forgive us our trespasses...

[dms]

Ne/ny

Wow, the contrast between access in NY and NE is stark indeed. In over 20 years of bw in NE, only 2 times have I come across actual no trespassing signs, Both times the signs were directed at ATV use according to the owners. I can see that you folks in NY seem to have an extra consideration in planning some of your hikes.

 

[mavs00]

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.

It's not nearly as bad as you might think. I know for a fact that its very possible to seek, and be granted, legal access if you go about it correctly. Some friends and I did just that this year, and were able to hike quite a few "private" areas, legally. To be honest, it felt quite nice to know that we were legal and we were greatful to the landowners for giving us access. End result, everyone happy.

As far as Understanding "how it drives one to become an outlaw", I submit for your consideration that, perhaps the current "in your face keep out attitude" (if indeed there is one), is because of the outlaw mentality of the past, and not the opposite.

 

[Neil]

The history of ADK state Park's formation explains the private land issue. Allthough it is a park it's boudaries enclose a veritable quilt work of private and public land. Perusal of the NG Trails Map (tyvek) quickly shows you just how much land in this park is private. I wonder how easy/difficult it is to track down the owner and request permission.

For example, just North of the Jay Wilderness there are some really cool exposed summits. I figured I'd go check them out but when I talked about it to a friend he explained they were all on private land. Can the owners be traced via the net?

Or:

“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.”

Entering from the Jay Wilderness I doubt there would be any signs posted. If the quoted statement is indeed true then I'd be OK if indeed there were no signs. The onus would be on the owner to post all the borders of his /her land, not just roadsides. True, if one saw signs from the road but entered elsewhere where there were no signs he would be knowingly evading the postings, unless of course he "assumed" because there were no signs it was a different owner.

 

[RGF1]

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.



In NH at least the burden does fall on the land owner. Land not posted is considerd open land . This is not so in many other states and as others have said is taken very seriously.
If you drive through CO or WY for example you will see miles of land fenced with barbed wire. It is not to only keep cattle in but YOU out they do not have to post many do though . If you get caught you are likely to be escorted off to the awaiting sherrifs vehical by very mad land owner with a shot gun . They do take it very seriously . You will get arrested charged and probably face some sort of legal consequence . While some people get mad about posting this it is the land owners property , they get to say what happens on it. I still fail to see what the issue is. I do not even see any argument It is not your land you have no right to it .
Mad River you might want you talk to the people walking though you land and politiely ask them not to. I do not blame you if you posted it .
Others are also right what gets land posted in NH is past abuse that is what got our land posted .

 

[ken]

I figured I'd go check them out but when I talked about it to a friend he explained they were all on private land. Can the owners be traced via the net?

a few counties can be done on the net... but every county clerk's office has tax maps showing every tact of land (some owners have multiple tracts) - get the numbers from the maps and ask who the owner is - get the name and address - then dial 411 get his # and ask permission (or send a letter) ...

 

[MadRiver]

In NH at least the burden does fall on the land owner. Land not posted is considerd open land . This is not so in many other states and as others have said is taken very seriously.
Mad River you might want you talk to the people walking though you land and politiely ask them not to. I do not blame you if you posted it .
Others are also right what gets land posted in NH is past abuse that is what got our land posted .

I still believe there are two separate issues here. To me, the 15 acres that my wife’s family own would be considered open land because it is not posted and everyone has a right to access the property. My residential home, however, is a separate matter. I do not believe that a residential home that is well defined with a driveway and a split rail fence can be considered open land with everyone and their brother having access to it. If that is the case, what prevents someone from swimming in my pool (if I had one) cooking lunch on my grill, and basically using my lawn as their own personal picnic area?

I do not having a problem if my neighbor wants to cut through my yard to avoid a road walk as long as he or she acknowledges that it is my property and they have to at the very least ask my permission and not rely on some abstract notion of “open land” not being posted means total access for everyone.

 

[Nessmuk]

Can the owners be traced via the net?

Well, yes, sort of if you have enough other information. Try:
http://www.uspdr.com/

Another source requires you to be a member of "The NYS GIS Data Sharing Cooperative is a group of governmental entities and not-for-profit organizations that have executed Data Sharing Agreements for the purpose of improving access to GIS data among members..." Then you can access:
http://www.nysgis.state.ny.us/gisdata/inventories/details.cfm?DSID=944

Various outdoor related organizations do qualify for access. It's a little complicated, but once you break the code to using the nysgis site you can associate any landowner to their tax property parcel on the map.

 

[Nate]

To touch upon what DMS wrote, is trespassing a major issue in New England (at least for hiking in the mountains)? I ask because in my experience, any worthwhile mountain in New England is either in a park (i.e. Green or White Mountain N.F., Baxter S.P.) or can be accessed via some established trail. Even times when I've hiked on private land (i.e. paper company land) I didn't encounter any objections to my presence (or I simply missed them). Hence, is trespassing more an issue in the Daks and Cats, or does it also come into play more for the minor peaks in New England?

 

[David Metsky]

is trespassing a major issue in New England (at least for hiking in the mountains)? I ask because in my experience, any worthwhile mountain in New England is either in a park (i.e. Green or White Mountain N.F., Baxter S.P.) or can be accessed via some established trail.

Take a look at the Mt Cabot trail, which is closed due to conflicts with a land owner. All of the access to the Northern Presidentials from Rt 2 go through private land before reaching the NF. While they are established trails, they only have access with the consent of the landowners. Most of Moosilauke is privately owned, although access there isn't a problem. The Osceo trail going up Mt Flume was rerouted due to private land issues.

Smaller mountains (which are plenty worthwhile ) have more land access issues, but it's much more common than you think.

-dave-

 

[lumberzac]

To touch upon what DMS wrote, is trespassing a major issue in New England (at least for hiking in the mountains)? I ask because in my experience, any worthwhile mountain in New England is either in a park (i.e. Green or White Mountain N.F., Baxter S.P.) or can be accessed via some established trail. Even times when I've hiked on private land (i.e. paper company land) I didn't encounter any objections to my presence (or I simply missed them). Hence, is trespassing more an issue in the Daks and Cats, or does it also come into play more for the minor peaks in New England?

I can only speak for the Adirondacks it is more of an issue with the peaks bellow 4000', but everyone should keep in mind that some of the major routes to some of the high peaks do cross private land such as the Santanoni Range, Allen, the Dix Range from Elk Lake, and any of the trails from St. Huberts. Permission doesn't need to be obtained to hike the areas I listed, because of agreements between the landowners and the state, but keep in mind that camping and bushwhacking isn't allowed on the easement properties.


I should also note that the easment land around Elk Lake is closed to hiking during deer season, Oct. 22 - Dec. 4.

 

[arghman]

To touch upon what DMS wrote, is trespassing a major issue in New England (at least for hiking in the mountains)? I ask because in my experience, any worthwhile mountain in New England is either in a park (i.e. Green or White Mountain N.F., Baxter S.P.) or can be accessed via some established trail. Even times when I've hiked on private land (i.e. paper company land) I didn't encounter any objections to my presence (or I simply missed them). Hence, is trespassing more an issue in the Daks and Cats, or does it also come into play more for the minor peaks in New England?

All the NH4K summits are in WMNF or Franconia Notch State Park (except for perhaps Moosilauke which may be on land owned by Dartmouth College that is open to the public). Most of the Maine 4K summits (if not all) are in state parks or in the Appalachian Trail corridor. Mt Abraham recently had some land protected (acquired? cons. easement?) recently from a private owner to the State of Maine, via help from the Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust.

There are many summits in the 3000-4000ft range which are under private ownership, though in NH at least, there seems to be a low-key long-term trend in the last two decades to get these protected by ownership of the state or land trusts like the Nature Conservancy or through conservation easements. Mt Kelsey in Millsfield is on private land; I believe Dixville Peak is owned by the company that owns The Balsams (& much of the rest of Dixville Twp); and there are perhaps a few in the Stratford/Columbia area in the North Country. My guess would be that most of these are bushwhacks.

As far as "worthwhile" mountains go (or at least ones that are perhaps more often climbed by those in the North Country), be advised that much of the unincorporated township of Success has always been privately owned, and was acquired within the last few years by T R Dillon Logging of Anson, Maine. This parcel currently provides access to four trails leading to the Mahoosuc section of the AT from Success Pond Rd. The Outlook on the shoulder of Mt Success is within private ownership. Access to all of this is unsecured and subject to the whims of the landowner, who is not particularly known for being conservation-minded.

 

[David Metsky]

All the NH4K summits are in WMNF or Franconia Notch State Park (except for perhaps Moosilauke which may be on land owned by Dartmouth College that is open to the public).

Part of the summit of Washington is owned by Dartmouth, too. But the majority of the Washington summit is state park. Dartmouth does own the summit of Moosilauke and 4500 acres around there.

The problem isn't so much the summits, but the approaches. Many of the trails go through private property at the consent of the landowners. Even though the access is currently allowed, there is no guarenttee that it will always be so.

When I was building relocated sections of the AT on either side of the NH/VT border the Park Service was negotiating and buying easements from landowners. This was a seriously contentious issue, and the trail ended up moving quite a bit when disagreements couldn't be solved. Trails that had been in use for decades were moved as a result.

-dave-

 

[Rob S]

When I was building relocated sections of the AT on either side of the NH/VT border the Park Service was negotiating and buying easements from landowners. This was a seriously contentious issue, and the trail ended up moving quite a bit when disagreements couldn't be solved. Trails that had been in use for decades were moved as a result.

Similar experience with the Appalachian Trail in NJ. As a volunteer with the New York / New Jersey Trail Conference, I've seen this same issue come up quite a bit in the past. In the 1990's, many landowners were relunctant to even consider selling off pieces of their land. That's probably still the case.

However, many of the negotiations were successful and enough land was acquired to keep the AT off of private land and roads. In fact, just a few years ago, a 1 mile section of the AT was finally permanently relocated off a road. This particular relocation is awesome as it contains a LONG section of boardwalk over the floodplain for Pochuck Creek and includes a very nice suspension bridge.

 

[MadRiver]

I found this link to be interesting concerning private property rights.

http://hikenh.netfirms.com/Whose.htm

It did answer my question why my residential home should be treated differently than a plot of undeveloped land with respect to access.