WODC Outlook, May 2009

[Trail Bandit]

One more point about land owners that I would like to share: In general, they don't respond, at least in the Ossipee Mountains region. This is an observation by me. I have had reports from a number of other people that have tried to get permission to show trails in the Ossipees, on a map or in a guide book, and there was a universal non response. They have chosen to not describe or show trails without permission. I chose to remove trails that owners complained about and show the rest. No answer means to me, "I don't care".

 

[woodsxc]

I had no idea there was such controversy about a freakin map. I haven't been to the Ossipees in years, but I remember them as beautiful mountains. Trail Bandit, keep making maps. Whoever wrote that WDOC piece needs to chill.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

On Maine colonial statues, http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/statutes/12/title12ch202-A.pdf says:

The public trust encompasses those uses of intertidal land
essential to the health and welfare of the Maine people, which uses include, but are not limited to, fishing,
fowling, navigation, use as a footway between points along the shore and use for recreational purposes.

On Massachusetts colonial statues, http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/resources/about01.htm says:

... (includes) great ponds and certain rivers and streams....

Preserves pedestrian access along the water's edge for fishing, fowling and navigation and, in return for permission to develop non-water dependent projects on Commonwealth tidelands, provides facilities to enhance public use and enjoyment of the water.

Seeks to protect and extend public strolling rights, as well as public navigation rights.

I can't quickly find any info on NH. Maine used to be part of Massachusetts, hence the common parts of their common law

Tim

 

[Waumbek]

One more point about land owners that I would like to share: In general, they don't respond, at least in the Ossipee Mountains region. This is an observation by me. I have had reports from a number of other people that have tried to get permission to show trails in the Ossipees, on a map or in a guide book, and there was a universal non response. They have chosen to not describe or show trails without permission. I chose to remove trails that owners complained about and show the rest. No answer means to me, "I don't care".

If you want to befriend landowners in the Ossipees or elsewhere, which I hope is at least part of your objective, I would not show a hiking trail on private land without explicit (written) permission. Like it or not, landowners own the land, with certain "public necessity" exceptions noted above. Recreational hiking trails are not likely to be public necessities in the colonial sense of the phrase. Yes, landowners are used to being "in charge" of their land, just as home owners are used to being "in charge" of their homes, car owners "in charge" of their cars and not inclined to forcibly opening them up to use by others. Why antagonize owners? If someone did not answer your certified letter, I'd read that as a "no," not as a default "yes." When I use a hiking map, I'd like to think that I'm on trails that have explicit permission from private owners, in other words, that I'm in "hiker friendly" territory, not about to encounter or encourage the ire of an owner who doesn't want me there. There are enough other places to hike with good karma in the Whites!

 

[skiguy]

If you want to befriend landowners in the Ossipees or elsewhere, which I hope is at least part of your objective, I would not show a hiking trail on private land without explicit (written) permission. Like it or not, landowners own the land, with certain "public necessity" exceptions noted above. Recreational hiking trails are not likely to be public necessities in the colonial sense of the phrase. Yes, landowners are used to being "in charge" of their land, just as home owners are used to being "in charge" of their homes, car owners "in charge" of their cars and not inclined to forcibly opening them up to use by others. Why antagonize owners? If someone did not answer your certified letter, I'd read that as a "no," not as a default "yes." When I use a hiking map, I'd like to think that I'm on trails that have explicit permission from private owners, in other words, that I'm in "hiker friendly" territory, not about to encounter or encourage the ire of an owner who doesn't want me there. There are enough other places to hike with good karma in the Whites!

This is well put and I totally agree with this statement. Personally being a Landowner in NH and having alot of it in Current Use I can identify with alot of the issues at hand. I have been approached by folks looking to use my land and I greatly appreciate those situations especially out of their consideration to go out of their way to do so. This has been done in person and not by mail. I have never been contacted by mail and I have also had people use my land without ever approaching me in person. It is their right to be able to use the land and I cannot legally stop that but the people who do make definitive contact are the ones that again I appreciate their extra effort. IMO I think that assuming that "No Answer" via Mail is a default "YES" is in the long run asking for trouble on alot of different levels.
psmart's last post sums it up well as far as my feelings on this issue. Let's remember that Maps can be available to a wide array of the population and the level of responsibilty of the use of those Maps can be abused if the Map is not properly documented with the Landowner's explicit permission.

 

[stopher]

The ranter speaks.

I am the author of the opinion piece in question. The responses in this thread show that I have done my job well because this is something that needs to be aired and discussed. Many issues have been raised in this thread. I will try to stick to those related to my op/ed piece. As stated, any allegations in the piece were reported to me by others. However, the allegations have been corroborated by multiple sources -- sources that I believe to be credible.

First, the sole allegation I directed toward Bob Garrison (a.k.a. Trail Bandit) is that he produced a map for public distribution without doing his homework and without working with the landowners. Specifically, there are color-coded trails on the map that imply some sort of “official” or sanctioned status, which in reality are not so designated by the landowners, nor do the landowners consider them to have any official status. Mr. Garrison says that he tried to contact some landowners and got no response. Lack of communication equals lack of permission. When I asked Mr. Garrison about the Larcom Trail, his response was, “I am guilty of putting the Larcom Mountain Trail on the map without asking anyone.”

Concerning the report that Mr. Garrison chose to not honor the request of one landowner to remove trails from the map: In an email exchange, Mr. Garrison told me that he did remove one trail from that property but he retained old woods roads that appear on USGS quads and other publicly distributed maps. As stated in the op/ed piece and previously on VFTT, I support the right to produce a map using publicly available information. I suppose it is up to Mr. Garrison as to whether or not he wants to maintain a cooperative association with the landowner.

I don’t know the specifics of all the communication between Mr. Garrison and Lakes Region Conservation Trust, but I think I can safely say that LRCT was less than completely satisfied when the finished product was published. There were other landowners who were surprised to see certain trails designated on the map. Unfortunately, they are hesitant to go public with their concerns. Some landowners and land trusts have understandably adopted a defensive position and are still deliberating as to how to deal with this sudden publicity. I am only mentioning names of trails and landowners that have already been introduced to the discussion.

Second: Unauthorized trail opening or reopening and use of herbicide. “Bootleg” trails are an age-old problem. The only difference in this case is that these trails are now on a map being distributed to the public. I don’t know who did the trail work; I only know that it was done. The use of herbicide was discovered and reported by the landowner, and it has been corroborated in this thread. Again, I don’t know who is or was opening unauthorized trails in the Ossipees, but there is some circumstantial evidence. If you wish, check out http://www.backpacker.com/december_07_backpacker_interview_the_trail_bandit/skills/12044
Draw your own conclusions/opinions/suspicions.

Third: Repercussions. This should be pretty straightforward by now. Landowners are posting their land. Other landowners who are aware of what’s been going on will be less receptive to any future trail projects. And if they happen to be participating in the public access option in the current use program, they may reconsider. None of this benefits the hiking public.

Everything else in the op/ed piece is my opinion (not that of WODC). I stand by it. My sole interest in publishing the article and posting here on VFTT is to raise this important issue to those who should be the most concerned about maintaining hiking opportunities on private land. The Ossipee Mountains are almost completely privately owned. There may or may not be prescriptive rights on some of these trails but until someone is willing to take on a long, drawn out, expensive legal research project and petition the courts to make a decision, the default SOP has to be that all trail work and all depictions of sanctioned trails must be done in cooperation with the landowner. I do not believe that this was done in the case of Mr. Garrison’s map.

 

[Tobit]

Thanks for posting this Chris. Although I don't agree 100% with everything, nor the brevity of the original rant, I do appreciate this follow up here and do respect your opinions.

 

[Waumbek]

This has all been a real eye-opener for me, including the Backpacker article. If there is no refutation, I'll assume it is accurate. And if so, sorry to say, it will make me cautious in advising landowners about any private trails they may have should Mr. Garrison ever start fly-overs in northern NH. In any event, it should be abundantly clear by now that "no" must mean "no"--no response must mean no permission. I'm also concerned about the implication that old logging roads and skid trails on private land are somehow fine to hike on because they are already on public maps. Many of these were for deep winter use only, not summer tramping, and more than a few of them would never meet good trail-building anti-erosion standards, which has always been my concern about a number of the Cohos "trails."

 

[walker]

What's next? Landowners suing google for making satellite images available on their maps? This is already taking place in other countries.

Check out the following coord for "Google Earth" to see what a land owner has done.

37.38.46.48N
115.45.03.14W

This place is just north of Area 51 and the Nuke testing area.

Thought this might make you smile a little.

See you on the trail...Walker

Why do I have the urge for chicken?

 

[rocket21]

I started hiking in the Ossipees in early 2007, so my historical knowledge of the trails prior to then is secondhand. I'm concerned that strawmen are being put up and the Trail Bandit and his map are being used as scapegoats.

I'd like to go through this trail by trail, as I believe very few of the trails represented on the Trail Bandit map are disputed or new-to-a-map. Below are, as I see them, the trails not represented on the LRCT Castle in the Clouds map:

- Larcom Trail - the lower portion of this trail is now posted. Locally, I learned that it was posted due to issues with hunters. I have also heard locally that hunters are not the issue, but rather hikers are. This trail was (I have not been up it since learning hikers were not welcome) lightly used, not actively maintained, and certainly not affected by hikers - never saw a single piece of trash or waste. Hikers were parking on town property to access it. Nonetheless, this trail, in my opinion, is off limits until the LRCT can find out a way to provide access to the property their donor base purchased.

- Bayle Mountain Trail - this historic trail is part of a 2002 $1,400,000 federal tax dollar easement purchase (along with a donation from Chocorua Forestland). http://www.fs.fed.us/na/durham/legacy/text/legacy_places/nh/text/nh_ossipee.shtml

- Mt. Flagg Trail - this historic trail is part of a 2002 $1,400,000 federal tax dollar easement purchase (along with a donation from Chocorua Forestland). http://www.fs.fed.us/na/durham/legacy/text/legacy_places/nh/text/nh_ossipee.shtml

- Sentinel Mountain Trail - this trail is maintained by Terrace Pines campground.

- Gorilla Trail - this trail has appeared the AMC White Mountain Guide and also appears on a map that is sold at the Gilford Library.

- Banana Trail - this trail (sometimes referred to as the Ball Mtns Tr) has appeared in the AMC White Mountain Guide and also appears on a map that is sold at the Gilford Library.

- Thunderbird Trail - this trail has appeared in the AMC White Mountain Guide and also appears on a map that is sold at the Gilford Library.

- In addition, there are some smaller trails (The Ledges Trail, Dave Green Trail, Canaan Mountain Trail) around Camp Merrowvista and Sentinel Baptist Camp that appear on the Gilford Library map.


In addition, the following trails appear on the LRCT map, despite being partially on private property:

- Bald Knob Trail - this trail has appeared in the AMC White Mountain Guide, continues to appear on the AMC Southern New Hampshire Guide, and appears in the official LRCT map, as well as the map that is sold at the Gilford Library.

- Mt. Shaw Trail - this trail has appeared in the AMC White Mountain Guide, continues to appear on the AMC Southern New Hampshire Guide, and appears in the official LRCT map, as well as the map that is sold at the Gilford Library.

 

[stopher]

Tobit: No problem. I don't always agree with 100% of everything either. But I have done my best to identify what is fact and what is my opinion. As for brevity, that is one of my many faults.

rocket21: I just took a run up Mountain Road to see the new signs. As luck would have it, I got to talk to the caretaker of the newly posted land and one of the abutters. The Bemis Trust caretaker said that the land has had "No hunting without permission" signs for some time now. The new "No Trespassing" and "No Parking" signs are a direct response to Mr. Garrison's map. The abutter showed me signs that a group of landowners have had made that say "No Tresspassing due to unauthorized trail clearing and mapping." These are also a direct response to the map and will be put up shortly. Combined, this will amount to well over 1000 acres of land where the public is no longer welcome.

As for your list of trails, there's a reason why AMC revises its guide every three or four years and why the latest version of the WODC map is in its third edition. Trail status changes over time. I don't have a complete set of AMC guides but it appears that some of the trails on your list haven't been in the guide for something like 20 years. Although I am not familiar with it, I wonder that the map at the Gilford Library may be outdated.

No straw men here. Just the facts.

 

[rocket21]

rocket21: I just took a run up Mountain Road to see the new signs. As luck would have it, I got to talk to the caretaker of the newly posted land and one of the abutters. The Bemis Trust caretaker said that the land has had "No hunting without permission" signs for some time now. The new "No Trespassing" and "No Parking" signs are a direct response to Mr. Garrison's map. The abutter showed me signs that a group of landowners have had made that say "No Tresspassing due to unauthorized trail clearing and mapping." These are also a direct response to the map and will be put up shortly. Combined, this will amount to well over 1000 acres of land where the public is no longer welcome.

The only trail displayed in the Trail Bandit map in the Northern Ossipees is the Larcom Mountain Trail. It is the only trail I've hiked in the Northern Ossipees and it's a shame that, especially considering a large portion is owned by the LRCT, it is not available for hikers. I am not aware of any other trails or trail clearing in that region. I have not heard of any instances of hikers littering, camping, partying, etc. Once again, I wonder why the LRCT would buy a plot of property (summit areas of Larcom Mountain and Little Larcom Mountain) with long established trails if they have not secured any right of way whatsoever.

As for your list of trails, there's a reason why AMC revises its guide every three or four years and why the latest version of the WODC map is in its third edition. Trail status changes over time. I don't have a complete set of AMC guides but it appears that some of the trails on your list haven't been in the guide for something like 20 years.

Correct, the trails listed have not appeared in the AMC White Mountain Guide in some time, as the Ossipees (and other Route 25 corridor areas) were removed from that guide with the creation of the Southern New Hampshire Guide. While trail status is certainly a factor in putting a trail in a guide, there are also other factors, such as room in the guide, relative importance of the trail, popularity, etc.

Once again, I do not know of any objections of hiking the trails I listed. Two of them were secured with our federal tax dollars, while others are owned and maintained by campgrounds.

Although I am not familiar with it, I wonder that the map at the Gilford Library may be outdated.

I was told when I purchased maps at the library a few months ago that they were no longer selling the Trail Bandit map because some of the trails and parking areas depicted on it were done so without permission. They continue to sell the other Ossipee Mountains map which depicts nearly every trail I listed above (the trails I didn't list are not on the map because that area was cropped out).

No straw men here.

When I refer to straw men being created in this overall situation, I am referring to things that, as far as I've seen/heard, are either spun, taken out of context, or perhaps purposely confused.

For instance, other than the Larcom Mountain Trail, there aren't *any* trails displayed on the map in the Northern Ossipees. The map spans from 43* 42'N to 43* 50'N. Other than the federally protected Bayle Mountain Trail and the aforementioned Larcom Trail, there is not a single trail displayed north of 43* 46'N. As far as I've heard locally, the only landowners upset have their property located north of 43* 46'N. The Larcom Trail is now posted No Trepassing. When the map was put together, it was not. As you stated, trail status changes over time. Other than that trail, the only things displayed on the map in that region are the same things one can find in various other sources, such as USGS, Delorme, Google Earth, etc.

 

[RickB.]

I wouldn't minimize the loss of the Larcom Mountain Trail. It was an attractive trail to a couple of very nice peaks.

 

[Amicus]

I've had the pleasure of hiking around the beautiful hills and forests of central New Hampshire and SW Maine for quite a few years now. I've seen a few things I didn't like, for instance, the empty beer cans and used toilet paper that seem to litter the clearing atop Mt. Shaw at about this time every year - a spot where snowmobilers like to stop. (I know that most of those are good citizens, but there seem to be a heedless few.) I've also seen woods roads used by ATVs that have been churned into morasses and marked by party spots with more of those empty beer cans. I've even seen a few remote spots where people continue to dump old appliances and such. What I haven't seen is an area defaced by serious hikers - the hike who post on VFTT. I think the "leave no trace" ethic has penetrated pretty thoroughly by now.

I have only known Trail Bandit and his hiking companion, Mary, for a year or so, but in that time have enjoyed quite a few hikes in the Ossipees with them and have found them to be good stewards, not the despoilers you might infer from some of the posts on this thread. In that Backpacker interview, TrailB stated that, when the St. John National Park rangers used a herbicide to control the lush tropical growth on some of the hiking trails years ago, he did too. They stopped, so he did too. What is objectionable in that? I should note that his superb and unique trail map for St. John has been a huge boon for the fortunate hikers who have made that Park the hiking mecca of the Caribbean. The National Park personnel sell it in their Visitor Center and it is featured in the leading picture guidebook to St. John.

From a purely pragmatic perspective, perhaps it would be best for all of us to bow, scrape and tug an obsequious forelock in the direction of all landowners, even the arbitrary few. If some have posted their land in a snit because a trail appeared on a map, however, I am not sure it is the map-maker who deserves censure.

As to the protocols of map-making, I note that the AMC White Mountain guide continues both to show the Mt. Cabot Trail on their map and to describe it in detail in their text, even while the latter mentions that the landowner has posted it and that hikers as a result should not hike it. I doubt that the AMC asked that landowner for permission to show that Trail, unlike TrailB.

 

[--M.]

Where is the profit in provoking a demographic with a long-established track record of litigated victories? What new precedent will be achieved? Does Trail Bandit have the resources to see it through?

I do not subscribe to this particular strategy. Smells like a losing subversion. The land-owners, uh, own and control their assets; non-owners have limited access and even more limited "rights." What exactly is Trail Bandit's agenda and how does provoking abutters achieve the mission?

He does not speak for me, at least not without some fancy gymnastics to get past what little has already been revealed here by the individual himself.

I just don't see the profit in it.

 

[Tobit]

Amicus has stated quite eloquently what I've wanted to say from the start, my sentiments echo his. Thanks man.

 

[skiguy]

From a purely pragmatic perspective, perhaps it would be best for all of us to bow, scrape and tug an obsequious forelock in the direction of all landowners, even the arbitrary few. If some have posted their land in a snit because a trail appeared on a map, however, I am not sure it is the map-maker who deserves censure.

Then who does deserve censure? Also part of the concern with this discussion is that the "arbitrary few" is growing.

As to the protocols of map-making, I note that the AMC White Mountain guide continues both to show the Mt. Cabot Trail on their map and to describe it in detail in their text, even while the latter mentions that the landowner has posted it and that hikers as a result should not hike it. I doubt that the AMC asked that landowner for permission to show that Trail, unlike TrailB.

The latest edition and I also believe and the previous edition of the AMC Guide does NOT show the Mount Cabot Trail continuing onto the land of the Landowner in question. A good example that has already been mentioned of upgrading maps based upon the most current information.

 

[Jack Waldron]

This is truly a sad situation for hikers, hunters, fishermen, skiers, snowshoers, and nature observers. I don't see that either side in this dispute, TrailB or the Landowner/Conservation Organizations, is behaving in a morally acceptable fashion. TrailB has published a map where he didn't perform due diligence. Because of that some landowners will punish innocent recreational users by prohibiting access to their land. The punishment doesn't just NOT fit the crime, it is being applied to those who are totally innocent. Recreational users are now deemed to be in the terrorist class, guilty until proven innocent. This has never been the New Hampshire way. Why have we descended to such incivility?

I am a New Hampshire landowner who has a trail crossing my land. The trail is on all the maps of the area. On rare occasions some yahoos do something dumb but overall people are not just respectful but share my enjoyment of this beautiful land. None of us are exclusive owners of this land, the best we can aspire to is temporary stewardship. My neighbor expressed this very well when someone asked him why he would allow a trail across his land, my neighbor's reply “Why wouldn't I?”.

After family and friends the most important relationships that we have in this life are with the nature that we are all a part of. Life is inextricably woven among the land, plants, streams, wildlife, and ourselves. Why can't we share that????

 

[Waumbek]

I agree, Jack Waldron, that none of us "owns" the land in some elemental fashion. But, by virtue of ownership, some of us have become stewards of the land and must act according to what we think is in the best interest of that land, which may or may not also be in the best interests of hikers or would-be map makers or self-appointed trail clearers..

The prevailing attitude (or "attitude") in this thread is that at least some of the landowners in question are bad, greedy, selfish, petty people who care nothing for their land but simply want revenge. That sort of stereotyping is juvenile. Nor is there any basis for it in fact, as far as I can tell.

I don't have trails on my land, fortunately, but I know people who do. Some have had good experiences opening them up, or at least have been willing to put up with the occasional abuses; some have had bad experiences and are no longer willing to put up with abuses. I respect the latter's right to steward the land as they see fit. If someone used herbicide on my land, and it had trails, I'd probably make the latter decision. I don't care if the Forest Service used to use herbicides also. I simply would not support vigilante tactics of any sort on my land.

In the best of all possible worlds, we can all share the land, and NH is one of the few places left where that is usually the case. But it is not always the case, and it's all too easy to scapegoat landowners as the problem. That is our romantic "Robin Hood" heritage, after all, from the Old World.

The pragmatist in me agrees with Metsky--we have what we have, we are who we are, work within those parameters. It usually works when we do.

 

[Amicus]

The latest edition . . . . of the AMC Guide does NOT show the Mount Cabot Trail continuing onto the land of the Landowner in question. A good example that has already been mentioned of upgrading maps based upon the most current information.

I'm looking at the latest map (28th Ed.) and see that there is a tiny gap in the trail at the trailhead. I doubt that I'm the only one to have missed it and since the text describes the Trail in full, from driving directions all the way to the other end (while noting the posting and advising hikers not to use their description for now), I'm tempted call that gap a fig-leaf.

This thread perhaps was of some use in airing different views, but for me anyway, it has fully achieved that - I decline to participate in any more back-and-forthing.