Interesting to see what's going on here. And I see both sides . . . On the one hand, people--especially more naturey people--want to protect their property against potential destruction (litter, cutting down trees, etc.) from a public that often has a pattern of failing to care for the natural environment. On the other hand, many people rightfully want to be a part of nature, which means federal, state, and local governments must set aside natural areas for public use (which inherently risks destruction by carelessness). It's not a simply resolved conundrum. Ultimately, however, I find that the people who lack a relationship with nature are the most likely to destroy it. And, therefore, it is in the best interest of those working to preserve our natural environments to help as many people as possible cultivate outdoor-oriented lifestyles . . . Meaning, the more publicly accessible nature preserves available in a given area, the more likely, in general, the nature in that area with thrive.
I agree with you; that, in general, people will form a stronger connection if they are provided with opportunities to engage with it. There might be some carelessness along the way, but overall, more access is better.
"But that’s precisely what they want: for me, for us, and everyone, to stop using the property. So now I wave for the camera as I run by, a subtle but active reminder to the landowner that it’s actually the public that’s watching them."
This ending really resonated with me. I had an experience recently that was more of passive discouragement to use a trail rather than active blocking, but I was surprised by how much it put me on edge when hiking there.
About a month ago, I was looking at options to lay out new trail with another volunteer on a piece of property acquired by the non-profit trail organization. That new property is adjacent to a parcel owned by a historical society that has an existing trail (open to the public) on it, so we took a walk to see where it led. However, I was ready to turn back before we reached the official end of the trail because of a well-placed deer stand that made me second guess whether we had missed a sign.
Easily two stories high and solidly built, the deer stand loomed on the landscape and as soon as I saw it, I started looking around for property boundary markers. My buddy pulled out his mapping app to double check we hadn't missed a sign and inadvertently crossed onto private property. We hadn't. When we finally reached the property boundary, it was well-marked, including a "Trail Ends Here" sign in the shadow of the deer stand, which had its footings less than five feet from the property line.
I'm used to seeing deer stands in nearby fields or trees when hiking, but never so close to a trail that I can practically touch it. The location (directly in line with the trail) and size (truly huge) felt designed to create doubt in people's minds about whether they were allowed to be there as they approached, even though there was more than 1000 feet left of publicly accessible trail once the stand became visible.
It was obvious from trampled vs. overgrown grass that the end of the trail gets less use than the rest of it, which means that the landowner to the north has succeeded in deterring people from fully using the outdoor spaces that are open to them.
Alice- Thank you for sharing this experience with me. Even if hunting is permitted on the property, it sounds like an inappropriate location for a deer stand. As a hunter myself, I'm well aware of the locations of trails used by the public and would never place a deer stand is a location like the one you described. Having it so close to a trail seems like it would be an unpleasant/frustrating experience for the hunter as well since walkers may disturb their hunt. I wonder if it's there solely as an intimidation tactic?
This issue came up in my reporting a long time ago. I'm not sure if it would apply here, but there's a legal concept called a "prescriptive easement." If a property owner does not enforce their property rights, a public easement can be created over many years by public use, especially if the use is blatant and obvious. In California, a prescriptive easement can be established within five years. In these cases, it's much worse for a property owner to post a "no trespassing" sign and then do nothing to enforce or restrict any trespassing, such as gates and law enforcement. This has been interpreted by the courts as abandoning property rights. A sign alone is not sufficient to enforce property rights. It's much better to post a sign saying "permission to pass granted by property owner." In that case, the property owner can always take permission away. Might be worth looking into!
Our community missed the window years ago and thereby the access to many legal trails which walkers would have enjoyed. Vermont is now reviewing the limitations, and landowner (often from afar) rights that limit access despite the public access designation. It is not difficult to show up - show up to meetings, gather signatures, be a part of the process to continue access. Especially for places that are non motorized.
I think your mention of "afar" is important, Stacy. It seems to be a theme that many of the landowners don't actually live locally. That is the case in this newsletter; this bothers me, but is a topic for another newsletter.
Interesting to see what's going on here. And I see both sides . . . On the one hand, people--especially more naturey people--want to protect their property against potential destruction (litter, cutting down trees, etc.) from a public that often has a pattern of failing to care for the natural environment. On the other hand, many people rightfully want to be a part of nature, which means federal, state, and local governments must set aside natural areas for public use (which inherently risks destruction by carelessness). It's not a simply resolved conundrum. Ultimately, however, I find that the people who lack a relationship with nature are the most likely to destroy it. And, therefore, it is in the best interest of those working to preserve our natural environments to help as many people as possible cultivate outdoor-oriented lifestyles . . . Meaning, the more publicly accessible nature preserves available in a given area, the more likely, in general, the nature in that area with thrive.
Ryan- thank you for your thoughtful reply.
I agree with you; that, in general, people will form a stronger connection if they are provided with opportunities to engage with it. There might be some carelessness along the way, but overall, more access is better.
100%
"But that’s precisely what they want: for me, for us, and everyone, to stop using the property. So now I wave for the camera as I run by, a subtle but active reminder to the landowner that it’s actually the public that’s watching them."
This ending really resonated with me. I had an experience recently that was more of passive discouragement to use a trail rather than active blocking, but I was surprised by how much it put me on edge when hiking there.
About a month ago, I was looking at options to lay out new trail with another volunteer on a piece of property acquired by the non-profit trail organization. That new property is adjacent to a parcel owned by a historical society that has an existing trail (open to the public) on it, so we took a walk to see where it led. However, I was ready to turn back before we reached the official end of the trail because of a well-placed deer stand that made me second guess whether we had missed a sign.
Easily two stories high and solidly built, the deer stand loomed on the landscape and as soon as I saw it, I started looking around for property boundary markers. My buddy pulled out his mapping app to double check we hadn't missed a sign and inadvertently crossed onto private property. We hadn't. When we finally reached the property boundary, it was well-marked, including a "Trail Ends Here" sign in the shadow of the deer stand, which had its footings less than five feet from the property line.
I'm used to seeing deer stands in nearby fields or trees when hiking, but never so close to a trail that I can practically touch it. The location (directly in line with the trail) and size (truly huge) felt designed to create doubt in people's minds about whether they were allowed to be there as they approached, even though there was more than 1000 feet left of publicly accessible trail once the stand became visible.
It was obvious from trampled vs. overgrown grass that the end of the trail gets less use than the rest of it, which means that the landowner to the north has succeeded in deterring people from fully using the outdoor spaces that are open to them.
Alice- Thank you for sharing this experience with me. Even if hunting is permitted on the property, it sounds like an inappropriate location for a deer stand. As a hunter myself, I'm well aware of the locations of trails used by the public and would never place a deer stand is a location like the one you described. Having it so close to a trail seems like it would be an unpleasant/frustrating experience for the hunter as well since walkers may disturb their hunt. I wonder if it's there solely as an intimidation tactic?
This issue came up in my reporting a long time ago. I'm not sure if it would apply here, but there's a legal concept called a "prescriptive easement." If a property owner does not enforce their property rights, a public easement can be created over many years by public use, especially if the use is blatant and obvious. In California, a prescriptive easement can be established within five years. In these cases, it's much worse for a property owner to post a "no trespassing" sign and then do nothing to enforce or restrict any trespassing, such as gates and law enforcement. This has been interpreted by the courts as abandoning property rights. A sign alone is not sufficient to enforce property rights. It's much better to post a sign saying "permission to pass granted by property owner." In that case, the property owner can always take permission away. Might be worth looking into!
Thanks for this, Amanda. Yes, I believe roughly the equivalent exists in the East (though the legal term eludes me).
Our community missed the window years ago and thereby the access to many legal trails which walkers would have enjoyed. Vermont is now reviewing the limitations, and landowner (often from afar) rights that limit access despite the public access designation. It is not difficult to show up - show up to meetings, gather signatures, be a part of the process to continue access. Especially for places that are non motorized.
I think your mention of "afar" is important, Stacy. It seems to be a theme that many of the landowners don't actually live locally. That is the case in this newsletter; this bothers me, but is a topic for another newsletter.
“…it’s actually the public that’s watching them.” Chills! Great synopsis, Jesse. Thanks for the shoutout.
Thanks for reading, Katie. Your article is a great resource.