WODC Outlook, May 2009

[McRat]

At least we can all agree that cartography is a dangerous science. Not only are maps occasionally upsetting to landowners, but they also make bushwhacking entirely too accessible to those who lack off trail navigation skills.

Don't hate the cartographer, hate the cartography.

I'm sorry. I can't resist comic relief in these tense situations. I wish this were a face-to-face discussion. There is a lot of room to misinterpret the bruteness of text, and if we have a problem - we should assess the damage, determine a best plan from there and move on.

Even if the final result proved misguided, TrailBandit's original intention to publish the information was FOR the hiking community. I know I looked forward to the revisions. The animated discussions over the moving summit of Faraway mountain also proved quite informative and amusing.

If there has been an problem because of the map, then we hikers are at least partially complicit. Is there any interest in getting all parties together to work this out, or should we just trade jabs online until we are divided and exhausted on the topic?

 

[RoySwkr]

Roy, if you think my article is what incited the landowners, you should check the records of the Sate of NH Attorney General's Office. Assuming it is public record, you will find that a group of landowners ... wrote a letter of complaint to the AG concerning Mr. Garrison's map, asking if there was anything that could be done about it.
...
Roy, you should be ashamed of yourself. You expressed your misguided opinion with absolutely nothing to back it up.

Nobody has yet reacted to my comment that I thought it was only the KGB that forbids accurate maps. I hope the Atty Gen laughed at the thought that it was illegal to show private roads or woods roads on maps. These could be very useful for rescue or forest fire fighting, my sister got great cooperation from some hermits when she told them the map of old roads she was making for the National Forest was for use by the fire crew which it was.

The Larcom landowner may have a beef because their trail is shown similarly to open hiking trails, but they apparently missed their chance by failing to respond to a registered letter that TB sent them prior to publication. Of course you give TB no credit for this attempt.

While some Ossipee landowners were undoubtedly riled by the map, I think your piece will only inflame additional landowners. While PS states that this may not be the official opinion of WODC, I suspect that they would not publish an opinion piece suggesting that members of certain racial groups were not welcome in Ferncroft and they similarly should have insisted that this piece be toned down so as to lead to conciliation rather than hatred.

And now you make personal attacks on me rather than what I said, that is a no-no in rational discussion but a favorite of hate groups. Is that what the WODC supports?

 

[chomp]

The Larcom landowner may have a beef because their trail is shown similarly to open hiking trails, but they apparently missed their chance by failing to respond to a registered letter that TB sent them prior to publication.

The map was not mentioned in the certified letter.

I did send a certified letter to the address on the property tax records, and they signed for it. I asked what was their position on hikers using their land. They didn't respond. ... I perhaps should have asked their feelings about showing the trail on a map.

 

[Waumbek]

I suspect that they would not publish an opinion piece suggesting that members of certain racial groups were not welcome in Ferncroft and they similarly should have insisted that this piece be toned down so as to lead to conciliation rather than hatred

Huh???? Either this is a false analogy or I missed a whole chapter here. Or both. It's starting to get wierd....

 

[David Metsky]

<Moderator Hat>
OK, now things are getting heated. Everyone, step away from the computers and take a deep breath. Anymore personal insults or over-the-top analogies will get this shut down ASAP.

Everyone got it?

 

[TEO]

According to the Mt Cabot notes that is also not true, someone called the district office and while they claimed no r-o-w they said it was perfectly OK to hike the section on the WMNF. There were certainly no closure signs at the boundary or junction when I hiked it last year - do you have photos that show otherwise?

IIRC, this sign was maybe ten yard past where the East junction is brushed out. Also, there was a guideboard, somewhere up there with mileage to the Mt. Cabot Trail, where someone had obviously tried and failed to cut out the section "Mt. Cabot Trail" section.

Regardless, I'd encourage everyone to hike this trail, using the old trailhead. The landowner should not be allowed to getaway with his bullying.

 

[TEO]

As I already stated in this thread, the landowners were up in arms long before my editorial was written.

Stopher, above, you refer to your piece in the WODC Outlook as an editorial and, elsewhere, as an opinion piece. Which is it? Unlike opinion pieces, editorials reflect the official position of the periodical in which they're written. (From the scanned image in the original post in this thread, it would seem to be an opinion piece.)

 

[David Metsky]

Regardless, I'd encourage everyone to hike this trail, using the old trailhead. The landowner should not be allowed to getaway with his bullying.

Keep in mind the law of unintended consequences. While you may end up with access to this trail, you may lose access to others as property owners react by posting (legally) their land. Things are rarely simple black and white, there are many shades of gray here.

I encourage people to hike other routes for a variety of reasons.

 

[TEO]

Keep in mind the law of unintended consequences. While you may end up with access to this trail, you may lose access to others as property owners react by posting (legally) their land. Things are rarely simple black and white, there are many shades of gray here.

I encourage people to hike other routes for a variety of reasons.

I'm sure that someone has already pointed out the converse unintended consequences: (A) As I understand it, we may eventually lose the right-of-way; (B) other landowners may be inspired to try to bully the public and the USFS into closing public trails that have legal right-of-ways on private land.

 

[David Metsky]

I'm sure that someone has already pointed out the converse unintended consequences: (A) As I understand it, we may eventually lose the right-of-way; (B) other landowners may be inspired to try to bully the public and the USFS into closing public trails that have legal right-of-ways on private land.

As far as I know, the majority of the trails through private land in NH do not rely on right-of-ways, they rely on the goodwill of the land owners. Does anyone know how many trails actually rely on deeded right-of-ways?

 

[Waumbek]

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any r-o-w hiking trails into the WMNF in this area. Coppermine, Mt Kinsman, Reel Brook, Gordon Pond all cross private land, I believe, as do a few of the Benton area trails, Chippewa, etc. I'm not surprised. I've seen some of the deals that USFS offered landowners in the '50s and '60s for r-o-w's, and the money was pathetically low enough that only the drastically cash-strapped would have sold land rights for the pittance. And the government legalese was sufficiently thick to make anybody stop and think twice.

 

[--M.]

I'm sure that someone has already pointed out the converse unintended consequences: (A) As I understand it, we may eventually lose the right-of-way; (B) other landowners may be inspired to try to bully the public and the USFS into closing public trails that have legal right-of-ways on private land.

I was thinking rather of a practical form of reconciliation than confrontation. Are the Ossippee landowners bullying the public? Is it clear that they are intransigent? This doesn't have the same feel as the Cabot closure. What has the trend been there over the last generation for open-space development?

I was thinking of a guided day as a gift for someone and stumbled on this "...ANGLERS GUIDE TO LANDOWNER RELATIONS" : http://www.northcountryangler.com/PDFfiles/special_PDF/An_Anglers_Guide_to_Landowner_Relations.pdf

It would be reasonable for a landowner not to want tire tracks or fish guts on his back yard, and one learns how to ask politely for access. Do hikers not use the same techniques for requesting access?

 

[NewHampshire]

I would like to take this opportunity, since it does have some bearing on the discussion on hand, to ask again the question of Trail Bandit I asked on ROT that (I will give him the benifit of the doubt over) he must have missed....

I would like to know, did you receive (from anyone with the authority to give it), either verbally and/or in written form, any consent or authorization from the LRCT to (re)cut, (re)blaze and maintain the trails you reopened? I am not talking about "I sent them a letter and took their lack of response as an affirmation" scenario, I mean did the LRCT GIVE you permission to do what you did on their property? Do they know and approve?

Brian

 

[Snowflea]

IMO, comparing the Mt. Cabot Trail issue to the Ossipee situation is like comparing apples and oranges.

The Mt. Cabot Trail is/was a well established route, the most commonly used trail to this NH 4000 footer for many, many years. The landowner in question was well aware of this fact. When I spoke with the Lancaster town clerk's office in person 5-6 years ago, I was told there was a public ROW across the properties. This is reflected in copies of the land deeds that I acquired.

Regarding the Ossipee map, I know only what I've read here, but it sounds like a very different situation.

 

[HH1]

To Chris Conrod (aka Stopher0

Insightful submission in the WODC newsletter.

In your opinion, where is 'the way forward' here?

For instance, IF Trail Bandit were to issue a formal apology and a promise to stop the distribution of his current Ossipee trails map, is there anyone or any organization, such as the WODC, he and/or other motivated parties could work with that would also engage the landowners' input and get their subsequent blessings on trail construction, maintenance and trail maps covering off their respective land holdings?

As it stands, there's obviously an impass here, as I suspect Trail Bandit is the tip of the bootleg trail iceberg.

By sitting down with 'the bad guys', perhaps through a hired intermediary, the Ossipee landowners might find it is worth making a few compromises that, over the long run, would see their land used by the hiking public, in an appropriate manner that meets the owners' expectations. Any publicity coming out of such an exchange would be beneficial to all as well.

Question - would you consider being that intermediary?

 

[chomp]

A good first step might be removing the map from any host sites until it is changed. Currently several versions of the map are still available here:

http://www.franklinsites.com/hikephotos/files/nhtrailbanditossipees.php

This map directly lead to the closure of 1000 acres and the map has not been updated to reflect private land. In fact, the Larcom Trail is still displayed on the map despite this entire area now being closed to the public.

Removing this map immediately from the site and the internet would be a good first step and hopefully seen as a olive branch to the private landowners that were not happy with its publication.

 

[Waumbek]

By sitting down with 'the bad guys', perhaps through a hired intermediary, the Ossipee landowners might find it is worth making a few compromises that, over the long run, would see their land used by the hiking public, in an appropriate manner that meets the owners' expectations. Any publicity coming out of such an exchange would be beneficial to all as well.

This is a promising direction. Aside from the immediate issues of bootleg trail actions, landowners will understandably get stuck on this issue: what recourse will they have if they agree to re-open their land, things don't work out (again), and they then want to close it? Will they have ceded any right to close by virtue of public use? It will probably take a lawyer to answer this one. It will also take a skillful intermediary to deal with a north country NH credo, screw me once, shame on you, screw me twice, shame on me.

 

[stopher]

And now you make personal attacks on me rather than what I said, that is a no-no in rational discussion but a favorite of hate groups. Is that what the WODC supports?[/QUOTE

I came down on you harder than I had to, yes. You are entitled to your opinion. However, I still think it is misguided and without any evidence to support it. As for the whole "hate group" thing, are you kidding me?

Furthermore, you totally missed the point. How you or I think the AG should react to the landowners' letter is irrelevant. The point is that they were upset with Mr. Garrison's actions enough to write the letter. I don't think that you scoffing at their letter is going to calm them down if you are really worried about riling the landowners.

 

[stopher]

Stopher, above, you refer to your piece in the WODC Outlook as an editorial and, elsewhere, as an opinion piece. Which is it? Unlike opinion pieces, editorials reflect the official position of the periodical in which they're written. (From the scanned image in the original post in this thread, it would seem to be an opinion piece.)

Opinion. You will note that in the upper right-hand box it says: "Any opinions expressed are those of the writer and are not necessarily held by WODC. We welcome submissions for inclusion in The Outlook."

You will also note that I have stated in this thread that these are my opinions and not those of WODC. At this point, WODC has no opinion. Best I can remember, the subject was raised at one executive meeting. It was informational only. No action was taken.

As the editor who needed to fill the space, I wrote it. But no, it is not an editorial in the strictest sense and I shouldn't have used that word. But I hope people note the "We welcome submissions" and act on it. Then maybe I won't have to fill the space myself in the November issue.

So far, I haven't been fired for writing the opinion piece. But I haven't given up hope.

 

[Amicus]

By sitting down with 'the bad guys', perhaps through a hired intermediary . . .

I tried to bow out, but invoke the self-defense exception, since I suppose I am one of the "bad guys," by defending Trail Bandit earlier in this tortuous thread, which started when a reader (not the author) reprinted the WODC "rant" (author's own word) attacking Trail Bandit's map. The author stands by his words. I stand by my opinion that his "Rant" was inflammatory and unfair to TB. We are both within our rights.

It is worth reminding people that no trail shown by TB's map was posted when he had it printed. He made what he considered to be reasonable attempts before printing to avoid antagonizing landowners, as he himself has described. Whether he could or should have done more has been thoroughly hashed and TB himself has not been combative on that point, only to have his conciliatory words flung in his face by one poster. (Personally, I think his steps were reasonable.)

If the "good guys" have a general point other than vilification, I gather it is that future map-makers should show no trail that runs on private land without the explicit consent of the landowner. Recommendation duly noted, and we can all form our own opinion on the wisdom of that. An apology is also demanded and TB is politely requested to destroy all copies. I know what I would say to that, but TB can speak for himself.

Personal note: I would never hike on posted land. Just as I went out of my way to hike to Mt. Cabot from the north, to avoid that Trail, so I have refrained from hiking the Little Larcom Trail, as it had already been posted by the time I got there.