The earth’s warming is unprecedented in recent geologic history. Decades of research from climate scientists and policy reforms from world leaders have not been enough to stop the abrupt warming of the planet. The Kyoto Protocol, where 38 countries failed to meet their targets, and the Paris Agreement, which might not meet its goal to hold the rise in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, might not be enough in saving our planet (Maizland, 2021). With only 150 years of data and an enormous uncertainty of the future, the solution to climate change could be more complicated than the problem itself.

The Paris Climate Agreement was one of the few revolutionary climate conventions that aimed to limit global warming. It vowed to restore 344 million hectares of forests and considered planting trees viable to mitigate climate change (Frost,2020). However, some research suggests that forests have warming effects and many more-complex and uncertain climate impacts (Popkin, 2019).

One problem with trees is that forested land surfaces are darker than most land with grass or snow. Since dark surfaces absorb more heat, a land filled with trees will trap a lot of the heat from the Sun and increase the local temperature of a place. As a result, in some regions, specifically with snow, planting more trees could result in net warming (Marshall, 2020).

An analysis of the amount of carbon dioxide sequestered by a tree on dailykos.com states that planting one trillion trees overnight can only be half of the present human emissions (Holloway, 2019). Considering the world has about 3.04 trillion trees right now, planting a trillion trees would be an ambitious project that would not be significant to stop global warming over the long term.

Droughts and land degradation are consequences of global warming. One of the countries severely affected by this problem is China, where 27.4 percent of its land is desertified land (Petri, 2017). To combat its expanding deserts, China implemented the Three-North Shelterbelt Project to plant millions of trees along the 2800 mile border of the northern encroaching desert (Petri, 2017).

On the other hand, research in 2016 has shown that the new ecosystems formed as a result of the Three-North Shelterbelt Project- planting millions of trees along the 2800 mile border of the northern encroaching desert in China (Petri, 2017)- absorb the water from rainfall and reduce the amount that ends up in the rivers. Furthermore, scientists are worried that planting more trees could further worsen water scarcity and worsen the droughts in China (Zastrow, 2019).

I am, by no means, suggesting stopping efforts to combat deforestation, but trees can only help us slow climate change; they can’t reverse climate change by themselves. Regions like the Adirondack are crucial in absorbing carbon dioxide and slowing the earth’s warming. However, the climate will keep changing for decades, which could also affect patterns of tree growth. Instead of relying on these carbon sinks, our goals should stop emitting the primary sources of greenhouse gases. Trees can be a stopgap until countries transition from fossil fuels and other sources of greenhouse gases to greener, reliable alternatives. Climate change is a problem of the modern world, and the solutions proposed today could have repercussions over the long term.

Citations:

Maizland, Lindsay. “Global Climate Agreements: Successes and Failures.” Council on Foreign Relations, 21 Nov. 2017, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/paris-global-climate-change-agreements.

Popkin, Gabriel. How Much Can Forests Fight Climate Change? 15 Jan. 2019, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00122-z.

Marshall, Michael. Planting Trees Doesn’t Always Help with Climate Change. 26 May 2020, https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200521-planting-trees-doesnt-always-help-with-climate-change.

Holloway, R. “About That Climate-Mitigation/Tree-Planting Study That Seems Too Good to Be True…” Daily Kos, 6 July 2019, https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/7/6/1869929/-About-that-climate-mitigation-tree-planting-study-that-seems-too-good-to-be-true.

Petri, Alexandra E. “China’s ‘Great Green Wall’ Fights Expanding Desert.” National Geographic, 4 May 2021, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/china-great-green-wall-gobi-tengger-desertification.

Zastrow, Mark. “China’s Tree-Planting Drive Could Falter in a Warming World.” Nature News, Nature Publishing Group, 23 Sept. 2019, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02789-w#ref-CR5.

Growing up on the hills in Kathmandu showed me breathtaking scenery that I thought existed only in books. Nine thousand feet above the sea level was my room in the Shivapuri hills, where I would often lookout to see the majestic beauty of the hills that surrounded my room. The bright shades of blue and clouds that ruffled in ripples would brighten up the entire landscape until the day of its arrival. The infernal blaze would transform the beauties of the woods into hot ribbons of light, and by the time the first morning light hit the smog, the forest would have disappeared.

A few weeks after studying the Adirondack mountains, I learned how the fires, that I had seen turn landscapes into ashes, could benefit the same landscape. It turns out that farmers, across centuries, believed that ashes from burnt trees increase soil nutrients, which would increase their yield. This belief was the building foundation of an agricultural practice known as Slash-and-Burn.

Although considered primitive, Slash and Burn still prevail in subsistence farming to grow a range of crops over a long period. In regions with declining forest coverages, like the Adirondack in the past, practicing Slash-and-Burn had many repercussions because setting out fires in parcels of land would light up entire forests through the dried slash left over from logging operations.

Controlling the magnitude and intensity of a forest fire is highly challenging. Even with slight carelessness, it is only a matter of a few minutes until habitats for hundreds of plants and animals will vanish. During summer, when the rain is the heaviest in the Adirondack region, there would be no longer be trees to canopy the soil or hold the ground firmly with its roots, which would cause soil erosion and landslides. Moreover, turning woods into ashes comes at a high cost of carbon dioxide, increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

The Adirondack mountains can be said to be a mountain shaped by fires. It has a long history of disastrous fires, including the fires around Lake Placid in 1903 and the Long Lake West fire in 1908 (“Forest Succession in the Adirondacks”, n.d.). Such fires initiate succession- the change in either species composition or vegetation architecture through time (Davis, 2019). Much of the Adirondack forest that we see today is a result of succession. When fire removes canopy, shrubs, grasses like prairies can thrive from receiving adequate sunlight and nutrients from the ashes. Some animals, such as deers, require these areas for living. Similarly, woodpeckers, sparrows, rattlesnakes, and other animals also benefit from the early phase after burning the woodlands (National Geographic, 2021). Besides providing the nutrients to the soil, fires would also get rid of invasive species such as ticks, which will give the wildlife a new, more suitable environment to grow.

Similar to planned forest fires, slash-and-burn is one of the most controversial techniques of agriculture. Many conservationists are against slash-and-burn because it has consistently led to forest fires over the years. Despite having some benefits to ecological systems, no forest burnt through slash and burn can recover back to its original state within a human’s lifetime. Slash and Burn agriculture could have long-term benefits, but today’s evidence shows that the raging forest fires are not helping the planet’s biodiversity.

Citations:

Davis, Ben. “What Is Plant Succession?” MVOrganizing, 19 Apr. 2019, https://www.mvorganizing.org/what-is-plant-succession/.

“Forest Succession in the Adirondacks.” Adirondack Forest Succession, shorturl.at/bfuE7.

“How Wild Animals Cope with Wildfires.” Environment, National Geographic, 4 May 2021, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/150914-animals-wildlife-wildfires-nation-california-science.

The summer of 2018 was the first time I calculated my carbon footprint. Disheartened I was, knowing that the world would need 2.1 Earths if everyone had a similar carbon footprint to mine. Carbon footprint is the amount of greenhouse gases produced through our daily activities and mitigating the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions through buying offsets, which will help reduce emissions somewhere else in the world, known as carbon offsetting. For example, suppose a steel company in New York City wants to reduce the impacts of their greenhouse gas emissions. In that case, they can buy an offset for shares of a project that would reduce a comparable amount of carbon dioxide in the Adirondack Region. Implementing some form of carbon offset scheme is extremely important in the Adirondack region.

One may wonder why a firm would purchase carbon offsets rather than reduce its emissions. After reaching low levels of carbon emissions, reducing carbon emissions comes at a hefty cost. Rather than using the money to cut negligible emissions, the firm may use that amount to purchase offsets for projects that would reduce higher levels of carbon dioxides.

In the Adirondack region, carbon offset projects could exist in three types: Forestation, Green Energy, and Energy-from-Waste[ 4 Types of Carbon Offset Projects, 2020]. To offset their GHG emissions, industries in the Adirondack region can invest in forestation projects to increase the carbon captured by new trees. Similarly, enterprises can also invest in projects that build solar, hydro, or other renewable energy sites to decrease the overall dependence on fossil fuels and the GHGs emitted by their use. Energy-from-Waste projects also help offset carbon emissions by converting gases released as a byproduct to energy. For example, biogas digesters can convert the greenhouse gases emitted from landfills in the Adirondack region into electricity[ 4 Types of Carbon Offset Projects, 2020].

The Adirondack Council has a carbon offset scheme known as the Carbon Reduction Certificate Program. Under this scheme, the Council will retire a carbon emission allowance for every purchase of a carbon reduction certificate of $25[“Carbon Reduction Certificate Program.”, n.d. ]. Reducing a carbon allowance means that the industry will permanently lose its right to produce a certain amount of carbon dioxide, ultimately decreasing the C02 emissions. Implementation of such schemes forces industries to consider alternatives such as green energy to be within their carbon limit.

Carbon offset provides an opportunity to industries that want to mitigate their contributions to climate change. It is also a cheaper alternative to offset the overall greenhouse gas emission in a particular region. The New York State has aimed to reduce 15% of emissions through offset projects to achieve net-zero emissions by 2015[Roberts, 2019]. Carbon offsets schemes in the Adirondack region will play a vital role in achieving this aim, mainly because it covers 34% of the state. Thus, it is undeniable that such schemes are needed to protect the environment of the Adirondack Forest and the entire state of New York.

Calculate your carbon footprint: https://www.footprintcalculator.org/home/en

Citations:

Carbon Reduction Certificate Program. Adirondack Council. (n.d.). https://www.adirondackcouncil.org/page/carbon-reduction-certificate-program-189.html.

4 types of carbon offset projects. EIC. (2020, December 2). https://www.eic.co.uk/4-types-of-carbon-offset-projects/.

Roberts, D. (2019, June 20). New York just passed the most ambitious climate target in the country. Vox. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/6/20/18691058/new-york-green-new-deal-climate-change-cuomo.

Over centuries, hunting was an honored tradition that had tremendous cultural and economic value. Today, it is not surprising that hunting is not as honored as it once was, with the number of hunters dwindling over the past decades. The US Fish and Wildlife Service research spotlights a decrease in hunters by 16% from 2011 to 2016 (National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, 2016). Despite the falling numbers, anti-hunting movements are burgeoning in full swing.

Hunting, however, can have positive effects on wildlife if done correctly. In regions with enormous wildlife, such as the Adirondacks, hunters and the wilderness depend on each other. In general, hunters play two significant roles in preserving nature: maintaining the balance between prey and predators and providing/demanding funds and care for wildlife.

A herd of deer (Jack Barnes, 2013)

Every ecosystem has a carrying capacity – the number of living organisms a region can support without environmental degradation [carrying capacity, n.d]. For example, if the number of deers exceeds the carrying capacity, vegetation and plants disappear because of overgrazing. Hunting deers sustainably, in this scenario, can protect the integrity of the land for other organisms while also maintaining a thriving population of deers. Similarly, if the number of wolves exceeds the carrying, the number of its prey, like deers, will decrease significantly. Hunting wolves in sustainably will help to maintain healthy numbers of wolves and deers in the forest.

The role of individual communities in preserving wildlife is as important as that of government agencies. In a rapidly urbanizing country like the United States, investors might disregard the importance of forests for construction projects. Given the shortcomings in government institutions’ funding, public parks’ landowners struggling financially will continue spiraling downwards economically (de Nevers, Greg, & Huey Johnson, 1995). Selling land to private owners, who will exploit the land for profits, will only permanently damage wildlife’s habitat. On the other hand, hunters can fund landowners in exchange for sustainable hunting. While this might seem unbeneficial for nature, sustainable hunting does not permanently destroy habitats and is far better than construction.

Regions with pristine wilderness, like the Adirondack region, have experienced a considerable decline in hunters. Responsible hunters demand care for wildlife protection. The. understand the relationship between the natural system and the social system. Anti-hunting movements must acknowledge that hunting, when done responsibly, can be an excellent tool for wildlife conservation. Therefore, environmentalists should consider responsible hunters as one of them, not as individuals against them.

Citations:

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. 2016 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.

“Carrying Capacity.” Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 2002.

de Nevers, Greg, and Huey Johnson. “Hunting as a Tool for Wildlife Management.” The George Wright Forum, vol. 12, no. 4, George Wright Society, 1995, pp. 39–44, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43597445.

In Nepal, the region I grew up in was very similar to the Adirondack region: a pristine land with a thriving forest ecosystem. Many years back, as I watched out from my dorm, I saw people swirl around the roaring asphalt mixers in the hope of a road that would connect their homes it the peaks to the base of the Shivapuri Hill. Their faces were glowing with happiness and excitement; firstly, because the people living in these rural hills would not have to walk to the base to get their needs, secondly, because road construction happens once in about five years, during the time of elections. Little did we know that these roads would be a reason for mass deforestation in five years.

The introduction of railroads in 1871(1) brought events that loggers in the Adirondack region could one have never thought of- a mechanized transportation system that would eliminate the tiresome task of walking across countries. Over time, as the demand for charcoal woods, timber, and other hardwoods increased, rivers could not keep these heavy woods afloat. However, the railroads removed this barrier and further gave loggers a solid incentive to slash entire forests and sell it to the hungry industries.

In 1885 After the Forest Preserve Law to keep the Adirondack “forever wild” was implemented, the New York state government bought lands to preserve it (2). Loggers were contended to clear out the forests before the government took over the land. In the spring of 1903, the sparks from a train’s engine caught twigs and branches and caused disastrous forest fires with nearly 300,000 acres burnt (2).

Applying salt on the roads is a widely-used method for clearing snow in the Adirondack region. For instance, the Olympic organizing team decided to put six times more salt than the years before for the thousands of people who would visit the area to watch the Olympics (3). Much to their surprise, there was no snowfall that year, and I can only imagine how badly the salt would have impacted the minerals in the soil of the nearby sites.

In his book Contested Terrain, Terrie writes about his new observation of the park as “just another American place where people go about the daily business of working, raising children, and engaging the national economy.” (4) Once a home for the lush forests and the gleaming lakes, the pristine forest was now flooded with newcomers. Businessperson took new roads as an opportunity to clear land, bring tourists to maximize profits, while the wildlife was indignantly screaming for conservation.

We often tend to forget that all development does not necessarily lead to progress. Development in infrastructures such as roads might have been beneficial for people who generated huge revenues, but the forest condition regressed over many years. The key to preserving a renewable resource like forests is to have the rate of growth greater than the rate of human consumption, but as of then, this was not the case. Today, my town in Nepal is home to scanty forests. Succession is not the answer to deforestation because it would take a few hundred years for these regions to welcome the dense forest. Therefore, it is urgent to recognize that what we consider signs of development can harm the environment.

Citations

1. Pulling, Jordan, “Transportation and Tourism in the Adirondack Park: How the historical development of transportation and tourism shaped the culture of the Adirondacks” (2014). Summer Research Fellowships. 3. https://digitalworks.union.edu/summerfellowships/3
2. North Country National Scenic Trail. “Adirondacks: Lumber Industry and Forest Conservation (U.S. National Park Service).” National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, https://www.nps.gov/articles/adirondacks-lumber-industry-forest-conservation.htm.
3. Rivard, Ry. “Curbing New York’s 40-Year Road Salt Addiction.” Adirondack Explorer, 21 Dec. 2020, https://www.adirondackexplorer.org/stories/curbing-new-yorks-40-year-road-salt-addiction.
4. Schneider, Paul. The Adirondacks: A History of America’s First Wilderness. H. Holt and Co., 1998.

One of the most significant causes of deforestation in the Adirondack region were the catastrophic forest fires. These forest fires would have contributed to slash-and-burn agriculture. Farmers, across centuries, have believed that ashes from burnt trees increase soil nutrients, which would increase their yield. This belief was the building foundation of an agricultural practice known as Slash-and-Burn.

Slash-and-burn agriculture is a farming method where farmers cut and burn down woodlands to create space for cultivating new crops. Although now considered a primitive style of agriculture, this technique still prevails in subsistence farming to grow a range of crops over a long period. However, with a rapidly growing population in combination with declining forest coverages, practicing Slash-and-Burn has many repercussions because setting out fires in a forest is highly unsustainable.

There are some obvious negative impacts of Slash-and-Burn agriculture, such as loss of habitat for wildlife causing loss of biodiversity, and high carbon dioxide emissions from burning trees, causing an increase in greenhouse gases. More importantly, controlling the magnitude and intensity of a forest fire is highly challenging. It can cause accidental fires in neighboring areas, destroying entire forests and displacing the habitat of many creatures. A barren land could face many other adversities under extreme weather conditions. During seasons of heavy rainfall, the trees would no longer canopy the soil or hold the ground firmly with its roots, which could cause soil erosion and landslides.

Contrary to our intuition, wildlife has already adapted to forest fires because of their frequent occurrence. Animals can run, amphibians can hide in their burrows, while birds can fly to escape the heat. Although slash-and-burn has many negative implications on the environment, a planned burn could benefit the forest ecosystem under the right circumstances. Once the fire removes canopy, shrubs, grasses like prairies can thrive from receiving adequate sunlight and nutrients from the ashes. Some animals, such as deers, require these areas for living.
Similarly, woodpeckers, sparrows, rattlesnakes, and other animals also benefit from the early phase after burning the woodlands. Besides providing the nutrients to the soil, fires would also get rid of invasive species such as ticks, which will give the wildlife a more suitable environment to grow.

Similar to planned forest fires, slash-and-burn is one of the most controversial techniques of agriculture. Many conservationists are against slash-and-burn because no adapted species could deal with the scale and frequency of today’s forest fires. Besides that, forest fires would only contribute to the ever-growing temperature of our planet.

Fortunately (or unfortunately), Slash-and-Burn agriculture may struggle to thrive in the Adirondack region, as heavy snow and rain will wash away ashes and soil nutrients, rendering the bare land unfit for agricultural production.

Citations:

Stief, Colin. “Slash and Burn Agriculture Explained.” ThoughtCo. ThoughtCo, August 12, 2019. https://www.thoughtco.com/slash-and-burn-agriculture-p2-1435798 .

Terrie, Philip G. “6-The Havoc of the Years.” Essay. In Contested Terrain: A New History of Nature and People in the Adirondacks, 2nd ed., 106–16. Adirondack Museum, 2008.

“What Do Wild Animals Do in Wildfires?” National Geographic, September 8, 2020. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/150914-animals-wildlife-wildfires-nation-california-science.

blogger, NCWRC. “Prescribed Burns Benefit Wildlife.” N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission. N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, March 9, 2015. https://www.ncwildlife.org/News/Blog/prescribed-burns-benefit-wildlife.

Source: Exhibition Opening: “Dam It! Beavers and Us.” January 30, 2021. High Desert Musum. https://highdesertmuseum.org/events/exhibition-opening-dam-it-beavers-and-us/.

Beavers were once on the verge of extinction in New York, but their number has exploded since their restoration in the early twentieth century. Ever since 1600, this rodent has been one of the crucial species to drive the ecology, economy, and society of native Americans. In this blog, we will be looking at how such a significant animal reached the point of extinction and made a comeback in a region known as the Adirondacks today.

During the colonial era, beaver pelts were one of the biggest exports to European colonizers. The beavers were so valuable that Indian tribes fought for their territories to gain full access to the fur-trading routes. By the end of the two beaver wars in the 1700s, the population of beavers was thought to be almost wiped out. The popularity of metal traps did not help the beaver population, and ultimately they were declared extinct by the Essex County Republican.

After the reintroduction of beavers from neighboring countries in the 1900s, the population of beavers saw a vast increase. Today, the Adirondack region is home to an estimated population of fifty thousand to seventy-five thousand beavers. In between this time, the state government issued permits to hunt these protected rodents, and while the harvests increased every year, the beaver population did not see a significant reduction.

It’s not a coincidence that the beaver population is thriving in this century. Campaigns to hunt wolves, one of the main predators of beavers, could be a reason for the surge in the beaver population. More importantly, hunting for beaver was always more about its economic value than its impact on the ecosystem. With the decrease in demand for beaver fur, beavers were no longer an attractive asset for hunters.

Source: Jenkins, Jerry, and Andy Keal. Essay. In The Adirondack Atlas: A Geographic Portrait of the Adirondack Park, 44–45. Syracuse University Press, 2004.

A beaver pelt that cost upwards of 200 dollars in 1930 only cost about 20 dollars in 2000. This 10 percent reduction, although it doesn’t seem significant, could significantly affect the hunters in an economy with increasing purchasing power and inflation. With fashion shifting from its dependency on animal furs in North America, the price of beavers continued to drop over the decades. Thus beaver furs were not as attractive to the hunters, who were gradually shifting to part-time hunting.

Across centuries, beavers are one of the few animals that have contributed to shaping the entire economy of the Adirondack region. It has played an essential role throughout history in wars such as beaver wars and during colonization. Not only does this animal have economic importance today, but it also has historical importance to the Adirondack region. Beavers could be damaging for the local people living in the area because they could flood farmlands. Still, the population of such a crucial species should continuously be monitored and ensured is healthy because they have and will continue to play a critical role in maintaining ecosystems.

Citations

Jenkins, Jerry, and Andy Keal. Essay. In The Adirondack Atlas: A Geographic Portrait of the Adirondack Park, 44–45. Syracuse University Press, 2004.

Terrie, Philip G. Contested Terrain: A New History of Nature and People in the Adirondacks. Adirondack Museum, 2008.

Schneider, Paul. The Adirondacks: A History of America’s First Wilderness. New York: Henry Holt, 1998.

Warren, John. “A Short History of Adirondack Beaver.” New York Almanack, August 24, 2021. https://www.newyorkalmanack.com/2021/08/a-short-history-of-adirondack-beaver/.

From 1990 until 2000,  park towns in the Adirondack region saw a steady increase in their inhabitants. Contrary to its prior growth, the population has slightly decreased, as shown in The Adirondack Park and Rural America: Economic and Population Trends 1970-2010. This blog will explore what this decline in population could mean for Adirondack Park in the long term.

Table 1: Population loss from 2000 to 2010 in 61 Adirondack Park Towns

The census in 2010 highlights how an influx of 12,822 people was not enough to match the population of the park towns during 2000. This population decline from 101,824 in 2000 to 100,606 in 2010 could only only possible if the birth rate was lower than the death rate, or the in-migration rate was lower than the out-migration rate. The following bar graph derived from table 1 helps in proving this theory.

Figure 2: Incoming vs. Outgoing population in park towns between 2000 and 2010

The census in 2010 indicates the loss of a total of 5947 population in the age group of 10 to 25. While this loss could have been for various reasons, one of the main take-away points is that the soon-to-be population in the reproductive age(late 20’s to early 30s) was leaving the park. At the same time, the recruitment of 2217 people between 25 to 50 was not enough to entirely offset this loss. This could have possibly been one of the reasons for further population loss between 2010-2020 in this region.

If the population follows a similar trend in the subsequent decades, it is undeniable that these park towns will continue to lose their population. A smaller population could be instrumental in avoiding over-exploitation of the diverse resources in Adirondack Park. The governing bodies can monitor their regulations better, and thus the wildlife of the Adirondack can sustainably thrive while generating an economy for the locals. That being said, the residents should still need to be accountable as illegitimate or “underground” activities are challenging to monitor in a park as big as the Adirondack.

In his book about the Adirondack Region, “Wandering Home,” Bill McKibben introduces countercultures such as creating “pure” wilderness – an environment in the absence of any human intervention- or the existence of organizations such as “Earth First!” to restore the nature of the Adirondack region. To what extent are such countercultures necessary if the Adirondack region loses its population without forceful interventions, as suggested by the 2010 census? Conclusively, the park towns/governing bodies have an essential question of contention: should more people be recruited to offset the population loss for sustaining the economy or recruit less for restoring wilderness?

Works Cited:

Long, James McMartin, and Peter Bauer. Rep. The Adirondack Park and Rural America: Economic and Population Trends 1970-2010. 2nd ed. Protect the Adirondacks!, Inc., 2019. 

Bauer, Peter. “Peter Bauer: More on Adirondack Park Population Myths .” The Adirondack Almanack, April 4, 2021. https://www.adirondackalmanack.com/2013/04/peter-bauer-more-on-adirondack-park-population-myths.html. 

Watson, Stephanie. “Childbearing Age: What’s Ideal and What Are the Risks?” Healthline. Healthline Media, June 6, 2018. https://www.healthline.com/health/womens-health/childbearing-age. 

McKibben, Bill. Wandering Home: A Long Walk across America’s Most Hopeful Landscape. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 2014.