peakbagger
In Rembrance , July 2024
I was looking at the trail conditions site and saw this interesting trail report from a landowner about a "trespass" (my words not the landowner) on posted land.
https://www.newenglandtrailconditions.com/nh/viewreport.php?entryid=53173
And this appears to be Phil's post https://sectionhiker.com/bushwhacking-dalton-mountain/
I am not out to dump on anyone on this but worth discussing hikers rights and responsibilities of accessing private land. The short version is if the land is posted properly the hiker has no right unless they have the owners express permission to enter posted property. The owner has the right to say no and lack of being able to reach the landowner is not an excuse for trespass.
My assumption is the Phil Werner referred to in the posting is the owner of SectionHiker.com (a useful resource IMHO )and Jim Dannis is presumably one of the early leaders of the Anti Northern Pass movement. The original NP route was proposed to go over his property in the Dalton area which is reportedly quite a large parcel or parcels and trespass on his property by NP surveyors was a point of contention. (Jim's daughter is Larisa Dannis was active on VFTT at one time). In general many private landowners want to keep track of who is on their property. Dalton is one of these towns that unless you want to go there you probably would have a tough time finding it as the Moore Dam Reservoir on the Connecticut River wraps around quite a bit of the town. I have posted in the past that Dalton has made the news as the possible location of a large private regional landfill. With the growth of Littleton to the south and the completion of I93 30 years ago Dalton has been a place to get large parcels of former timberland with a potential view looking south to the Franconia area on the south facing slopes of Dalton Mtn or north up the Connecticut River. .At one time the prices of bulk land was quite reasonable but as the years have passed, the price has gone up. My guess is there are few local services and correspondingly low property taxes. Looking at Google Earth, there does seem to be several large newer "estates" built to take advantage of the south view. I checked the Granit GIS viewer (via NH Stonewall mapper and selecting NH polygons layer) to see if I could figure out the property boundaries but it looks like the parcel boundaries for Dalton are not shown. Looking at the USGS map for the area the highest summit is around 3200 feet and is located on private land to the north of land identified as Forest Lake State Park. There is a lower peak shown on the state park land.
I do not have access to Phil's GPS track that the landowner references. Looking at Google Earth and the USGS map there is a presumably newer road not shown on the USGS wrapping around to the north of the summits on Google Earth but in general it looks like the logical approach is from the Northeast over private land. Land posting rules in NH are pretty simple https://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/landshare/faqs.html , 100 yards or less along every property boundary and at every gate, bars and commonly used entrance. The problem is that someone bushwhacking may not be using a gate, bar or commonly used entrance and rather may just pick the highest elevation along a road to cut into the woods. Generally land owners post far more frequently along public roads than 100 yards but that is not a legal requirement but rather a practical one. Contrary to popular belief, an owner may post their land and still be protected by NH recreation liability rules (I am not a lawyer and do not claim to be) https://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/landshare/landowner-liability.html. There is an optional 20% discount on property taxes on current use lands that are not posted but given the low tax rate on current use land this savings is negligible in most cases. (the taxes on my 83 acres of land in Randolph is less $50 a year under current use status, thus 20% is not a big incentive). Here is some info from the NH current use coalition The Recreational Discount is an incentive for landowners to keep their land open to others for six low-impact land uses; skiing, snowshoeing, fishing, hunting hiking and nature observation. In exchange for agreeing to allow all six of these activities, the current use assessment is reduced by 20%. No other recreational activities must be allowed, and the landowner may post against any other uses. Participation in the Recreational Discount is optional
I inherited very closely spaced blazing on my property from a prior owner (in most cases 50 foot or less between blazes) but in many cases blazes on property lines on timber parcels are very sparse to non existent. Generally they are not repainted until a timber operation and that may be 25 to 50 year intervals. Modern technology can geofence a parcel to be logged so there may be no need to re-blaze the line. At best blazing paint lasts 15 to 20 years and even at that point it has faded considerably. Restoring blazes on a property line can be challenge dependent on the type of growth. In open hardwoods in the winter it goes quick but in dense spruce/fir it can disappear quickly.
From personal experience the biggest challenge is how to contact the landowner for permission?. Few folks out for a hike are going to make a scouting mission in advance to find out the status of land ownership. Not all rural towns post their tax map on line, Dalton does post their tax maps but it does not have topo and someone would need to do some jigsaw work to reassemble the parcel sub maps to get the parcel reference and then go into the town assessment database to determine ownership. Note many towns do not make the assessment data base available on line as realtors and occasionally contractors use if for "fishing" for prospects. It is public record, but the towns may require someone to make an appointment to review the lists. Not all towns list ownership contact info, generally at best there may be an address of record Many large parcels are owned by owners that are not local, therefore if the rules are followed having a name and an address on the signs is not a viable way to locate a way of contacting an owner. In some cases the landowner allows a group of hunters to post the land for the owner in exchange for the exclusive right to hunt on that land. The hunters have an incentive to keep an eye on it and the owner saves the hassle of posting.
So my questions that would assist with context of this event are
Did Phil knowingly enter posted land? Per his post he went up through a gate off a public road and at some point crossed a presumably unmarked boundary. Presumably if the owners wanted to restrict use, the gate would be posted. Given there is tower and dish on a summit, the assumption is if a owner did not want someone to access the site they would have posted the road.
With respect to the landowners request, I am unsure if the harm was in the actual posting of GPS track or the lack of request for permission. That is the dicey point. It appears that Phil most likely unknowingly crossed into the owners land presumably without seeing any posting signs. This is not difficult thing to do in dense woods with snow on the trees. IMHO the landowner was more concerned with the posting of the GPS track?. For many folks so called "bushwhacking" has become follow the electronic breadcrumb using tracks they have found online and the result is herd paths becoming rapidly hardened through repetitive use. The people using the tracks they have found on the internet somehow may assume that the published track gives some level of legitimacy to the route and a landowner may discover that a default trail has been established on their land. Given the Dalton summit is in excess of 3000 feet and the popularity of what were once obscure lists becoming more popular that also may lead to increased use.
The bummer is the owner has posted his contact info in the trail conditions report. Its useful but my experience is that those trail reports do not show up on typical web searches (by design or not) and are ephemeral at best. Phil's post notes that his policies do not allow the contact info to be posted without permission so it will be dead end.
In the past I have asked several folks heavily involved with the more obscure lists as to their approach to approach summits on private land. Generally the answer is a shrug, a variant of don't ask, don't tell, or a variant that its on need to know basis and the common folk do not need to know. No doubt " need to know" has leaked onto private forums and probably best to stay there. IMHO, what is probably best is if in doubt keep the GPS tracks over questionable ownership out of the public domain.
I did send a note to Phil via his website and let him know I was posting this although I am unsure if he has access to VFTT
https://www.newenglandtrailconditions.com/nh/viewreport.php?entryid=53173
And this appears to be Phil's post https://sectionhiker.com/bushwhacking-dalton-mountain/
I am not out to dump on anyone on this but worth discussing hikers rights and responsibilities of accessing private land. The short version is if the land is posted properly the hiker has no right unless they have the owners express permission to enter posted property. The owner has the right to say no and lack of being able to reach the landowner is not an excuse for trespass.
My assumption is the Phil Werner referred to in the posting is the owner of SectionHiker.com (a useful resource IMHO )and Jim Dannis is presumably one of the early leaders of the Anti Northern Pass movement. The original NP route was proposed to go over his property in the Dalton area which is reportedly quite a large parcel or parcels and trespass on his property by NP surveyors was a point of contention. (Jim's daughter is Larisa Dannis was active on VFTT at one time). In general many private landowners want to keep track of who is on their property. Dalton is one of these towns that unless you want to go there you probably would have a tough time finding it as the Moore Dam Reservoir on the Connecticut River wraps around quite a bit of the town. I have posted in the past that Dalton has made the news as the possible location of a large private regional landfill. With the growth of Littleton to the south and the completion of I93 30 years ago Dalton has been a place to get large parcels of former timberland with a potential view looking south to the Franconia area on the south facing slopes of Dalton Mtn or north up the Connecticut River. .At one time the prices of bulk land was quite reasonable but as the years have passed, the price has gone up. My guess is there are few local services and correspondingly low property taxes. Looking at Google Earth, there does seem to be several large newer "estates" built to take advantage of the south view. I checked the Granit GIS viewer (via NH Stonewall mapper and selecting NH polygons layer) to see if I could figure out the property boundaries but it looks like the parcel boundaries for Dalton are not shown. Looking at the USGS map for the area the highest summit is around 3200 feet and is located on private land to the north of land identified as Forest Lake State Park. There is a lower peak shown on the state park land.
I do not have access to Phil's GPS track that the landowner references. Looking at Google Earth and the USGS map there is a presumably newer road not shown on the USGS wrapping around to the north of the summits on Google Earth but in general it looks like the logical approach is from the Northeast over private land. Land posting rules in NH are pretty simple https://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/landshare/faqs.html , 100 yards or less along every property boundary and at every gate, bars and commonly used entrance. The problem is that someone bushwhacking may not be using a gate, bar or commonly used entrance and rather may just pick the highest elevation along a road to cut into the woods. Generally land owners post far more frequently along public roads than 100 yards but that is not a legal requirement but rather a practical one. Contrary to popular belief, an owner may post their land and still be protected by NH recreation liability rules (I am not a lawyer and do not claim to be) https://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/landshare/landowner-liability.html. There is an optional 20% discount on property taxes on current use lands that are not posted but given the low tax rate on current use land this savings is negligible in most cases. (the taxes on my 83 acres of land in Randolph is less $50 a year under current use status, thus 20% is not a big incentive). Here is some info from the NH current use coalition The Recreational Discount is an incentive for landowners to keep their land open to others for six low-impact land uses; skiing, snowshoeing, fishing, hunting hiking and nature observation. In exchange for agreeing to allow all six of these activities, the current use assessment is reduced by 20%. No other recreational activities must be allowed, and the landowner may post against any other uses. Participation in the Recreational Discount is optional
I inherited very closely spaced blazing on my property from a prior owner (in most cases 50 foot or less between blazes) but in many cases blazes on property lines on timber parcels are very sparse to non existent. Generally they are not repainted until a timber operation and that may be 25 to 50 year intervals. Modern technology can geofence a parcel to be logged so there may be no need to re-blaze the line. At best blazing paint lasts 15 to 20 years and even at that point it has faded considerably. Restoring blazes on a property line can be challenge dependent on the type of growth. In open hardwoods in the winter it goes quick but in dense spruce/fir it can disappear quickly.
From personal experience the biggest challenge is how to contact the landowner for permission?. Few folks out for a hike are going to make a scouting mission in advance to find out the status of land ownership. Not all rural towns post their tax map on line, Dalton does post their tax maps but it does not have topo and someone would need to do some jigsaw work to reassemble the parcel sub maps to get the parcel reference and then go into the town assessment database to determine ownership. Note many towns do not make the assessment data base available on line as realtors and occasionally contractors use if for "fishing" for prospects. It is public record, but the towns may require someone to make an appointment to review the lists. Not all towns list ownership contact info, generally at best there may be an address of record Many large parcels are owned by owners that are not local, therefore if the rules are followed having a name and an address on the signs is not a viable way to locate a way of contacting an owner. In some cases the landowner allows a group of hunters to post the land for the owner in exchange for the exclusive right to hunt on that land. The hunters have an incentive to keep an eye on it and the owner saves the hassle of posting.
So my questions that would assist with context of this event are
Did Phil knowingly enter posted land? Per his post he went up through a gate off a public road and at some point crossed a presumably unmarked boundary. Presumably if the owners wanted to restrict use, the gate would be posted. Given there is tower and dish on a summit, the assumption is if a owner did not want someone to access the site they would have posted the road.
With respect to the landowners request, I am unsure if the harm was in the actual posting of GPS track or the lack of request for permission. That is the dicey point. It appears that Phil most likely unknowingly crossed into the owners land presumably without seeing any posting signs. This is not difficult thing to do in dense woods with snow on the trees. IMHO the landowner was more concerned with the posting of the GPS track?. For many folks so called "bushwhacking" has become follow the electronic breadcrumb using tracks they have found online and the result is herd paths becoming rapidly hardened through repetitive use. The people using the tracks they have found on the internet somehow may assume that the published track gives some level of legitimacy to the route and a landowner may discover that a default trail has been established on their land. Given the Dalton summit is in excess of 3000 feet and the popularity of what were once obscure lists becoming more popular that also may lead to increased use.
The bummer is the owner has posted his contact info in the trail conditions report. Its useful but my experience is that those trail reports do not show up on typical web searches (by design or not) and are ephemeral at best. Phil's post notes that his policies do not allow the contact info to be posted without permission so it will be dead end.
In the past I have asked several folks heavily involved with the more obscure lists as to their approach to approach summits on private land. Generally the answer is a shrug, a variant of don't ask, don't tell, or a variant that its on need to know basis and the common folk do not need to know. No doubt " need to know" has leaked onto private forums and probably best to stay there. IMHO, what is probably best is if in doubt keep the GPS tracks over questionable ownership out of the public domain.
I did send a note to Phil via his website and let him know I was posting this although I am unsure if he has access to VFTT
Last edited:
