Boreas Ponds, Adirondacks, NY

[Brightraven]

Glenn,
If you do go to Boreas Ponds, I would suggest you also spend a little bit of time at Henderson Lake (if you haven’t been there already), which is not far from there and has a relatively easy path in to the launch (less than 1/2 mile). I’m not sure about handicapped parking but the lot is quite extensive.
Once you near the end of the trail and the water becomes visible, the atmosphere is very striking and the mountains feel very close. The photos below are a bit grainy because my phone was in a protective case…there was a tremendous amount of wind and waves on the lake that day…But in sum, it’s a very special place…

 

[Simuliumvenustum]

Thanks, Ken. I have wheels and perhaps a companion with a truck.

Hi Glenn,

I revisited Boreas Ponds on June 24th. Since I was last there in August 2025, the DEC has greatly improved the canoe access. There is now a wheelchair-accessible path from the access road down to the water at the base of the dam, so it is now possible to wheel a canoe on a cart all the way to the water's edge. The path is well graded and covered with crushed stone.




Access to the water in August 2025 was via a steep trail from the access road down the side of the dam. The new trail is a vast improvement.

The old access trail to the water is now walled off with boulders.


The Four Corners parking lot, which has been resurfaced with crushed stone, has four handicap parking spots.



The lower parking lot, which is a short distance from the water, has four regular parking spaces and four handicap spaces. This lot has also been resurfaced with crushed stone. As mentioned in previous posts, a permit is required to access this lot.


Many spots along the 0.8-mile access road that leads from the Four Corners Parking lot to the canoe launch also appear to have been regraded and covered with crushed rock. The road was in excellent condition and readily wheelable for its entire length.





Good luck if you are able to make it to Boreas Ponds this summer! It is worth the effort.

 

[Seeker]

I was there last summer, while they were working on all of it. I believe the eventual goal is to make it entirely handicapped accessible, to include campsites. I saw marking tape at just about every likely landing spot. The fact that there's a bulldozed road entirely around the area would make emergency medevac a bit easier as well, or allow caregiver vehicle access (ATV/SxS) along the back/behind the scenes while preserving the wilderness experience for a handicapped paddler on the front side. I know my younger self would have been less sympathetic, but my older self now realizes that when I'm 90, I'd maybe like to do one more trip.

Glenn,
I can confirm that the road from 4 corners, even a year ago, was very cartable... probably the easiest mile I've ever walked with a canoe... I did it once carrying, and a second time with my cart.

Walking, canoe overhead...


Canoe loaded in the parking lot.

 

[adkjoe]

I visited in 2017 before the improvements and closer parking areas but have yet to be back, truly a beautiful place!

 

[Marc Ornstein]

Some photos from my trip, last week, to Boreas Pond. My paddling partners were Rascal and our host, here on Canoe Tripping, Glenn MacGrady.

 

[kahel]

Marc Ornstein and his mimicry camouflage

 

[Pseudonym]

It may be hard to see him thanks to the camouflage, but that's our fearless leader, @Glenn MacGrady

Somewhere therein is a joke about three loons...

 

[Marc Ornstein]

Something weird happened to the photos when I uploaded them to this site. That moire' pattern effect is not on the original photos and doesn't show on those uploaded to Facebook.

​

 

[Alan Gage]

Something weird happened to the photos when I uploaded them to this site. That moire' pattern effect is not on the original photos and doesn't show on those uploaded to Facebook.

​

I'm glad to hear it isn't on the originals. It certainly is not very appealing. Did you resize before uploading to the site or did the site do the resizing? They all show pixel dimensions of 960x633.

Alan

 

[Alan Gage]

I'm going to copy and paste one of the images from your Facebook page to see what happens:




Well, that looks much better. Not sure what might have happened. If you want to fix it I guess the best way would be to edit the post and re-insert the images. Maybe start with one before doing them all just to be sure it looks normal.

Alan

 

[Marc Ornstein]

I'm glad to hear it isn't on the originals. It certainly is not very appealing. Did you resize before uploading to the site or did the site do the resizing? They all show pixel dimensions of 960x633.

Alan

I saved them all at approx 1.5+- MB. The site apparently resized them again, when they were uploaded.

 

[Marc Ornstein]

I did as you suggested and the same thing happened. I'll try resizing (smaller) and reload them, later today.

 

[Marc Ornstein]

I saved them all at approx 1.5+- MB. The site apparently resized them again, when they were uploaded.

I resized them all and reposted them all again and the same result. It's a curious thing.

 

[Alan Gage]

I resized them all and reposted them all again and the same result. It's a curious thing.

What method are you using to load the photos onto the site? You can copy/paste, use "attach files" at the bottom of the screen, or click the 'insert image' (mountain icon) in the top tool bar.

I don't know if any of them act different than the others but maybe it's a clue. I used copy/paste when I inserted your photo in my above response. I'm pretty sure that's my normal method. I also use the 'insert image' (mountain icon) at other times. I've used the 'attach files' (below the text box) in the past but I don't make a habit of it but not for any particular reason.

Also, what are the pixel dimensions of the images that you're uploading? You said you were going to try resizing them smaller but they're still showing up at 950 pixels on the long dimension. If you have them sized smaller than this perhaps the software, for some reason, is trying to upsize them to 950.

Alan

 

[Marc Ornstein]

What method are you using to load the photos onto the site? You can copy/paste, use "attach files" at the bottom of the screen, or click the 'insert image' (mountain icon) in the top tool bar.

I don't know if any of them act different than the others but maybe it's a clue. I used copy/paste when I inserted your photo in my above response. I'm pretty sure that's my normal method. I also use the 'insert image' (mountain icon) at other times. I've used the 'attach files' (below the text box) in the past but I don't make a habit of it but not for any particular reason.

Also, what are the pixel dimensions of the images that you're uploading? You said you were going to try resizing them smaller but they're still showing up at 950 pixels on the long dimension. If you have them sized smaller than this perhaps the software, for some reason, is trying to upsize them to 950.

Alan

At first I was using the insert method. I tried copy paste with the same results. I'm thinking that my file sizes may be too large (generally 1.5 MP+-) and the program is not able to downsize then properly. They are definitely not too small. I'll try downsizing them further, when I get a chance. It's just curious that I've never had the issue before and still don't except on this site.

 

[Alan Gage]

At first I was using the insert method. I tried copy paste with the same results. I'm thinking that my file sizes may be too large (generally 1.5 MP+-) and the program is not able to downsize then properly. They are definitely not too small. I'll try downsizing them further, when I get a chance. It's just curious that I've never had the issue before and still don't except on this site.

It is puzzling. I never downsize images before posting them here and have not had any trouble.

I'll try uploading a 4128x3096 image and see what happens:



This was done via "insert image" (mountain icon at top). Looks good to me.

Alan

 

[Marc Ornstein]

It is puzzling. I never downsize images before posting them here and have not had any trouble.

I'll try uploading a 4128x3096 image and see what happens:

View attachment 156511

This was done via "insert image" (mountain icon at top). Looks good to me.

Alan

I resized them all to mostly 70-80KB +- and they look better though lacking in definition. I'm going to leave it at this for now. Whatever the root issue is, it's apparently above my pay grade.

 

[Alan Gage]

I resized them all to mostly 70-80KB +- and they look better though lacking in definition. I'm going to leave it at this for now. Whatever the root issue is, it's apparently above my pay grade.

I sent you a DM