It turns out the local story about Cedarlands has been wrapped up into a much larger, national story put together by a collection of Hearst newspapers. The Albany Times Union has a full roundup here . For those interested mainly in the Cedarlands part , check here.

The San Francisco Chronicle has picked up the story, and so has the Seattle Post-Intelligencer . The stories overlap by about 80-90%.  The have all sorts of stuff about scouts in general, as well as stories about scout land usage all across America.

For my part, I’d like to offer two quick corrections…

• I am not the scoutmaster for our troop. I’m only the Assistant scoutmaster.
• It was a Cherokee, not a Cessna.

By comparison, it seems that what happened at Cedarlands wasn’t nearly as bad as what’s happened to other camps. Lucky us.

So, with this as inspiration, I’m hoping to get back in the game.  I’ll try over the next few weeks to finally get that list of questions over to my friend Mark Miller and see what kind of responses we get.

I have excitedly visited Cedarlands since 1984 only missing two years, what I experienced this year (2008) appalled and greatly saddened me.

The fresh cool breezes around base camp of untouched forests that enchanted me since the first moment I visited them were missing. All around me was the smell of spilled petroleum, wide logging paths, scarred trees, trampled plant life; most every large tree removed leaving a hot and sunny faint shadow of a once unspoiled wilderness.

The land managed by Boy Scouts should follow basic principals taught by Boy Scouts; has any Boy Scout managing Cedarlands ever heard of the Boy Scout Forestry Badge or Leave NO Trace? I really thought the objective of Scouting is to empower people, spreading a higher level of knowledge of our environment; now it seems they must save us from the dangerous trees and dangerous people.

There are extremely valid fire safety and expansion arguments to clear designated sections of the forest but not using most every inch of land they “protect” as a cash crop. The forest will grow back but without its natural look and original ecosystem; trees, plants, animals, soil, water and rocks have all been altered by man in a manner that can not be undone within anyone’s lifetime. Forest fires and natural events can wipe a forest clean but on nature’s terms, most plants and animals having built in responses to natural events. What impact does man have on an environment when rearranging every aspect of it?

Great care should be taken to responsively develop and encourage more visitors to this Adirondack jewel in a manner that follows the Boy Scout principles, not mismanaged need for money betraying the very principals they teach. The Scouts have done their best in past years but have all but abandoned Scout principals with the current rearrangement of the forest they manage, even betraying the motto of the Adirondack Park “Forever Wild”. My only hope is that the damage apparent to anyone that visits this land can use what they see all around them as an example of what NOT to do!

"Since1984" was kind enough to also provide photos of what Cedarlands looked like in August , which I’ve posted on the main Cedarlands News site.

There was no easy way to purge the excess votes. The best I could come up with was to remove all but the most recent vote from each incoming IP address. Once done, the results looked the image on the left (at least as of July 20th, 2008).

If anybody wants to just view an updated summary of the poll, click here.

Because of the selfishness and childishness of a few, I’ve been forced to put in some rules that will affect us all (ain’t that the way it goes?). Specifically, each IP address can only register a single vote every several days. This means that shared computers, such as what you’d normally find at a home or library, will only be able to vote once a week or so.

In theory, this should not be that much of an impact. People on all sides of the issue are subject to the same set of rules, so it should balance out more or less. Will this stop the abuse? Probably not. There will always be a class of arrogant and obnoxious people who will do their best to shout down everyone else. They believe rules are made for others to follow. So be it.

So…

We recently had a chance to visit the Cedarlands Scout Reservation to review the recent timber harvest and ascertain compliance with the terms of the Conservation Easement.

There are two sections of the conservation easement that are pertinent to the tree cutting that occurred.  One is Article III, which allows for trees to be cut as part of forest management of the property. The harvesting must follow a forest management plan, which the Department has already approved.  The other section of the easement that pertains to tree cutting is Article IV, section 3.  Among other things, this section generally prohibits tree cutting, but provides for several conditions when it is allowed.  Two of the conditions where vegetation may be removed are: 1)"dead, dying or diseased trees or trees which present an imminent safety hazard" and 2)"to maintain and construct the roads, trails, and structures, and so as to be able to undertake the uses allowed within the Base Camp Area".

After a visit to the property the Department has concluded that the tree cutting that occurred over the winter and early spring does comply with the restrictions established in the conservation easement.  The majority of the tree cutting was done has part of the forest management plan and followed stand prescriptions developed by professional foresters contracted by the Revolutionary Trails Council, BSA.  The harvesting appeared to be done well.  No problems with erosion were noted and there was only minor damage to residual trees, all of which could be expected in a commercial harvest of this nature.

Some portions of the base camp area were not logged according to the forest management plan.  In these areas the tree removal was done as part of the maintenance of the facilities and improvements on the land that are used a Boy Scout camp.  In these locations plenty of quality trees remain which indicates that the cutting was done in a sustainable and reasonable manner.  Trees appeared to be removed in order to maintain existing campsites, buildings, facilities, and roads.  Trees were also removed for the construction of two new structures, expansion of existing campsites, and the opening of new utility roads in the Base Camp Area.  Trees were removed from the vicinity of campsites to increase the amount of light reaching the sites.   A few trees, especially near buildings, were removed because they were considered hazards by the Council.  A log landing in the base camp area has subsequently been converted to use as a parking lot.

Based on our observations during this site visit, the Department does not believe that the real property rights the State of New York holds under the terms of the Conservation Easement have been violated.  Thank you again for bringing your concerns to our attention.

Kristofer A. Alberga
Supervising Forester
NYS, Dep’t of Environmental Conservation
Division of Lands & Forests, Region 5
1115 NYS Route 86
PO Box 296
Ray Brook, NY  12977
(518) 897-1291
(518) 897-1370  FAX
kaalberg@gw.dec.state.ny.us
Member - Society of American Foresters
Master Educator, Leave No Trace, Inc.

First and foremost, I’d like to thank Mr. Alberga for his time and expertise on this matter.  Much appreciated.  As I’ve tried to make clear from the outset, the goal of these web pages has been to learn more about what happened at Cedarlands, and to share what I learn with others.

From what I gather from the note above, it’s pretty clear that the logging that occured matched the approved plan rather well.  Everything that happened, happened within the bounds of the law… nobody took undue liberties in that regard.  This is no real surprise.  As I noted early on with this web site, I was confident that everything came down within the rules.  Mr. Alberga’s note confirms that.

Some questions still remain, however, but I’ll be posting those in a separate note.

One outcome of the meeting was that we all agreed that a lot more communication is possible regarding the decisions that lead up to the logging / harvesting of Cedarlands.  Marybeth suggested that we work together to put up a FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) page.  I think this is a fantastic idea.  Anything that will help dialog on this topic is good.

Towards that end, I volunteered to serve as both a clearing house for the questions, and as a publishing house for the answers to be provided by the council.  So…

• Feel free to post questions here, as a comment/reply to this post, or…
• Feel free to e-mail me directly with questions you’d liked asked

Not everybody wants their identity to be known.  (As measured by the attacks some have levied against me or the troop I work with, I can understand why.) If you want to remain anonymous, that’s perfectly fine by me; I’ll be sure to give your questions the same visibility and will not disclose anything about how I heard from you.

Working together with the folks from council, we welcome any and all questions related to the Cedarlands events.  The questions can be fast-pitch hardballs, or softballs with a gentle lob.  The goal here is open communication.

To start the ball rolling, I’ll toss out these…

• What’s the next area to be harvested?  What’s the sequence after that?
• When did this topic first come up?
• What’s attendance like at Cedarlands this year?  How’s that compare with the past several years?  Ditto for Russell and Kingsley, please, for comparison.
• What percentage of scouters during the summer come from in council vs out of council?
• How much money was raised from the sale of Watch Rock?  From the Easement with NY?
• Why was the Base Camp area harvested first?

It turns out, I’ve already learned the answer to some of the above, but am asking the questions here so that council can more easily share the answers with the rest of the reading community.

After a reasonable list has been formed (anonymously or publicly), I’ll provide it back to Bill, Mark, and Marybeth, and they’ll work to generate a full response which will be posted here for review and comment.

My thanks in advance to all.

I looked at the underlying records of the polling data and discovered that there has been a lot of ballot box stuffing going on by the same people who believe that the logging was a right and just thing to do.  Yes, it’s true that I did not put huge protections and warnings in place, telling people to only vote once.  I kinda thought that was somewhat implied.  Silly me.

For example, for the roughly 30 days I’ve had the polls in place, I find that…

• Somebody at IP address 208.105.228.131 felt they had to pollute the survey by voting in favor of the logging 11 times.
• Some clown with 24.59.44.17 as an IP address felt that their pro-council, pro-logging opinion merited 10 votes, not just one.
• The person at 74.71.47.135 was just about as insistent, having voted 9 times in favor of the logging.

It goes on. … And on. … And on.

Lovely.

These are the same people who provide personal attacks against my intent and honesty.  I’ve invited and welcomed open and fair discourse on this issue, and have done no censoring whatsoever to any comments posted on this forum.

I’m sorry, but the credibility of the pro-logging, pro-council people has taken a significant hit because of these adolescent actions.  So go ahead children, work yourselves into a lather again, complaining that the one with an agenda.  Take shots at the messenger.  It’s easier to do this than to step back and question your leadership or actions.

In the mean time, I’ll try to button things up a bit to slow down the ballot box stuffing and to clean out the debris these people have left in their wake.

In the mean time, however, it may worthwhile to hear from other corners. I’ve received quite a number of supportive and encouraging e-mails from people. Unfortunately, nearly all of them have asked that I not mention their names or any identifying information, as they are very concerned about their ability to stay in good standing with the Scout Council. I understand that some blistering notes have already circulated, telling people to not participate in the discussion here.

An excellent conversation has formed on the ADK Forum. The link here will direct you to the right thread.

www.adkforum.com/showthread.php?t=9021

To get the full copy of the conversation, I’d encourage you all to read there directly. In the mean time though, here are some worthwhile excerpts…

From backwoodsman …

I hope the scout counsil got their moneys worth, what exactly are they trying to teach the kids, stewardship?

From Lute Hawkins …

Many councils are strapped for money, but this campground looks like a friggin ****hole wasteland. If I was still in scouting, I’d never visit it now. Whose idea was this and who are they accountable to? [...]

Fisher 39 wrote…

My guess is that they put the land into 480a to take advantage of a very, very significant property tax break (around 80%, I believe) to keep it affordable [...] Without taking a walk through site, it is tough to see whether or not the logging was done in a responsible manner, but presumably the folks making the decision made sure they hired a good forester and contractor. [...] Sure, it looks bad now, but in a few years you can look forward to abundant warblers flitting through saplings this time of year, grouse exploding from the thick growth, and more wildlife overall.

DSettahr provided a particularly detailed and thoughful note, which read in part…

It was a mistake by whoever wrote the management plan (assuming they have one) to not leave a buffer zone around the camp infrastructure. [...] That whoever planned this harvest out would not take this into account is a shame, and it gives a bad name to the rest of us foresters. [...] While the aesthetic quality of the camp has regrettably been reduced, the forest will grow back, and as ADKHUNTER stated, there are additionally opportunities use this situation for educational purposes. [...] Yes, there were some mistakes made in this situation, but I am sure that there was no ill intentions by any of those involved. The BSA were wrong to allow harvesting to occur in the midst of the camp’s infrastructure, and to (apparently, I’m just guessing here) not consult with or take into account the opinions of those who use the camp and placed value in the forest simply being present before deciding to move ahead with the harvest. However, those who use the camp should also realize that the forest will grow back, and that timber production is an established and justified use of forested lands.

Lute Hawkins added…

I understand about the need to thin forests out from time to time and the various reasons why. But from the pictures, the place looks like a potential mudhole with little scenery in the main camping areas. [...]
I would think in a BSA campground, part of the attraction is the dense woods. Yes the trees will grow back, but I wonder if that $80,000 will cover the drop in revenue for the next 10 years, while troops go elsewhere until it does grow back…

Wldrns closed with…

I knew this was in the planning works for Cedarlands at least 3 years ago, through meetings and contacts with the council executive and camping committees. The Revolutionary Trails Council has been in financial trouble ever since they merged with (rather absorbed) the much smaller but well run General Herkimer Council several years ago. Actually they were in trouble well before that. The council owns a number of land holdings scattered in other areas, even beyond the three major core camps including Cedarlands. The only money maker after the merger was Camp Russell (previously run by GHC), but now attendance there is significantly down to nearly half from what it was a short time ago. They’ve selectively logged the area around Kingsley for years, though not to the clear cut extent now evident at Cedarlands. And within the past couple of years ago much of the timber adjacent to Russell has disappeared. You’d be further surprised at proposed plans to sell other pristine holdings, and to continue cutting back the quality of what until recently (IMO) was a very high quality scouting program. Some would say the scouting executives are eating their seed corn that was originally meant to sustain the future.

Again, I would encourage people to review the original postings on the site linked to above. I’ve only included here the parts that I felt were most relevant to our concerns.

Comments anyone?

I’ve contacted both Mark Miller and Tom Labayewski, pointing them to this web site, and encourage them both to participate in the discussions. On 5/19, mark wrote back…

Thank you John, nice site! Some day soon I’ll help provide the answers you seek. First, lets see how many folks are incited and what they have to say.

While we wait for Tom or Mark to join in directly, I thought that I’d post relevant parts of some of their e-mails to me. I’m taking best effort to keep their replies in the proper context, and will be willing to forward along the full e-mail to those that ask (politely).

On 5/19, after viewing the photo section of this site, Tom wrote in the following…

The Chapel was condemned 4 years ago. At a work weekend volunteers went to put a new roof on and almost went thru it. The fact that it took 4 years to take down shows the limited amount of volunteer help we have and that other projects were of a higher priority. A close examination of the buildings sill shows the rot that went completely thru. If I have my stories straight the building was built with lumber salvaged from the barns that were located on the property in 1960’s.

I appreciate the input here - thanks. My photos of the old chapel were not meant to imply that it’s collapse was a direct result of the logging. The area near the waterfront was largely untouched by the logging effort, as can be noticed in the aerial photos of the camp . Even so, I do hope that some of the $80k received from the logging will help go to re-build the structure.

I’ll add more to this post as time and interest allow and dictate respectively. In the mean time, I look forward to Tom or Mark to join in directly to help explain what’s happened here.

Earlier today, Karen Cornmire forwarded a copy of a note which Tom sent out after receiving my query. I’ve included it below…

Subject: Cedarlands Beaver Weekend
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 9:21 PM
From: Tom Labayewski
To: All Scout Leaders

Your help is needed to get camp ready for this Summer. The Council is hosting a work weekend May 30-June 1^st . Projects include campsite clean-up, tent outrigger construction, carpentry, plumbing, waterline repair, painting, and general clean-up. To register call 315-735-4437. Pre-registration will allow us to properly plan for food (Saturday night steak dinner for the meat eaters).

Housing is on a first come first serve basis, you may also pitch your tent, there’s a great view by the chimney. The Cedarlands Alumni Organization will also be having their annual meeting.

Come enjoy a day of fellowship and work as we prepare camp for 2008.

Thomas M. Labayewski
Council Program Director
Revolutionary Trails Council Inc. BSA
1401 Genesee Street
Utica, NY 13501
w 315-735-443 ext. 215
f 315-735-9184

For reasons that aren’t clear, I was not on the original distribution list for the above. Go figure.
I’m sure it was just an oversight.

I’d greatly appreciate it if people who go would please take photos and send in commentary. I’ll do what I can to post on their behalf.

On a different note, I’d like to encourage readers to check out the Friends of Cedarlands site at Cedarlands.org . It is a volunteer organization dedicated to helping out the camp. From a note sent to me…

To join go to Cedarlands.org and go to the application page. Fill out the application and mail it to the council office. Dues are $20 a year, but, I am going to recommend at out meeting next week that dues drop town to 5-10 dollars. We are there to provide money for things that the council does not have the founds to buy such as sail boats, boats, guns and other things that will add to boys experience at camp. We are also having a reunion weekend at camp- I do not know the exact date but it will be on the website.

I think this is a fine idea, and have already told them that I will be joining.

After a little thinking, I decided to create this site to address four needs:

To vent.

Yup. Sorry. But, it’s the truth. I’m human. I can’t help but look at what happened to the camp and get upset. I’ll do my best to keep that in check as I write these posts, or make notes on the photos and such, but you can fully expect that some of my attitude here is going to leak through.

To learn more.

Rather than just stay upset, though, I decided that I had to learn more. Here’s a list of open questions that I hope to get resolution to:

• Who brought this about?
• Why did they feel this was necessary?
• How well thought out was this process?
• How open was this process?
• Is this what people expected to happen?
• What’s the long term plan?
• How well connected is the plan to the result?

Maybe, if I hear from the right people, I’ll be able to look at this more objectively. Maybe I’m way off base here, and this logging is okay after all. maybe the people who made this happen really didn’t have any good alternatives. Is this the best that can be made of a bad situation? Is this not bad at all, and I’m just un-informed?

Who knows? That’s why I’m asking. I really do want this to be more than just a forum for gripes and whining. I am actively looking for informed and involved parties to participate. (I should note that towards that end, Mark Miller has been very forthright and communicative. He’s been quite generous with providing me with every piece of documentation I’ve asked for. Kudos!)

To share what I learn.

Whatever lessons can be learned here should be openly shared with others. Let’s put all of this on the table for all to view. I can’t be the only person to be surprised by this, and I’d hate to see the reactions of people who will be coming back to Cedarlands expecting the same old camp, and finding it to be very, very different.

I’ve been told that every troop that visited Cedarlands last summer was made aware that this logging would occur. If that’s the case, then this site is just redundant. So be it. No harm done then, eh?

Another purpose here is to perhaps have this site serve as a guide to other councils around the country. They should be able to look here and see what happened. Learn from all the good points, and take guidance from things that could have gone a little smoother.

To bring greater oversight, and if necessary, maybe help change the outcome.

It’s possible that in the discussions that result from these web pages, some other solutions may present themselves. Y’never know. I’d like to keep open the option that if indeed things are not going well at Cedarlands, if things are not turning out to the benefit of the scouts and the camp, that maybe we still have opportunity to adjust the outcome.

Honestly, I feel I have to try. Because if what happened to the first 200 acres is foreplay to what’s about to happen to the remaining 3,000 acres, we’re in deep trouble.