Part of Northville-Placid trail closed

Good thing I found out about this before I set out again in August. I am not entirely sure what can be done about it right now, most likely nothing. But I will be looking into it to see what is planned.

If anyone has any additional info, please do post it here.



Northville-Placid Trail closed


NO TRESPASSING-The Northville-Placid Trail has been closed at the John Macaluso (former McCane) property on Cedar River Road in the Town of Indian Lake. The signs were apparently posted sometime over the winter or in early spring. (Photo/Pete Klein)

By PETE KLEIN

Staff Reporter

INDIAN LAKE-Hikers of the Northville-Lake Placid Trail are in for an unpleasant surprise when they reach Cedar River Road here.

The trail has been closed at what is known as the McCane property, now owned by a John Macaluso, according to a deed filed Nov. 22, 2002 with the Hamilton County Clerk's Office.

Macaluso is not listed in the phone book. Fences and signs warn the trail is closed, and the State Police have been asked to enforce 'No Trespassing' signs.

Only time will tell when the state Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) will get around to finding a way to reconnect this historic trail. Region 5 Director Stuart Buchanan says DEC is looking into the matter, and does not know when the property was posted.

The DEC held hearings on the Blue Ridge Wilderness Unit Management Plan (UMP) in June of 2002, at which time it talked about creating a trail that would not go through the currently blocked area.

DEC Public Information Specialist David Winchell did not know last week if any progress has been made to develop a new section of trail.

Adirondack Mountain Club (ADK) established the 133-mile Northville-Lake Placid Trail in 1922, following streams from lake to lake. The trail has been the responsibility of the state Conservation Department (now DEC) since about 1930.

Previous owners of the McCane property allowed the public to hike and cross-country ski across their lands while following the trail.

ADK's Neil Woodworth says all ADK knows is what it has been told by members. The signs were apparently posted sometime over the winter or in early spring, he said.

Woodworth suggests contacting Macaluso for permission to cross his lands, but does not have a telephone number for him.

The trail runs for 34.8 miles from Northville to Piseco, 16.75 miles from Piseco to West Canada Lake, 25.8 miles from West Canada Lake to Stephens Pond Junction, 17.3 miles from Stephens Pond Junction to Long Lake, 12.6 miles from Long Lake to Shattuck Clearing and 27.87 miles from Shattuck Clearing to Lake Placid.

At one time McCane's offered tourist and camper accommodations.

The only way around the closed portion of the trail now, without bushwhacking, is to walk down Cedar River Road and north on state Rt. 28/30 up to the Durant State Campsite connection.

[email protected]

Northville-Placid closure

This was discussed in Adirondac magazine. The owner appears to be prepared to allow access to through-hikers by advance request (pretty ridiculous but there it is). The information provided in the magazine is listed below:

Contact John Macaluso, 204 Cedar River Road, Indian Lake, NY 12842, ph: 518-648-6473.

For a bit more, see the first page of my site

www.wilsey.net/Northville/

Ted.

Re: Northville-Placid closure

erd said:

This was discussed in Adirondac magazine. The owner appears to be prepared to allow access to through-hikers by advance request (pretty ridiculous but there it is).

Click to expand...

Ridiculous perhaps in terms of the inconvenience to the hikers, but certainly not in terms of this man's private property rights. I hope that we all will be respectful of his rights or it is unlikely that he will become any more accommodating in the future.

Tom -- if you follow the link I supplied, you will see that I urged respect of this fellow's property rights for exactly that reason. Still, I am deeply concerned at this breach in the oldest of New York State's long trails.

Many NPT through-hikers will be completely unaware of this problem (fortunately, we are a relatively rare breed). The closed portion (quite short) is preceded by a long and not very pleasant road section from Wakely Dam. I find it difficult to imagine that someone who has walked all the way from Upper Benson is likely to be stopped by the closure. This will indeed lead to confrontation and worse.

I am not remotely sympathetic to the landowner in this instance, though, to repeat, I do urge that for practical reasons his rights be observed. When Macaluso purchased the property, he did so fully aware that a historic trail crossed his property. He benefits enormously from the fact that his land abuts that of NY State, and a larger modicum of generosity would earn him the respect of the hiking community, rather than its odium.

Thanks for the info Ted. I have calls in with the DEC, the ADK and the landowner - I am very interested in seeing what is up here and what they are pondering for a long term solution.

I do not have much sympathy for the land owner in this situation either. It would be kind of shocking to think that this guy purchased that land not knowing (or not caring) about the significance of the small footpath that goes along side his property. It would also be kind of shocking if the land was sold to him in the first place without it being made clear by the previous owner how important it was.

Hard to say without having all of the info. Do you know how far back this property goes? Are we literally talking about the 30 yards from the road to the woods? Or do you think it extends back farther toward the pond?

And I wonder how much traffic that small footpath gets anyway.... I'd assume it is mostly thru-hikers. Ad the amount of people that hike this trail and do not skip this section, has to be very small.

But regardless, I can't even imagne what I would have done had I not heard about this before I set off this summer. But I can tell you what I would NOT have done.... I would not have turned around and huffed it back down that black top road to Wakelys. No way. Either via bushwhack, or cover of night, I would have made it through that area and on to Stephens Pond.

Now I'll hope for permission, or will simply bypass this section all together. It's just a shame. Please do post an update if you get one and I will do likewise.

I seem to recall that the private lands extend some little way back into the woods, but I can't vouch for how far.

The path was very clearly signposted by DEC as of last year (by which time the land had passed out of the hands of McCane's).

I seem to remember the private land extending well back into the woods.

I thought I read on the ADK Forum that his position really is not so much to do with the thruhikers, but rather the dayhikers parking on his lawn, driveway and such.

I do understand that - - Ask anyone who's neighbor has held a garage sale on a wet muddy day and folks park on the edges of the surrounding lawns, sometimes leaving big ruts. 'course, then we're back to the "he knew what he was buying" theory.....

Even though I have been known to tresspass,

I would find it very difficult to justify tresspassing on this section of trail.

The "former" NPT went within FEET of this propery owner's house. As I recall, I was going between the house and the garage. It was an uncomfortable feeling even when the owners permitted the usage for hikers.

It is not like the situation where you don't see the land owner and you are using some remote section of land. If they had been eatting breakfast in their skivvies and I had turned my head to the right, we would have made unavoidable eye contact. It was also possible that if I had turned my head to the left, I could have been looking down someone's crack as they were bent over working on one of their vehicles! It was not a "wilderness" experience that I would expect on a historical trail through the Adirondacks!!

I recall wondering why the easement wasn't waaaaaaaaaay to the back of the property and thereby less intrusive/vouyeristic.

It seems that it will be an easy fix to relocate the trail to the edge of this family's propery - even if it only goes to the edge of these people's lawn, everyone would be happier (IMHO).

It was not a "wilderness" experience that I would expect on a historical trail through the Adirondacks!!

Click to expand...

This is unfortunately true for the entire section from Wakely Dam to the erstwhile McCane's. I found it a very unattractive section, not least because I detest long road walks. While the road does have some truly impressive cliffs to one side, they are squarely on private property and cannot be viewed close-up.

The traffic on the road down to the Wakely Dam area can be quite busy (admittedly, when I was there on my through-hike it was the first day of bear season and it is probably not normally so crowded on a weekday). I'm sure that when the NPT was first run along here there wasn't much in the way of housing (or traffic), but housing along the road away from the dam is close on suburban densities--there were several new houses going in even as I passed through in September of last year.

In the medium term, I'd rejoice to see this entire section of "trail" moved off the road, which I believe is envisioned under the UMP for the area. And I can't disagree that the proximity of the trail to the house is unfortunate, but surely a line down the edge of the property might have been offered or negotiated.

As to the claims of parking infractions, litter, etc., I would tend to withhold judgement. Unfortunately, as we all know, these can certainly become issues at trailheads, but these same claims are sometimes made without justification by landowners who dislike an easement (whether legal or merely "traditional").

I find the whole mess regrettable and am concerned for this year's crop of NPT hikers. I hope that the DEC and Mr. Macaluso quickly reach an understanding, as a full re-route is likely to be a protracted business.

Well I can put an early limit on when it happened. I snowshoed through McCanes/No-Wa-Na-Go (or whatever the spelling on that pun-name is) to Stephen's Pond on Monday 16 February and there were no signs then.
It definitely was weird walking right between the garage and the house, down the driveway, past a shed (and what appeared to be a two-seater) there. You kind of hunch over and go a little faster to not seem quite so conspicuous even if there's no one around... I'd agree that this is one of the more non-wilderness areas which could well do with a bit of a change.
The private property does extend a good ways into the woods, with several other trails weaving in and out. These were probably more noticeable in the winter, especially with the snowmobile tracks on them, than other times of year.

May the forest be with you.

Ben

FOUND A LINK

http://www.hamconews.com/text/2004/0608/Cover/hikers/hikers.asp

not sure why i can't llink, just copy and paste....it says a lot about careless hikers that are out there...

It does seem that his gripe is more with the DEC, given that he offered to resite the trail on his land. They seem to have dropped the ball if this is so. It may also be a bit much to automatically blame hikers for calling the DEC in the tree-cutting incident, though it's not by any means impossible. As to the problems with parking, trash etc., sadly all too possible with overnighters going to Stephens Pond.

The solution would be to do what one generous landowner has done in my area of the Catskills. He has put a small p.a. on his land and a clearly marked trail over to state land. Still, this is unusual.

I was on Cedar River Road on Saturday and the sign is there in front of the mans house. Trail Closed. I was surprised this wasn't done years ago.

Would you want a busy trailhead crossing 50 feet from your front door 24/7.

Would you want a busy trailhead crossing 50 feet from your front door 24/7.

Actually, when it was the front door of the former McCane's Resort, it was probably good for business. That's why the trail was originally routed that way,

porky pine

I spoke to Mr. Macaluso yesterday to seek his permission to cross his property in August. He has no problem with thru-hikers using the trail over his property (but permission should be sort), his objections are in the form of hikers spotting cars as well as leaving trash. He was very nice, he asked where we were starting from and our destination. I'm not sure if he views this web site, but if so - Thanks Again.

I've tried but failed to contact Mr Macalusco. I have left him a few VM's and sent him a fax. In both of them I specified the approximate date that I anticipate needing access to his property for my second thru-hike.

I plan on trying a few more times to reach him, but if I do not, given that I have read several dozen times that he is a nice guy who does not oppose thru-hikers, and given that I have given the approximate dates of my arrival in Voicemails and faxes..... should I/would you assume it is ok to hike past his house?

Holdstrong, Try calling late afternoon or early evening. When do you plan on going?

Holdstrong said:

I've tried but failed to contact Mr Macalusco. I have left him a few VM's and sent him a fax. In both of them I specified the approximate date that I anticipate needing access to his property for my second thru-hike.

Click to expand...

Maybe you could send him an old fashion letter, via snail mail, with a self-addressed, stamped envelope enclosed for his reply. Making it very convenient and inexpensive for the property owner to respond is a nice courtesy that might help the relationship.

G.

Going late August.... planning out an 11 to 12 day trip ending on the Friday of labor Day Weekend - then I'm looking to spend the holiday weekend in and around Placid.

I'll definitely be trying to call him at different times over the next few weeks. Hopefully we'll hook up - I'll update here.

I'm not even sure i know how to use snail mail anymore - that went the way of the VCR and the personal check for me

Holdstrong said:

I'm not even sure i know how to use snail mail anymore - that went the way of the VCR and the personal check for me

Click to expand...

I know you're joking here, but my suggestion about using snail mail and a self-addressed stamped envelope for the reply is a serious one.

Look at it from the landowner's perspective.

The landowner is providing access for your convenience. He certainly does not have to do this. He has requested that you secure permission before crossing his property. He is not obliged and should not be expected to go out of his way or incur expenses in tracking you down (playing phone tag or paying for long distance calls, or postage) to serve your convenience.

Write the letter and provide the S.A.S.E. Then all the landowner has to do is write OK and sign or initial your request and send it back. No fuss, no muss, no cost to him other than a brief moment of his time.

I think such an approach to securing permission is based on common sense application of "rules" governing common courtesy.

End of sermon.

G.