Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 134

Thread: WODC Outlook, May 2009

  1. #46
    Senior Member Mats Roing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Brighton, MA
    Posts
    732
    It's a bit like "What can your country do for you vs. What can you do for your country".

    Just put yourself in the landowner's situation......
    "Mountains have a way of dealing with overconfidence"
    -Hermann Buhl

  2. #47
    Senior Member NewHampshire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Goffstown NH, Avatar:Sending out praise for the Red, White and Blue
    Posts
    1,554
    Quote Originally Posted by Trail Bandit View Post
    As one of the people who posted on this site have said, "What is the big deal, it is a freaking map".
    Said comment is easy for someone to say when they are not a New Hampshire landowner paying a mortgage and property taxes with their hard earned money, which the commentor who you quote from does not.

    I knew this was coming for a while now. A friend of mine had told me once "you know that guy Trail Bandit? Apparently he is pissing people off". I thought nothing of it since it was the first I ever heard of it. Then I saw the Backpacker article. This piqued my interest to say the least, and when I asked questions about the legality of reopening closed trails of said person I received no response. This just made me question even more.

    While what I say will probably have no impact since it has been obviously discussed ad nauseum here I will simply state my feelings. And they are that what Trail Bandit is doing is disrespectful of the landowners. He seems to be taking a hostile attitude while claiming he is inncoent and laying blame on landowners. Punishing the many for the acts of the few (or one) may be a poor way of going about things, but from the sounds of this ongoing battle it sounds like perhaps this was the landowners final straw in a long heated battle in which they have been disrespected to no end.

    Brian
    Adopter: Wildcat Ridge Trail from Rt.16 to Wildcat "D". If you have any issues please contact me!

  3. #48
    Senior Member stopher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    varies
    Posts
    335
    Quote Originally Posted by Trail Bandit View Post
    I think if the purpose of the WODC news letter is to promote hiking trails and hiking, perhaps less effort should be spent in trying to rile up land owners. As one of the people who posted on this site have said, "What is the big deal, it is a freaking map". If you work at it hard enough, you may get all of the private land in the country "posted". Keep up the good work.
    The facts: No riling up was done from my end. If anything, the cause and effect was just the opposite. I've been listening to concerns and complaints about Mr. Garrison's map since late January. I've heard them at land conservation working group meetings (when we really should have been discussing our own business) and I've received emails and phone calls; none of them were solicited by me. It would be foolish of me to cause some of my favorite woods walks to be posted against tresspass. I am just as dependent on the good will of landowners as the rest of the public is.

    My opinion: It seems that some of the "pro map" folks wish this thread had never started and are washing their hands of it. I see a strong analogy between their reactions and the reactions of some landowners to Mr. Garrison's map. The only difference is that the landowners are reacting to the true cause of this mess and not looking for scapegoats.
    stopher will become infamous soon enough.

  4. #49
    Senior Member RoySwkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,481
    Quote Originally Posted by David Metsky View Post
    If a land owner has posted his/her land for no hiking, what is the purpose of showing an old road though the land? If the property lines are clearly marked on the map and shown as no tresspassing that's one thing, but what if it's not clear to a map user that certain areas are off limits? The Whites doesn't have much of that but I know the Daks does; how is it handled on their maps?
    I can't speak about the Adk, but how the AMC/NYNJTC map of the Catskills handled it was that trails/roads on private property that were not official DEC trails were shown in a different color (black) and had "KO" (keep out) marked on the map where the trail crossed off state land. It was thus up to the hiker to obtain current information on whether access there was currently available as it was in many cases.

    There is a lead time of 5 years or so in guidebook editions so even if you always buy every new edition your maps will be perpetually out of date - hence the advantage of showing known trails that may be available in the future. I think the Mt Cabot Trail and the Larcom Trail are examples of trails that should have been shown thusly. It would placate the landowners by not indicating that the trails were open but still show them for the curious. The KGB used to forbid showing obvious features on maps but I thought those days were gone.

    I have been hiking in the Ossipee Range for over 20 years, long before the days of LRTC or TB. I have never hiked the Larcom Trail from the bottom because it was always posted in days of yore, one of the few places I have ever seen NO HIKING signs. It sounds like after a brief interlude those days are back, too bad.

  5. #50
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    119
    With regards to Dave Metsky's question and the Adirondacks, the Adirondack Mountain Club's High Peaks Region trail map shows trails that cross private land, in two ways (I am using those trails that traverse or are wholly contained within the Adirondack Mountain Reserve, private property, to base my answer):

    - those trails that have had easements established for the purpose of public access appear exactly the same way as trails crossing public land - a dashed, black line

    - those trails NOT open to the public are NOT shown; however, where these "verboten" trails intersect with AMR land "easement" trails open to the public, the junction is marked with a hollow, red circle with attached arrow, indicating the direction of the private trail. For this circle with arrow, the map legend states "Intersection with Private Foot Trail Closed to Public". Presumably the ADK has chosen to show these trail junctions for purposes of answering any questions by on-easement trail hikers such as "Geeze, I wonder where this trail goes...".

    Oddly, and its the first time I've noticed this, at least three of these private trail/public easement trail junctions are clearly marked on trails that are ON public land, not AMR land - those between or adjacent to the Pinnacle-Blake ridge. I hope that the public has the right to walk on these trails up to the property line, which no doubt is clearly marked, but perhaps someone in the know can answer this question.

    Also, my map is at least ten years old; perhaps a newer ADK High Peaks map indicates this trail info differently.

  6. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,094
    Again, I think it's important to note that very few of the trails are in question right now. To illustrate this, look at the Ossipee 10 hiking list:

    Mt. Shaw - accessible via LRCT trails
    Black Snoot - accessible via LRCT trails
    Faraway Mountain - accessible via LRCT trails
    Mt. Roberts - accessible via LRCT trails
    Mt. Flagg - accessible via federally protected trail
    Turtleback Mountain - accessible via LRCT trails
    Big Ball Mountain - accessible via perhaps 100 year active trail (dating back to when it was called Blueberry)
    Bayle Mountain - accessible via federally protected trail
    Bald Knob - accessible via LRCT trails
    Sentinel Mountain - accessible via Terrace Pines campground owned/maintained trail

    There are very few other peaks on the map that even show trails leading to them. Again, as far as I know, Larcom is the only one being called into question. As far as I see it, it is off limits until the LRCT finds out a way to provide access to their Larcom plots.

  7. #52
    Senior Member chomp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Epping, NH
    Posts
    533
    Quote Originally Posted by rocket21 View Post
    Again, I think it's important to note that very few of the trails are in question right now.
    I think its more important to note that this map was directly the cause for landowners to close access to thousands of acres in the area. You can say that is was "just one trail" or "one small area" or "the map just showed a trail that someone else illegally cut".

    Bottom line - the creation and proliferation of this map angered private landowners enough to close access of their land to the public.

  8. #53
    Senior Member Trail Bandit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    197
    [QUOTE=chomp;277482] You can say that is was "just one trail" or "one small area" or "the map just showed a trail that someone else illegally cut".

    I wasn't going to reply on this thread any more, but M. Chomp, please tell us what trail depicted on the map caused the posting of land and where this supposedly "illegally cut trail" is located. If you are referring to the Larcomb trail, I have no idea who maintains the trail, but they do a good job. From looking at how the tree bark has grown around the old blazes, it appears that they have been maintaining it for at least 50 years. The only time I walked down this trail, there wasn't even a branch lying in the path. Again, you are making accusations by implying something. How about saying what you really mean.

  9. #54
    Senior Member chomp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Epping, NH
    Posts
    533
    Quote Originally Posted by Trail Bandit View Post
    How about saying what you really mean.
    I did - regardless of your intentions (which I have neither the desire nor the facts to make a judgment of), this map has caused one landowner to close 1000 acres, and apparently others are not far behind.

    My issue isn't with the creation of the map. Heck, I really have no interest in hiking that range but I thought it was a cool looking map when it came out. My issue is with defending it. Obviously you didn't intend to upset landowners - but you did. So can't we just get rid of the thing and be done with it? Can't you just say "Sorry, I made an assumption about this trail, and I was wrong" and move on?

    Why keep defending yourself? Best case scenario is what? Because the worst case scenario is that more landowners see this and decide to close more land to the public.

  10. #55
    Senior Member Tobit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Manchester, NH
    Posts
    228
    Quote Originally Posted by chomp View Post
    and apparently others are not far behind.
    What others? What are your sources? There are no other questionable trails on the map at the moment from what I can see.
    "The man who goes alone can start today; but he who travels with another must wait till that other is ready." - Thoreau

  11. #56
    Senior Member chomp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Epping, NH
    Posts
    533
    Quote Originally Posted by Tobit View Post
    What others? What are your sources? There are no other questionable trails on the map at the moment from what I can see.
    I'm just going by the guy that talked to the landowners:

    Quote Originally Posted by stopher
    I just took a run up Mountain Road to see the new signs. As luck would have it, I got to talk to the caretaker of the newly posted land and one of the abutters. The Bemis Trust caretaker said that the land has had "No hunting without permission" signs for some time now. The new "No Trespassing" and "No Parking" signs are a direct response to Mr. Garrison's map. The abutter showed me signs that a group of landowners have had made that say "No Tresspassing due to unauthorized trail clearing and mapping." These are also a direct response to the map and will be put up shortly. Combined, this will amount to well over 1000 acres of land where the public is no longer welcome.

  12. #57
    Senior Member --M.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Upper Works, Tahawus, or Massachusetts.
    Posts
    1,211
    Quote Originally Posted by chomp View Post
    So can't we just get rid of the thing and be done with it? Can't you just say "Sorry, I made an assumption about this trail, and I was wrong" and move on?

    Why keep defending yourself? Best case scenario is what? Because the worst case scenario is that more landowners see this and decide to close more land to the public.
    Unfortunately, the toothpaste is out of the tube, like photos on the web, and the owners are now forced into a situation which they didn't create and over which they feel limited control.

    And now, if I, a total stranger to the whole thing, want to hike on an area that is no longer available, I have to bow, scrape and touch my forelock to convince someone who may have been rational about it at one time that I'm not a bandit or any other kind of subversive, but just wanted to see the Whites & lakes from a new vantage.

    That's probably more difficult now.

    Unless we are to return to pre-Columbian concepts of land ownership -- and that ship sailed a long time ago -- we must find an accommodating way to gain respectful access to resources we do not own or have legal right to.

    Where is the profit in deliberate provocation?

  13. #58
    Senior Member skiguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Center Conway, NH
    Posts
    2,455
    Quote Originally Posted by psmart View Post
    Public use of private land has always been a delicate issue. By tradition, NH land owners are pretty accepting of other folks enjoying their property in a respectful way, so most don't resort to "No Trespassing" signs. However, these same open-minded land owners are going to start feeling differently if they see a growing numbers of people on their property claiming they have a right to be there. And publishing a trail map that encourages additional use could easily precipitate the closure of the land to all visitors.
    It is important IMO to be looking beyond just the Ossipee Mountains. Again psmart sums up my mentality and many of the other NH landowners I know on the issues that are being discussed here. Remember many more bees will come to honey than salt.
    "I'm getting up and going to work everyday and I am stoked. That does not suck!"__Shane McConkey

  14. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,094
    I want to emphasize that there is only one trail known to be in question right now - the Larcom Trail (perhaps I shouldn't say in question - the lower portion is posted no trespassing private property). I have no clue who maintains (maintained?) this trail, but it's been around for a *very* long time - there's even a chance Sweetser may have hiked it. There was confusion as to whether or not it was closed for some time, as well. Once again, a large portion of this trail is on LRCT land - perhaps someone involved with the LRCT can provide insight as to why the Larcom plots were purchased without any sort of access.

    Other than that, only woods/logging roads are depicted in the Northern Ossipees on the map (as well as natural features such as brooks, contours, etc.). This is not new. If the Trail Bandit map is to be faulted for showing logging roads, then the USGS, DeLorme, Ossipee Map at the Gilford Library, National Geographic, and others shouldn't be excluded either.

    Access to these logging roads on private property is no different than anywhere else. I really wanted to hike a logging road/trail as depicted on the DeLorme in the Ossipees some time ago (before I had ever heard of the Trail Bandit map), however it was posted, thus I did not hike it. Again, depiction of logging roads is nothing new, nor is the use of No Trespassing signs in the Northern Ossipees. Unfortunately, in the case of the latter, the amount of land affected has increased in recent months.
    Last edited by rocket21; 05-27-2009 at 10:22 AM.

  15. #60
    Senior Member ferrisjrf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    189
    There appear to be (at least) 2 different issues being discussed here, and with no separation of the issues, the discussion is kinda going in circles.

    Issue 1: trails have been cut/maintained
    Issue 2: a map has been produced

    To me, the act of producing the map (issue 2) is pretty much a no-brainer. There's nothing illegal or morally corrupt about producing maps that show roads or trails on private property. As mentioned in previous posts, many maps produced by "legitimate" (questionable term, but...) organizations that show these kinds of features. Is it wrong to show a waterfall on a map, if said waterfall is on private property? Of course not.

    The issue is that, perhaps the map should have been more explicit about which trail(s) are on public land, etc. Private property (and thus trails on private property) needs to be marked as such, and some explanation needs to be given within the map key.

    Issue 1 is also a no-brainer. It's illegal unless specifically sanctioned by the landowner.

    Now that I've separated the issues, we can certainly argue more productively about who's a jerk, who's an idiot, and who's completely blameless.

    Jason

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •