forgive us our trespasses...

[Neil]

My personal take on land is that it was there long before we were and will still be there long after our value system has become dust. That being said I will ALWAYS respect the laws (both written and social) that are in effect whever I find myself. Still, I know that it's pretty difficult for a hiker to actually harm or devalue land as he passes upon it en route to a summit. The problem may lie with the more dense population in the US (vs. Canada) and problems with poachers, pot growers, people cutting and removing wood, whatever.

Nevertheless, my statement here is simple and I will focus it tighter than above: I find it a pity that so much land in the Adirondack State Park is so "firmly out of bounds".

 

[ken]

I ususally don't worry too much about it if it's on the way out.

but you have to hope he doesnt make you leave the same way that you came from (up and back over) - on the way out doesn't make trespassing right! in new york a landowner is allowed to use physical force to remove someone from his land.

However, it is a pity that landownership in the states can be exclusive and protective...

that is why we have "state land" and "parks"

If I owned land that provided access to a "peak", then I am certain that I would provide a marked passage through the land for hikers.

you may not be saying that if you weren't a hiker yourself...

we both agreed it was a pity that private land is so firmly out of bounds

not all private land is "firmly out of bounds" - ask the landowners first - wouldn't you like to be asked before someone uses something that belongs to you?

But don't you all agree with me that it's a pity?

if you really think that way, you should all chip in and buy the land - then you can have a "pull down the posted signs party" and start paying property taxes (according to the size of your land)... and school taxes (according to the size of your land too) to a school that your children aren't ever going to attend...
OR you hikers should get together with hunters and anglers (many of them also ignore "no trespassing" signs) and get legislation passed to give landowners who DON'T post thier land a nice tax break - it would be great for landowners to get a reward for not posting thier land...

Originally Posted by post'r boy
thanks for the enlightening words ken, i never realized that!!
it's called joking around.

Original Reply by Frosty
I think you need to work on your humor so people can tell you're being funny.

he does that quite often, he says something weird and then trys to make it right (maybe we should send that avitar of him defacing the street to his local police department!).

 

[smh444]

I agree Neil - and I also agree to obey the laws, etc.

If I owned land that provided access to a "peak", then I am certain that I would provide a marked passage through the land for hikers.

For example, south of Syracuse there is a peak (well, that may be stretching it a bit) called Jones Hill. The peak itself is on State land, but the eastern access is on private land. Fortunately, the owners of the land (the Jones Hill Club, or something like that) have an agreement with the State to provide a well marked access trail and allow hikers to pass on this trail. When I hike there, I STAY ON THE TRAIL!!! I also pick up litter (where it exists) and do what I can to make sure that the owners keep the traill available to public access.

I'm guessing that most landowners aren't concerned so much about the occasional hiker than they are the hunters and other "invasive" types that frequent their lands.

 

[REK]

http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Hunting/hunt_landowner_hunter_FAQs.htm
This is from NH Fish & Game. It has all the necessary RSA references. Check out the section on common use.
Bob

 

[Nessmuk]

Several years ago I bought a few acres of land adjacent to a trout stream and built a new house there. I did not post it against trespassing initially, and noticed one or two guys from time to time hiking back upstream from the bridge to fish. That was ok with me, as I'm sure that was likely their practice for years prior and there were plenty of fish left for me to catch. But then I started to notice people using the grassy shore next to the bridge as a picnic area, and them leaving all manner of trash behind for me to clean up. It didn't take many of those instances before I posted my land. If anyone bothers to ask permission to cross my land I'll gladly let them, but I have to know who they are.

 

[John H Swanson]

Sorry spb,

I'm with mcorsar still. Like you, I definitely

"choose to hike outside of the neatly packaged maps with dot-to-dot boundaries from time to time" accessing hikes from state land and trying to exit via state land."

All the time in fact. It's no excuse not to EXTENSIVELY preplan to avoid crossing over land that "you have no right to cross". On my current list, fully 15 percent of the list has PP issues that must be addressed PRE-HIKE. I found myself joining "hunt & fish clubs" ( I neither hike nor fish) just to gain LEGAL access to certain peaks. It really is a big deal. Trespassing can almost ALWAYS be avoided with good pre-hike work.

That said, I'll answer the question. Hiking Saddleback (Jay Range, ADKs), an unfortunate road closure had us start the hike a little lower than intended, but we thought we were still okay. About 20 minutes in, we hit a barbwire fence and KNEW instinctually that we'd crossed PP. After the hike, we were fortunate to encounter the landowner in question. WE WERE VERY HUMBLE and actually begged forgiveness. I even offered money to him for our failure to "know better". Eventually, he was real cool with us (no doubt due to our attitude), and he gave us "retroactive" permission for the passing.

Since my explicit goal is to complete my list without trespassing, I am considering NOT COUNTING that peak until I do it over, avoiding the PP altogether.

Hope that helps. GREAT THREAD on a very important topic.

This seems radically extreme to me.

Because property is private does not mean it can't be crossed. If a land owner does not want you to cross their land, it must be posted (so I guess or have been told) There is even a spec for the distance between signs, which is why you see the signs at fixed intervals. Using this "defense" in conversation with a Sheriff has kept me out of jail on one occassion.

Even then, there are places where the land is posted against hunting, fishing, or trapping, but not against passing. You need to read the signs. I've actually seen areas where there were no hunting... posted signs and hand written below was "hikers welcome"

The original question was about seeing the signs on the backs of trees, meaning you were tresspassing and are now off of the posted land. If I entered the land via an un-posted boundry, then I see no problem as the land was not posted by my route. Assuming I did not already cross the posted property line.

To this point, if you have an undesirable person on you front suburban lawn, you usually have to notify them that they are not wanted after which their presence is consider tresspassing. Further to this point, you can see the fine print signs on the doors to the mall where they list all the rules of their private property and it says...if you don't follow these rule then you will be considered to be trasspassing... and prosecuted.

JHS

 

[spencer]

Damn, I tried to give Byates a red square for that gibberish (as bigmoose pointed out) but it backfired and I gave him/her a green one by mistake.

grumble, grumble.

spencer

 

[NH_Mtn_Hiker]

John H Swanson wrote:

...Because property is private does not mean it can't be crossed. If a land owner does not want you to cross their land, it must be posted...

I don't know about New York, but in some states the land doesn't necessarily have to "posted" with signs for you to be charged with trespassing. In some states the remnants of a hundred year old fence act the same as the signs....and we don't even want to get into railroad property laws. Crossing or walking along the tracks (someplace other than at a crossing) in some states is a big No-No, and they take it very seriously.

It pays to know the laws in the state you're hiking in.

Ken:
Lighten up... or no donuts!

Edited to finish sentence

 

[ripple]

get legislation passed to give landowners who DON'T post thier land a nice tax break - it would be great for landowners to get a reward for not posting thier land.QUOTE]


In NH we do. Land that is posted does have a higher tax rate. In NH you could post your land to certian activities ie... No ATVs. et etc. My family owns a good chunk of land in southern NH, which is not posted to people on foot. No vechicles allowed. We have had a few problems w/ people leaving trash, some SOBs broke into the cabin and a few ATV ers tearing up the place. Most land owners have posted their land b/c of past problems. Not everybody practices LNT. It is their right to post land... they worked for it, maybe went without things to buy their land. It doesn't take much to find the owner and check w/ them. I don't think it is a pity someone can protect their property. Anyone could buy land in America... times have changed, any race or gender can now own land so buy your own. If land is posted, respect it, and if you want pass on the land, get permission. Respect their land just as you would want people to respect your yard at home.

 

[arghman]

The original question was about seeing the signs on the backs of trees, meaning you were tresspassing and are now off of the posted land. If I entered the land via an un-posted boundry, then I see no problem as the land was not posted by my route. Assuming I did not already cross the posted property line.

To this point, if you have an undesirable person on you front suburban lawn, you usually have to notify them that they are not wanted after which their presence is consider tresspassing. Further to this point, you can see the fine print signs on the doors to the mall where they list all the rules of their private property and it says...if you don't follow these rule then you will be considered to be trasspassing... and prosecuted.

Well said. In NH (as RGF1 states), if you want to keep people out you need to post your land with signs at regular intervals on the boundary; if the land is not posted, then it is open to people on foot (but not to ATVs; not sure about horses/bikes). I recently went hiking on some town-owned land and came back to my car through an abutter's property. There were no signs until I got back to the road, turned around and saw a No Trespassing sign. If I wanted to go by the letter of the law, I could probably continue to travel the loop I took (into Town property, then into the abutter's land via the boundary which was not posted) but not the reverse direction (into the abutter's land via a posted boundary). Ethically I shouldn't do either after seeing a posted sign. (Heard later the landowner's just trying to keep out ATVs and intends to put up a more appropriate sign as soon as she can find out where to purchase one.)

In Scandinavian countries (I've heard) there is something called "Everyman's Right" which allows people to hike, fish, and even camp on private property (with "reasonableness" limitations). An interesting concept. While I don't like to see POSTED signs, the idea of private property in this country is something I'm glad about; land is not free and people need to understand that when they're out in the woods, somebody owns the land, someone can decide how it will be used, and someone pays for its management costs (even if it is the govt in some cases).

 

[MadRiver]

Because property is private does not mean it can't be crossed. If a land owner does not want you to cross their land, it must be posted (so I guess or have been told)

To this point, if you have an undesirable person on you front suburban lawn, you usually have to notify them that they are not wanted after which their presence is consider tresspassing. JHS

Not wishing to quibble, but this sounds like the burden of keeping your land private falls more on the land owner than the “trespasser”. I have a similar problem that mirrors the hiking issue we are discussing. My house is located next to a White Mountain National Forest swimming hole. There are several houses on the opposite side of me that share a common driveway. Lately I have noticed that some of the home owners have been using my yard as a cut through to the swimming hole thereby avoiding having to walk along the state road. Most of the time I am not there so I do not know how pervasive this practice of cutting through has been, or for how long.

I did see one neighbor cutting through with her small daughter in a carriage and she stopped and asked permission. Since she asked, I had no problem granting her access to my yard. However, if I read your post correctly, you are saying that everyone has implied permission to use my land unless stated otherwise, which I have to disagree with. I do not believe that I have to post my land for others to understand what private property entails. In a heavily wooded area the posting not only tells you that there is no trespassing, but it also alerts you to the fact that you are now on private property. That is not the case when you are walking across someone’s lawn, which is clearly private.

 

[bruno]

sign? what sign? i didn't see any sign. . .

 

[imarchant]

I had been thinking of starting a thread on the subject of private land. Prino and I were discussing this on a previous hike. He's from England and I'm from Canada and we both agreed it was a pity that private land is so firmly out of bounds in the ADK's. (I imagine it's similar elsewhere).
This has never been my experience hiking/bushwhacking in Canada where I have never given a thought (or hesitated) about crossing private land. Prino was saying that landowners in England are duty bound to maintain paths on their own land for the benefit of hikers. I'm sure the history of the 3 countries is responsable for the big differences.
But don't you all agree with me that it's a pity?

In defense of Neil: He does not say the land owners do not have the RIGHT to post their land, only that it is a shame that so many people (Tresspassers) do not have the respect of landowners property. That is the main reason lands get posted. Nessmuk gives an excellent example. Another big reason is liablity. So I agree it is a pity, but we must repect an owners RIGHT to post their property. The way to do this is through proper research and contacting landowners as part of the hike planning.

To answer the original question. First, leave the private property immediately. If you can contact the land owner without inconviencing them make an apology. Showing respect to landowners rights is the only way the hiking community can keep and gain the access we "need" across private lands.

 

[arghman]

In NH we do. Land that is posted does have a higher tax rate.

To clarify, NH has a program called "Current Use" which allows owners of undeveloped land over 10 acres to register their land and have it assessed at values compatible with its current use rather than its potential use (e.g. house lots). The resultant tax rates depend on the type of land (swamp/forest/farmland/etc) and what each town's property tax rate is, but are on the order of $1/acre/yr.

There is an additional "recreational adjustment" that can be added, which gives landowners another 20% reduction in assessed value (and taxes), on the condition that the landowners allow hunting, fishing, snowshoeing, hiking, skiing, and nature observation. They can post against mechanized vehicles e.g. snowmobiles & ATVs.

 

[arghman]

...Because property is private does not mean it can't be crossed. If a land owner does not want you to cross their land, it must be posted...

Not wishing to quibble, but this sounds like the burden of keeping your land private falls more on the land owner than the “trespasser”.

Depends on the state. In New England this is likely to be the case... NH Fish and Game has a good explanation of these issues as they apply in New Hampshire, where public access to unposted land is a matter of (unwritten) historical common law (not quite sure how that works ).

I take back my statement in an earlier post about being able to enter property from an unposted boundary. NH RSA 635:2 says that trespass is when someone knowingly enters "secured" land, so once you see a sign or a fence on any boundary, you've been informed to stay out from all sides, whether or not they are posted (assuming you know where the boundary is, if it's not posted from that side).

 

[Rob S]

Sorry spb,

I'm with mcorsar still. Like you, I definitely "choose to hike outside of the neatly packaged maps with dot-to-dot boundaries from time to time" accessing hikes from state land and trying to exit via state land."

All the time in fact. It's no excuse not to EXTENSIVELY preplan to avoid crossing over land that "you have no right to cross". On my current list, fully 15 percent of the list has PP issues that must be addressed PRE-HIKE. I found myself joining "hunt & fish clubs" ( I neither hike nor fish) just to gain LEGAL access to certain peaks. It really is a big deal. Trespassing can almost ALWAYS be avoided with good pre-hike work.

That said, I'll answer the question. Hiking Saddleback (Jay Range, ADKs), an unfortunate road closure had us start the hike a little lower than intended, but we thought we were still okay. About 20 minutes in, we hit a barbwire fence and KNEW instinctually that we'd crossed PP. After the hike, we were fortunate to encounter the landowner in question. WE WERE VERY HUMBLE and actually begged forgiveness. I even offered money to him for our failure to "know better". Eventually, he was real cool with us (no doubt due to our attitude), and he gave us "retroactive" permission for the passing.

Since my explicit goal is to complete my list without trespassing, I am considering NOT COUNTING that peak until I do it over, avoiding the PP altogether.

Hope that helps. GREAT THREAD on a very important topic.

This seems radically extreme to me.

Radically extreme? Perhaps. Without getting in the middle of this fray, I will just say that I personally would err on the side of "extreme". While it may be overkill in many instances, I'd guess that many land owners would appreciate the attitude that Mavs00 and company have presented. IF I was a land owner in the ADK's for example, and IF my land was posted, the attitude that Mavs speaks of would be very much appreciated ....... and even rewarded with future permission to cross the land. But that's just me.

 

[ken]

John H Swanson wrote:
I don't know about New York, but in some states the land doesn't necessarily have to "posted" with signs for you to be charged with trespassing.

in new york if it isn't posted the landowner still has the same rights (to legally use physical force to remove you if you refuse to leave) - if he tells you to leave, you must comply and not come back (do not stand there and argue with the landowner that you have a right to be there because there are no signs or not enough signs, you can still be charged with trespassing if you refuse).

 

[mavs00]

This seems radically extreme to me.

Hmmmm. Not sure I would consider attempting to complete my list without trespassing "radically extreme" in the least. Its MY goal, which is not to say its anyone's else. Other than that, I agree with much of what you say. NY's Criminal Trespass law states

"The law provides an exception to criminal trespass in certain circumstances:

“A person who enters or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land, which is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders, does so with license and privilege unless notice against trespass is personally communicated to him by the owner of such land or other authorized person, or unless such notice is given by posting in a conspicuous manner.”

So once again, MOST of these issues can be worked out before hand. The owner that I spoke to initially wasn't real pleased. Hikers crossing his land has been a problem in the past. IMO, the area was "poorly & not proberly marked" (but it was marked) so I can make the point that "it's his own fault, but I choose not to go that route. He was very understanding when we explained that is was inadvertent crossing. His bigger issue was from those that knowingly entered his land without permission then used the "I didn't see the signs" excuse later if caught. There are those with that mindset out there.

You are right about the different "types" of posted zones though. Some are hiker friendly, others are not. I've found that much of the land that I'm talking about (in NY) is land owned by big timber companies (e.g. Finch Pruyn) and these leese it to small entities like fish and game clubs. They clearly don't want non-members coming in an "taking game" from the land, but some are quite willing to allow hikers to cross to get access to peaks, provided permission is sought beforehand. They might want you to pay a small "easement fee", and that's understandable. I think thats the reasonable way to go about it, and I'll not judge others that choose another way. Cave Dog did this in his 46er record attempt, gaining legal access to Allen's short route.

My initial point was, you can almost always avoid it beforehand. If you do find yourself in a "posted area", I think you should leave it as quicky as you safely can, which might be in the direction of the summit you seek if you're lcuky. I still might not count my Saddleback trip, despite the fact that "it was a legal crossing", because I should have known better, and that is persoanlly important TO ME. Plus, it's a great excuse to go back and revisit a great peak

 

[MadRiver]

To clarify, NH has a program called "Current Use" which allows owners of undeveloped land over 10 acres to register their land and have it assessed at values compatible with its current use rather than its potential use (e.g. house lots). The resultant tax rates depend on the type of land (swamp/forest/farmland/etc) and what each town's property tax rate is, but are on the order of $1/acre/yr.

My wife’s family owns about 15 acres that abuts WMNF and is current taxed under “Current Use”. It is not posted and they wouldn’t even dream of restricting access to the land for hikers or others who wish to enjoy the forest. In fact, I have seen a group of mountain bikers use it on a regular basis and since it is not posted, I doubt they even know they are on private land.

Once again to clarify a point, large tracts of land is a different issue than a home which usually has well defined boundaries such as a driveway or a fence as in my case. Walking across someone’s lawn is quite different than walking across someone’s 15 acres of woods.

Case in point. To access the Blueberry Ledge Trail one has to walk up a driveway and pass right next to a home. This is clearly private property and if you believe that you have a God given right to access this property without the owners permission, than you have a misguided understanding of private property. In this particular case, the owner has placed a sign on the gate that says, “Private: Hikers Welcome”, which I think is a great sign and shows that this person understands the needs of hikers as well as his/her need that you respect their property.

 

[Stan]

I don't think I ever came across a "No Trespassing" sign that impeded my hike, i.e. that I couldn't get around. Most of my hikes in NH are on public land, most in Maine are either public land or land open to limited recreation use. If there were posted land and I really really needed to cross it I'd check with the owner. I suspect that approach would more likely get me not only a shortcut but maybe a few route tips and possibly some apple pie to go with the tequila.

The private part of the 'Dacks on the other hand seem to have such an in your face keep out attitude that I can understand how it drives one to become an outlaw.