and other stakeholders to improve the reservation system to better serve Adirondack visitors and continue to protect the Forest Preserve.”
Petronis is proud of how the pilot has gone so far.
“Everybody at DEC and AMR went into this set of discussions recognizing that these are some of the most loved trails in the park and the High Peaks,” Petronis said. “People need to be able to access them, and we want to make sure that they can do it safely.”
Join a community of people who care about the Adirondacks and essential, independent reporting. We rely on readers’ support to power this journalism. Will you give today, in any amount?
The taxpayers of New York paid AMR $750,000 for the purchase of lands and the easement, yet AMR is dictating the terms of who can use the easement and when. This easement is a public right of way that the public is being prevented from using, except for local residents who get special privileges. Why doesn’t the shuttle bus go there and drop people off?
Where were these concerns when the state encouraged a 462% increase in foot traffic through AMR property over the years? AMR even increased parking years ago to help the situation for hikers. AMR does have the right (as is clearly stated above) to protect its property, but what was DEC doing to minimize damage to AMR trails and the resource? DEC was perfectly happy to keep kicking the can down the road for another 40 years. What other option did AMR have? DEC allowed the situation to fester for decades, and this was the result.
What other option did the AMR have? They had the option to continue honoring their legal agreement with the tax payers of NYS, for one option. The debate should have stopped there. This was never, at any point about “safety” or “trail erosion.” It was 100% about optics and how the AMR doesn’t want “hiker trash” spoiling the scenery for its guests who paid $10k+ to sip tea on the deck in white linen outfits.
Look no further than the shared leadership between AMR and the Adirondack Council to easily spot the agenda. Its not about “protecting our resources,” or “visitor safety,” its about elitism and exclusivity.
Nonsense. My friends and I have always felt comfortable there over the last 40+ years – even before the easement. And a dirtier, sorrier group of hikers couldn’t be imagined. Just because you can’t play Frisbee on the golf greens or sit and drink beers on their front porch doesn’t mean the organization is anti-hiker. If so, why would they have increased hiker parking on their property decades ago? Roadside parking up to their entrance on the narrow road was a liability and risk for emergency vehicles getting through – just like ADK Loj. For many years hikers could actually ride their private bus to the Lakes.
AMR has also done a great job of keeping the trails on their property in very good condition over the last 50 years despite heavy traffic – something DEC definitely cannot say. AMR also is not the ONLY access into the backcountry in the region. If you don’t want to park there, longer routes exist where you don’t need to make reservations during peak season. It is just the best option.
Now if I walked into the main lodge in my stinking, muddy hiking clothes and asked for a membership application, I may have likely been viewed with some derision. Although once one of my group became ill on one of the mountains and got lost, they offered their porch/lobby for DEC and our use while the search/rescue entailed. Its membership requirements are likely still pretty stringent, if one wants to call those requirements elitist or discriminatory, I won’t argue. But that is much different from outdoor enthusiasts respectfully enjoying the trailhead access being reviled as you suggest. I never got that impression at all with any members I had conversations with along the Lake Road. While there are people everywhere who may look askance at a stinky, sweaty, muddy hiker, I feel it is unfair to ascribe this behavior to the AMR as an organization.
Very pleased with the system. It adds some much needed equity of access to the property. No longer necessary are the Hunger Games of other trailheads where only those privileged enough to be able to get there at 6 am are permitted to use it.
Contrary to the complaint above, anyone can use the easement property. Just not everyone all at the same time. I’m sure most people find that eminently reasonable and not at odds with the terms of the easement.
And detractors often choose to ignore the fact that the reservation system is seasonal.
As those who know my previous comments and even an It’s Debatable article in the Explorer & Almanack know, I’m not a big fan of permits before other remedies are really tested. The legality is questionable. As noted above, even the National Park Service is changing its policy on permits in some of its parks. However, if the permit system is going to remain it needs to be modified and improved to better serve the public.
To call it a parking permit is disingenuous to say the least.
Finally, as someone who has hiked every trail leading from the AMR it’s obvious that the trails on their land (below 2000′) are almost all in really good shape. The issues of erosion and bad/old school design occur higher up on Forest Preserve land.
I’m not entirely opposed to this reservation system, but I have a few significant issues with it.
1. There are not enough parking passes being issued. Period. This parking lot allows access to some of the most pristine hiking in the Adirondacks, including trails to Upper and Lower Wolfjaws, Armstrong, Gothics, Sawteeth, Ausable Lake, Indian Head, Fish Hawk Cliffs, Nipple Top, Dial, Bear Den, Gill Brook Trail, Ladies Mile, Bear Den, Round Pond and Noonmark. 70 cars isn’t nearly enough for almost 20 hiking destinations. It’s also not safe – this past summer I hiked the Gothics, Armstrong, Wolfjaws loop and only saw 4 other hikers the entire day.
2. This reservation system doesn’t apply to guests and members of the AMR. If this is going to be a mandate from the state DEC, the reservation systems should apply to everyone, or no one. I realize they’ve paid for their homes on the property – but the right-of-way for all hikers was an agreement/bailout with the state to avoid bankruptcy for the AMR – they should not be the “gatekeepers”. If it becomes a mandate by the state, the parking lot should be maintained by the AMR, the access to the hiking should be the DEC. This effort by the AMR was ONLY to keep this to themselves, and limit outsiders.
3. It’s almost impossible to get a reservation unless it’s made within an hour or two after the access is opened up. This will only be mitigated when more hikers are allowed in. As it is now, the 70 cars the AMR allows (for access to almost 20 destinations) is actually less cars than the parking at Cascade and Porter sees in a single day. How is this fair?
“As it is now, the 70 cars the AMR allows (for access to almost 20 destinations) is actually less cars than the parking at Cascade and Porter sees in a single day. How is this fair?”
Per the easement, the AMR is only legally required to provide 20 spaces. As part of the current system they provide **70**. As a reference, the Garden parking in Keene provides only ~40 for a similar number of destinations. Perhaps I am missing it, but the Garden parking area does not get 1/10th the grousing that the AMR parking does.
I find the constant chorus that the AMR wants to minimize hikers to be inaccurate. It would be better said that they want to avoid a circus free for all. If the AMR’s only focus was to minimize outsiders as you and others seem to claim they would simply provide the bare minimum 20 spaces and then drag their feet in other ways. But the reality is that they have provided more than double the minimum parking for years before this system was implemented. To go back further, they freely let hikers access their lands before the hiker easement was even created.
But there is another way to access the Garden, the shuttle system from Marcy Field. No drop offs allowed at the Ausable Club. Don’t kid yourself. They get this “pilot” system to be permanent, the next thing you’ll see them do, is drop the parking down to the minimum required per the easement.
The shuttle system from Marcy Field operated weekends only for 3 months in 2022. That is not all that great an alternative. The AMR permit system is not even in place for half the year! Past that, there are also other ways to access the AMR land and surrounding peaks.
As for your prediction, I will happily bet that the AMR does no such thing. If anything I can see the lot size and/or number of reservations increasing. Again, they provided 3x the legally required parking for years and years.
Page 4 of the FAQ on the hikeamr.org website clearly states, in no uncertain terms, “This is not a permit system” but the caption to one of your photos says “AMR public safety officer Mitch Ryan was on duty May 2, 2021, checking permits for hikers.”
It’d be great if someone could clarify how a parking reservation system that prohibits not only unreserved vehicles, but also walk-ins and bicycles is different from a permit system.
Their FAQ also states: “You cannot park elsewhere and walk into AMR without a parking reservation.” If I’m not parking on their property, why would I need to make a parking reservation?
If the issue is limited parking, solve for that. If the issue is too many people on the trails, then solve for that. Currently there is no difference between a single hiker who parked at Marcy Field and biked to AMR versus a minivan with 7 passengers. Both users would need a single parking reservation, despite the fact that one is not parking at AMR and has minimal trail impact while the other is parking a vehicle on AMR property and would cause 7x the wear and tear.
The fact is the existing system was created to limit the number of people hiking across the AMR property because they don’t want people there. There is zero evidence the trails in that area are being impacted worse than other much busier areas, and if safety was truly the concern why not just ban all parking and allow all hikers to access the trailhead via the shuttle bus system? No study of either safety or environmental degradation was done and no evidence was presented other than AMR claims of hiker numbers. While at the same time much worse problems are well documented at other trailheads, like at the Adirondack Loj. Fake problems, fake solution, fake equity, fake claims of success. How many people, like myself, tried to get reservations and were unable to at the few times I could go there? It is hard to imagine it is legal when they allow local people special privileges to access what is a state easement, and therefore should be equally accessible to all.
No one is stopping anyone from challenging the AMR/DEC in court. Rather than opponents simply repeating it is “illegal” without an assessment by the courts is just layman’s opinion and folly. As of yet, no one has taken up the challenge to sue AMR/DEC. Is there a reason for that?
1: there certainly are legal challenges but they’re still in the crawl/walk phase because its pretty hard to take on a wealthy pay-to-play which shares is leadership with a wealthy and powerful lobby group who is operating semi-autonomously with NYS’ blessing and has granted itself the authority to be the voice all things ADK in the region’s media publications.
2: “layman’s opinion and folly” is wrong. The legality is actually quite simple to see by reading the agreement between NYS and the AMR. When the easement was “gifted” to NYS it became publicly accessible land, meaning the public now has the right to oversight. AMR did not provide substantial or even real evidence of why they closed the public access for “environmental concerns” when no environmental impact has been published for public review. Why isn’t this presently being aggressively challenged in court”? See #1.
You need to read the entire easement agreement, not just cherry-pick the parts you like. Both parties agreed that the resource was paramount, and either party can place restrictions on usage if it is becoming damaging to the resource, if both parties agree. Now DEC may not have been fully on board with a seasonal reservation system, they also did not stop it – it is an interim trial after all. The agreement to what entails damage and risk are between DEC and AMR, not the general hiking community or other stakeholders not mentioned in the easement. I never saw any language in the easement regarding “public oversight” – whatever that may be.
The next year or so should afford the opportunity for any legal challenges. After all, we don’t know for a fact what plan(s) will be implemented.
I have noticed this too – plenty of folks who are dead certain this is illegal and yet not a single legal challenge has been made public and certainly none have been successful. Somehow all of the legal experts on social media and comment sections know more than the lawyers for the DEC and AMR who were almost certainly involved in the process.
I find it telling to look at the tone and language of the more vocal naysayers. These comments invariably focus on A. a class difference between the AMR/members and the hiking public or B. the perceived illegality of the current system. It must be easier to rally people when the issue is some sort of class warfare issue or ‘fighting for your rights against the man’ rather than ‘oh it is now a little different/harder to hike how i want and when i want’.
AMR permit system is trash.
Like with all these places…. Why don’t they just enforce parking regulations? That should be the limitation on how many people can use it at the same time. I see the state police and the dec law enforcement people drive past all the people parked illegally at the ampersand/middle Saranac trail heads all summer long??? I don’t think all this other stuff is necessary. The state (getting cheered on by environmental groups) buys up all this other land that nobody really cares about using. Instead of buying all that just use the funds to enforce the rules for what we already have.
Paul,
Obviously this was the plan for half a century at most trailheads. But ask yourself honestly, which would be more cost effective and conducive to tourism – strict first-come-first-served parking limitations with all others being towed, or a reservation system? Handing out tickets to cars illegally parked would rapidly just become the charge for a day’s hike and not eliminate any safety issues.
Parking lot restrictions still work fairly well for many trailheads throughout the Park, but what to do with the ones that are habitually overcrowded and perhaps unsafe during peak season? The reservation system is not ideal, but is there an option out there that will make all stakeholders happy? No.