Explorer Legal Defense Fund

[MikeT]

http://www.adkforum.com/showthread.php?t=14964

Certainly this topic is currently generating alot of interest on the ADK Forum.

And .... Certainly there is always two sides to the story.

Mike

 

[MichaelJ]

A fascinating discussion. It's too bad we couldn't have had one here ... the prior thread on this topic was deleted silently.

 

[Peakbagr]

Nothing silent about it. As the moderators do all the time, we often move threads to a moderator's forum on a temporary basis to discuss. Sometimes for reasons of comparative fairness to people who post similar threads, sometimes because they appear on the surface to stand in opposition to VFTT board policy.
In this case I explained to the OP what we were doing.

It's not always as mysterious or sinister as it appears. There is often more going on behind the scenes. We actually spend a lot of time trying to being fair and consistent.

 

[Explorer Editor]

I have been told that the original thread was removed out of concern that it seemed like a pitch for money. It's a fine line. On the one hand, I think paddlers would be interested to learn that the Explorer has set up a legal defense fund. On the other hand, I suppose any mention of the fund can be seen as a plea for money. Given the moderators' concerns, I'll refrain from begging for money.

The other news is that the Explorer has filed its answer to the lawsuit. We argue that the public has the right, under the common law, to paddle the waterways in dispute. The landowners say a waterway must have a history of commercial use to be subject to the common law. We contend that recreational use, as a legitimate form of travel, is sufficient to establish "navigability in fact." We also say the state is a necessary party to the suit.

 

[Stan]

It's not always as mysterious or sinister as it appears. There is often more going on behind the scenes. We actually spend a lot of time trying to being fair and consistent.

Keep up the good work.

FWIW, I have no objection to "pleas for money" as long as they are consistent with our interests, which in this case is paddler access. Some might counter that landowner interest should not be subordinated but I suggest that the landowner's interest is subject to reasonable dispute and supporting a court case to make that determination is in everyone's interest.

... on the other hand, if someone were to raise money here to promote a North Maine Woods National Park ... I would object

 

[MikeT]

A Question of Tactics

I do not question Phil Brown's sincerity, and I do disagree with his choice of tactics.

While it has been a tall mountain to climb to put together the Northern Forest Canoe Trail, I choose to financially support such a cooperative, community effort, as opposed to supporting the litigation of one New York stream at a time.

Mike