Dispute involving L.L. Bean's granddaughter

[Stan]

This thread has reminded me of a riddle that has been, well, riddling my mind for some time. Which will come first, if ever, hikers broadly accepting the legitimacy of motorized recreation or motorized recreationists broadly adopting a leave no trace ethic?

 

[Double Bow]

This thread has reminded me of a riddle that has been, well, riddling my mind for some time. Which will come first, if ever, hikers broadly accepting the legitimacy of motorized recreation or motorized recreationists broadly adopting a leave no trace ethic?

I'm not sure how ATVs could ever leave no trace. From what I've seen, the nature of the activity leaves more than a trace on the trails. Snowmobiles, if used responcibly, can leave no trace though they would still create air and noise pollution. Is it a wonder hikers broadly don't accept them??? Hikers, generally speaking, aren't apt to accept anything that destroys trails or creates a loud disturbance while they are trying to enjoy a bit of solitude.

 

[Lawn Sale]

NO ONE is saying ALL ATV riders cause trouble on land like Beans. What Bean and other land owners are saying is that the trouble is caused by ATV riders. Try to accept that, that some ATV riders are causing trouble. Then consider that if there is no effort to fix the problem from within the ATV community as was down with mtn bikers, then the landowner is left to fix the problem herself. Which she did.

Thank you for agreeing with what I posted. What I had proposed was WORKING with the ATV clubs, who ARE trying to rectify the problem of the few rogue ATV riders. There IS an effort, which is what I mentioned, many times.

You keep saying the two sides should work together as if the landowner has some need to accomodate the riders. You keep believing that and keep denying that ATVs are a problem, and yeah, more and more land will be closed. The riders need land, the landowners don't need the riders. Try to grasp that concept and then see what needs to be done to keep current open land open, and reopen closed land.

I am acknowledging that she doesn't have to work with the ATV clubs, I am saying she should, as it is a better solution, for the ATV community, the community at large, and her image. It's a win-win solution all the way around, rather than one sided. I also never denied that ATV's are the problem, there you go again, but I doubt they are the complete problem. I am saying that ATV's are easy to blame, so caution should be exercised when throwing accusations without proof. Try to grasp that concept.

The first step in fixing the problem is acknowledging that there is a problem, and blaming land closures on a giant conspiracy where the whole world is against ATVs for no good reason falls a bit short. Remember, Bean initially allowed riders on the land. It was their bahavior that caused her to close the land. Now you must convince her that that behavior won't recur if she reopens her land.

I am not saying there isn't a problem, but I'm also not blowing the problem out of proportion like you are. I know the whole world isn't against ATV's, wow you have a flair for the melodramatic. You keep mentioning their behavior solely that caused the problem, do you have proof of this? It has been stated that teens partying is also a cause of the problem, yet you fail to mention them.

I don't care. I don't have an ATV and don't care if anyone else does. It was only the name Bean that caused me to even view this thread. But I do know that blaming landowners for closing land and believing that there is a secret conspiracy rather than acknowledging that landowners are simply reacting to cure a problem on their land will not help you a bit. If I were a landowner, nothing I have read in this thread would give me a warm fuzzy feeling about ATV riders respecting my property. I hope you do better with Bean and the other landowners.

It's obvious you don't care, and therein lies the attitude problem. I also don't have an ATV, but I get tired when people blame only the ATV's and don't address the real problem. I also don't blame the landowners for closing their lands, as I mentioned before, it's their right and they can do anything they want. I am blaming the attitudes, like yours, that help escalate the problems and drive wedges into potentially viable solutions for all parties. Looking at what you have posted, nothing you could read in any thread would give you a warm fuzzy feeling, because you are so obviously closed minded nothing could change it. Which is fine, take your bias, your one sided rationales, and have a nice day.

 

[Stan]

I'm not sure how ATVs could ever leave no trace. From what I've seen, the nature of the activity leaves more than a trace on the trails.

We're all leaving a trace of some sort. What makes our trails (not to mention huts, shelters and hardened tentsites) any more noble than say, an ATV trail? Yes the actual use of such trails are much different in the trace they leave but that's why I ask if mobilized recreationists will ever adopt the ethic. Many snowmobilers certainly do. The location of motorized trails (many of which coincide with existing or recent logging roads), the design, maintenance and certain use ethics can go a long way in alleviating the impact, perhaps to a level acceptable to more landowners and others such as hikers.

Is it a wonder hikers broadly don't accept them??? Hikers, generally speaking, aren't apt to accept anything that destroys trails or creates a loud disturbance while they are trying to enjoy a bit of solitude.

Where is it written that hikers have the final word as to what is appropriate? I haven't seen motorized vehicles destroying hiking trails ... they generally can't use them. I appreciate quiet, solitude and undisturbed wildlife as much as, if not more than, the next person but have no trouble finding it ... in fact, my route sometimes entails an ATV or snowmobile trail for which I am grateful.

The riddle still stands. Both demographics have a ways to go.

 

[twigeater]

I know I'm late to the game here, I was on vacation when this thread was started (likely story!)

Some of my favorite hikes originate from that field and I've been there in all seasons. I've slept in my truck in the field and camped out by the pond.

I agree it is her right to post/block off her land, BUT she made no effort to contact the Tumbledown Conservation Alliance for assistance. I'm sure people (including me) would volunteer to clean up and provide some monitoring of the area if it could stay open.
I've never seen a mess in the field itself, but the lean-to area is trashy. Most of it seems to be centered around an old outhouse area. Also, she tried to get the town to block off the road first, so she knew the townspeople were against it.

I always enjoyed driving through there and seeing all the families camped out, some with volleyball nets. I've met up with the "red neck" campers as well, left my vehicle parked by the lean-to over night and never had a problem.

I've never seen an ATV or snowmobile there either, but like someone else said, I don't mind them because I enjoy their trails as well.

Too bad she hadn't taken a different approach.

 

[twigeater]

I happended to be in the area this weekend and saw all the shiny new gates. No gate on the road to Tumbledown Field, though there are mounds of gravel at the entrances to the camping area. I didn't get out and walk in to see how it looked without the lean-to.
Frankly, the gravel mounds looked like challenges for 4WD and ATVs...I know I was tempted...

There were two things I noticed - supposedly access to the hiking trails is allowed, but where to park? the other thing - the road had been recently graded - a nasty grade (as I call it) one that scours up tire eating rocks. Never seen that before on that road, and for the first time in 20+ years of riding back roads, I popped a tire. And I don't even consider that road a "back" road.