WODC Outlook, May 2009

MarkJ said:

I noticed on the Tr Bandit map the parking spot for Larcom at the orchard near the shack is not marked P for parking.I read 4 trip reports on a Franklinsite with a map showing a blue P for parking at that spot.If I was the landowner and noticed part of my property was labelled as P for parking online,I'd be pissed.

Click to expand...

Please note that what you're referring to is a personal trip report - it has nothing to do with the Trail Bandit map. Note the legend says Parking (of some sort). Also, note that I had updated my old trip reports with a "As of winter 2009, the lower portion of this trail may be No Trespassing."

Beyond that, I have been told locally that the place where I was parking is owned by the Town of Tamworth, of which I am a registered voter, etc.

I'd like to keep my trip reports out of this discussion, as they have nothing to do with the Trail Bandit map. If you have any other questions about my hikes, please feel free to contact me via PM or e-mail.

Summary of argument so far for people who don't want to read the full length:

Pro Map Distribution Argument: Refuse any responsibility for angering landowners and try and minimize all guilt and blame.

Anti Map Distribution Argument Encouraging respect of private land owner interests based on simple common courtesy.

Of course if you don't believe me you can always go back and read the whole thing.

also, interesting related reading material along the same vein as the backpacker article above. Draw your own conclusions...

chomp said:

And for the record, I'm looking at the latest New Hampshire DeLorme map, and there are some logging roads listed, but not nearly as many as on the TB map. I've yet to see another map source with the same number of logging roads in the same detail.

Click to expand...

Again, please go back and read what I've previously posted. I've noted that the roads appear on multiple maps and proceeded to list them. I did not claim that any one of those maps contained every logging road.


I don't think I have anything new to add to this thread at this point. If you have any questions for me, please feel free to PM me.

buckyball1 said:

wow--long since time to end/lock this thread?--nothing positive here and just hurting parties on all sides

Click to expand...

I don't see any personal attacks here. I see open debate/discussion of a pretty sensitive topic and folks are behaving themselves although there is a bit of conjecture.

Some folks seem to want TB to go back in time and fix what has been done. Unfortunately, I don't know of a way to do this. Sure, the current digital copy could be changed to remove the Larcom trail and some of the logging roads. However, how do you go back and get rid of all the digital copies already saved on peoples hard drives not to mention the copies already printed and distributed?

All TB can do is apologize for putting it on the map in the first place. He's kind of already done this.

rocket21 said:

I did not claim that any one of those maps contained every logging road.

Click to expand...

I'll end my discussion as well. I didn't claim you said that either. What I did say is that there are logging roads on the TB map that I cannot find anywhere else.

Its obviously not possible to go back in time and change things. Nor can you t take back a map that's been given or downloaded. But the map can be changed for the future, and any site that is currently hosting this map (such as franklinsites.com) could remove it until such time as its fixed.

buckyball1 said:

wow--long since time to end/lock this thread?--nothing positive here and just hurting parties on all sides

jim

Click to expand...

I'm afraid you're right (and I'm the one who started it).
We've accomplished all we can, discussing the issues around trails on privately owned land and acknowledging that we need to bend over backwards to accommodate landowners' concerns. I infer from TB's responses that he regrets the closing of the Larcom Mt. Trail and that it was a learning experience for him, too.

buckyball1 said:

wow--long since time to end/lock this thread?--nothing positive here and just hurting parties on all sides

jim

Click to expand...

With respect, I disagree. These are important and timely issues and some of the parties themselves are present and attending. There is constructive progress and not everything is circular.

I'd like to see and use the map to hike the property in question, with the owner's blessing. If there's water on the property, I'd like to bring my fishing rod and toss a fly. I have no claim to the spot, but would gladly accept an invitation to explore. I'd hate to see that access diminished.

There is a community ethos and sometimes it is quite vigorous. I don't think that's bad, in itself. Now if they had a practice of stoning witches or something, well, that'd be different.

TB could ameliorate the situation quite effectively, and apparently Chomp could brainstorm from personal experience. Disenfranchised can be re-enfranchised; apologies can be simple; new revisions can be made; good publicity can overshadow bad; rehabilitation is possible.

--M. said:

TB could ameliorate the situation quite effectively, and apparently Chomp could brainstorm from personal experience. Disenfranchised can be re-enfranchised; apologies can be simple; new revisions can be made; good publicity can overshadow bad; rehabilitation is possible.

Click to expand...

Yes, perhaps. And perhaps in time. If I were one of the landowners in question--and you can be sure that the actual landowners in question are following this thread by now--I'd have learned a bundle and would really want to step back and think it all through. I'd be seeing lots of hikers who respect my land and wishes and are sensitive to the issues, and I'd see those who think they are entitled to do what they want. If I didn't before, I'd understand now that in the digital age, once the toothpaste is out of the tube....Rehabilitation is possible, but it's a long slow process. Don't expect instant results with a simple apology.
And I hope this thread brings home why, when you see a "no trespassing" sign, just don't go there. It's meant for you (and for me).

buckyball1 said:

wow--long since time to end/lock this thread?--nothing positive here and just hurting parties on all sides

Click to expand...

<Speaking as a moderator>
I disagree. The discussion has been passionate but not nasty. People seem to agree on many things, disagree on a few important points, and are willing to treat differing viewpoints with respect. I'm certainly keeping an eye on things, but I don't see any reason to close this down.

<Speaking as a hiker>
Having some experience with landowners and hiker access issues I hope that TB takes this opportunity to reach out to the landowners in question and discuss with them the best way to please the most people. If that means graying out sections of the map, removing trails/features, and marking certain land as no trespassing I think it is well worth the goodwill it can generate.

Publishing a map or a guidebook carries certain responsibility; it's like having a child. For better or worse you're responsible for the life you've created and you should be willing to make decisions that are best for the area and future use.

chomp said:

And the AMC agrees with this logic. They officially closed the Mt Cabot Trail because of a landowner dispute. Even though the landowner at the end of the road is cool with the trail, and even though there is an easement for the trail through the property of the landowner with the issue, the AMC made the decision to close access to the trail.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. AMC had nothing to do with it. USFS closed the trail (at their property boundary), despite the legality of its use, because they'd rather not risk other properties being closed due to landowners getting skittish due to any legal goings-on or forcing. I believe I read here on VFTT that landowner was also receiving the tax break, which combined with the legal easement meant two strikes against them anyway.

I've read this thread, and what strikes me most about it is - there are no winners here. All the principals seem to have lost, whether it be TB, Stopher, the landowners or the hiking community in general. And, it strikes me that a big loser is the WODC, which some will now regard as a shill for large landowners. Very sad.

I would like to point out that the woods in the Northeast grow incredibly quickly as any hiker and trail maintainer knows, so whatever inappropriate/illegal trails were created will quickly be reclaimed by nature. Short of physically removing part of the Ossipees as in mountain-top coal removal, it's unlikely that any permanent changes have been made.

And for landowners who have now closed their lands and received a tax exemption for allowing recreational access I suppose they may face some consequences - I'm not a lawyer. The thread may come to the attention of NH legislators, and some may push to close the loophole allowing tax breaks for land which has no means of public access, i.e., "land-locked".

What I will remember about this thread is Jack Waldron's comment that as landowners we are stewards.

I tend to think the NH public is the winner. The NH taxpayers give a tax break for recreational access to private lands and in return get enjoyment of it's use and business/tolls from out of state users.

By making this little known public information widely available, Trail Bandit is optimizing the utility of these particular lands for the public. Either the taxpayers get more recreational use in return for the tax discount or the landowner chooses to restrict access and pay more taxes.

Sandtooth said:

Either the taxpayers get more recreational use in return for the tax discount or the landowner chooses to restrict access and pay more taxes.

Click to expand...

This would be an issue regardless of the tax implications. Access to private land is always a potentially contentious issue. I'm sure many hikers would be willing to give up the additional tax resources for access, and many landowners would give up the tax breaks if they perceived their rights to maintain and enjoy their property in question. The tax breaks are IMO a relatively minor point in the grand scheme of things.

MichaelJ said:

Incorrect. AMC had nothing to do with it. USFS closed the trail (at their property boundary), despite the legality of its use, because they'd rather not risk other properties being closed due to landowners getting skittish due to any legal goings-on or forcing.

Click to expand...

Also incorrect. The USFS has no authority to close a trail they purport not to own, what they (and the AMC) state is that the landowner has closed the trail and do not question his right to do so.

In the West, activist groups vigorously protest fees, closures, etc. but even the Sierra Club has been pretty silent here.

ferrisjrf said:

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.

Click to expand...

I agree. While it is not possible to recall all of the maps that have already been downloaded or distributed, I would like to suggest that TB placate the irate by changing the line type for the Larcom Trail on private property on his base map and that r21 post same on his web site. Perhaps TB would even agree to disfigure unsold maps by writing PRIVATE at the bottom of the Larcom Trail - I will offer to help if desired.

I also feel that the WODC which generally has a good relationship with landowners and lots of trails on private land has needlessly inflamed them here and should have toned down the comments before publishing them.

David Metsky said:

This would be an issue regardless of the tax implications. Access to private land is always a potentially contentious issue. I'm sure many hikers would be willing to give up the additional tax resources for access, and many landowners would give up the tax breaks if they perceived their rights to maintain and enjoy their property in question. The tax breaks are IMO a relatively minor point in the grand scheme of things.

Click to expand...

Further, depending on where you live, the actual tax "breaks" could be relatively minor, not thousands of dollars per year, but a few hundred. Who needs it for the hassle?

RoySwkr said:

Also incorrect. The USFS has no authority to close a trail they purport not to own

Click to expand...

Read what I wrote ... I said "at their property boundary". As I understand it, the Mt Cabot Trail was closed at the last junction, within the WMNF, so that people already in the trail system would not exit via that route.

MichaelJ said:

Read what I wrote ... I said "at their property boundary". As I understand it, the Mt Cabot Trail was closed at the last junction, within the WMNF, so that people already in the trail system would not exit via that route.

Click to expand...

According to the Mt Cabot notes that is also not true, someone called the district office and while they claimed no r-o-w they said it was perfectly OK to hike the section on the WMNF. There were certainly no closure signs at the boundary or junction when I hiked it last year - do you have photos that show otherwise?

RoySwkr said:

I also feel that the WODC which generally has a good relationship with landowners and lots of trails on private land has needlessly inflamed them here and should have toned down the comments before publishing them.

Click to expand...

Please note that "The Outlook" is open to general submissions and does not necessarily represent the position of the WODC. However, I take Chris Conrod's comments to be equally mindful of the interests of hikers and land-owner's, which are both at stake in this matter.

RoySwkr said:

I also feel that the WODC which generally has a good relationship with landowners and lots of trails on private land has needlessly inflamed them here and should have toned down the comments before publishing them.

Click to expand...

DEAD WRONG, Roy. As I already stated in this thread, the landowners were up in arms long before my editorial was written. The decision to post land was made well before I wrote the article, much less published it. Furthermore, WODC had absolutely no involvement in any of this fiasco other than to publish an opinion piece written by me AFTER THE FACT.

What has been happening in the Ossipees concerning Mr. Garrison's map is something that the hiking public should be aware of. The hiking public was the intended audience. The intent was to make them aware of what IS and HAS BEEN happening.

Roy, if you think my article is what incited the landowners, you should check the records of the Sate of NH Attorney General's Office. Assuming it is public record, you will find that a group of landowners (I was told by one of them that collectively they own 15,000 acres in the Ossipee Mountains; I imagine that's a reasonably accurate statement) wrote a letter of complaint to the AG concerning Mr. Garrison's map, asking if there was anything that could be done about it. This was done without my knowledge, much less input; it was done long before I even thought of writing the opnion piece, and it was most certainly done without any knowledge or participation by WODC.

Roy, you should be ashamed of yourself. You expressed your misguided opinion with absolutely nothing to back it up.

***Added 10 minutes later***
I don't believe anything in my original article incited them any further. In fact, two landowners called to thank me for writing it. However, it wouldn't surprise me if some of the posts written in this thread will further their resolve.