FacebookTwitterInstagram Youtube
Adirondack Explorer

7 Responses

  1. It’s apparent that the author has never actually been on Lower Saranac. Since my retirement in 2002, I’ve been on the lake several times a day from May through October. I don’t recognize the lake described in his article. When I am fishing, I often see more paddlers than motor boats. But the author didn’t contact me despite being given my name, probably because that would have upset his chosen narrative. I type this in my boat on Saturday of Labor Day weekend, and there’s not a boat in sight on the lake. Go figure.

    • Roger J Jette says:

      I have to agree Peter, a careful and thorough perusal of the Google satellite image which because the date taken is unknown must be considered as a random day and time (green trees indicate summer) does not show one single active boat on the water, not even a paddle vessel. I only paddle the lake anymore and don’t have any problems with the power squadron, not near as much as I have in Utah where I live now.

    • Peter says:

      Peter , I agree! I was just there for 10 days paddled ALL the Saranac lakes , boat traffic was negligible. Someone always wants to take control of public places , etc.

  2. Roger J Jette says:

    In your own series of photo’s there are a total of 4 boats shown that are not in a Marina and the Marina is almost at capacity with Docked boats, boats technically on the lake, but not really on the lake.
    You also must account the area of middle Saranac lake into the equation as there is access to it through the lock as well as access to Flower and Kiwassa and Oseetah.
    I know Jack, studied under him, but his opinion is not scientifically founded. I can understand him not wanting expansion near his property, but it is state land and public land and motorboats are historically part of the lake and should be. I will be there next week and form my own opinion of the difference I see from my time on the lake 30 years ago when Skip Wilcox and I would leave Water Hole 3 at 1am and make the run to Weller pond lean-to.

  3. Dave MacDougall says:

    This is an example of shoddy and disingenuous journalism by Mr. Rowland which begins with a false equivalence. There is no connection between the congestion produced by lack of parking at trailheads and situation out on the lake.

    He then continues with what amounts to a hit piece by using the prejudicial term “party barge”. Most pontoon boat users, like myself, are not getting drunk, playing loud music or using the lake as a restroom. He claims a change in “boating behavior” based on what, the biased opinion of some of the wealthy landowners along the lake who would prefer the lake be for their private enjoyment.

    It’s true, that we can find selfish people who place their own enjoyment above that of others in any population, power boat owners and wealthy landowners are not exceptions.

    Mr. Rowland then uses another false equivalence and scare tactic by comparing “Lake George standards” to traffic on Lower Saranac. By any standards, by the author’s own admission traffic on Lower Saranac is reasonable.

    It is a wonderful lake, as Mr. Drury says, one that should be available to all, not just those fortunate enough to own lakefront property. Are we to believe Mr. Drury is an unbiased observer because of his experience as a guide despite his being a lake landowner.

    Mr. Drury calls for more data but really just wants more speculation by “experts” like himself. Let’s be honest here. This is all about delaying the marina project until the investors give up and sell the property thereby depriving locals and tourists of easy lake access. “The APA is closing in on carrying capacity reports, but the finished product is probably still a couple of years away.(Yes we all know how fast the APA moves.)” Conservationists hope the boat isn’t already out of the boathouse by then.” LOL, by the “Conservationists” you mean those who own land on the lake.

    I’m not a math whiz but Mr. Rowland says the marina would have room for 300 boats after expansion with 16% boats out from the marina on a peak day. That is 32 not the 48 he claims. He then continues that during a peak day, like the 4th that 173 boats all told would be on the lake. I was out most of that week including the 4th and being retired am out there a majority of the nice days this summer and never saw even a third that many boats on the water even when including canoes and kayaks.

    It also shows the effect of the state’s expanded Second Pond boat launch, which has room for 100 boats—most all of which, presumably, are out on the lake. You know what they say about assumptions. The author tries to exaggerate the effects of the 2nd pond boat launch as well. I drive by there and have never seen boat trailers parked on the roadside but then I’m not one of the observers the author chose to speak with, most likely because he was given my name by Mr. Damp as an someone who uses the lake frequently. Mr. Rowland wants only those voices who support his agenda.

    I don’t know what Ms. Duvall is talking about but I see many paddlers out there even myself on occasion and have never had or seen any of them have difficulties because of a motorized boat. Maybe there are more people out there than 15 years ago but “terrible” is a gross exaggeration to the point of meaninglessness. There are a number of non-motorized lakes if Ms. Duvall wants that experience.

    “Drury, who has lived on the lake since 1972, said opposition to expansion isn’t a NIMBY, or “not-in-my-backyard,” issue.” Of course that’s exactly what it is.

    • Dave MacDougall says:

      Sorry for the repeat. After I tried to post the first time it was rejected by the moderator. So I offered a another version and it was posted. Now, the next day the site has posted my first post as well. Go figure.

  4. Dave MacDougall says:

    I’ll begin by disclosing my own bias up front. I have a pontoon boat (pejoratively called a “party barge”) by Mr. Rowland. I wish the author would also disclose his bias because it is apparent from the article that he has one. He begins with a false equivalence. There is no connection between the congestion produced by lack of parking at trailheads and situation out on the lake.

    Most pontoon boat users, like myself, are not getting drunk, playing loud music or using the lake as a restroom. He claims a change in “boating behavior” based on what, the biased opinion of SOME of the landowners along the lake who would prefer the lake be for their private enjoyment.

    Mr. Rowland then uses another false equivalence and scare tactic by referencing “Lake George standards” in regard to traffic on Lower Saranac. By any standards, and by the author’s own admission traffic on Lower Saranac is reasonable.

    It is a wonderful lake, as Mr. Drury says, one that should be available to all, not just those fortunate enough to own lakefront property. Are we to believe Mr. Drury is an unbiased observer because of his experience as a guide despite his being a lake landowner.

    Let’s be honest here. This is all about delaying the marina project until the investors give up and sell the property thereby depriving locals and tourists of easy lake access. “The APA is closing in on carrying capacity reports, but the finished product is probably still a couple of years away.(Yes we all know how fast the APA moves.)”

    The author speculates that during a peak day, like July 4th that “173 boats all told would be on the lake”. I was out most of that week including the 4th and being retired was out there a majority of the nice days this summer and never saw even a third that many boats on the water even when including canoes and kayaks.

    The author tries to exaggerate the effects of the 2nd pond boat launch as well. I drive by there and have never seen boat trailers parked on the roadside but then I’m not one of the observers the author chose to speak with, most likely because he was given my name by Mr. Damp as an someone who uses the lake frequently. Mr. Rowland wants only those voices who support his agenda.

    I don’t know what Ms. Duvall is talking about but I see many paddlers out there even myself on occasion and have never had or seen any of them have difficulties because of a motorized boat. Maybe there are more people out there than 15 years ago but “terrible” is a gross exaggeration to the point of meaninglessness.

    “Drury, who has lived on the lake since 1972, said opposition to expansion isn’t a NIMBY, or “not-in-my-backyard,” issue.” Of course not, it never is. Is it?

Leave a Reply