white house landing

[the goat]

if I was a betting person, I'd bet that the land on which White House Landing sits is probably owned by the Nature Conservancy. But I wouldn't wager much money on it.

as of 2003 the land was leased, but owned by a logging company, not the nature conservancy.

at the time, the owners of whl were trying to purchase the land from the logging company.

[johnny quest]

Sorry Johnny, you haven't been reading. It's been out of the hands of MATC for a couple of years now. We probably could have worked out something, if the WHL owners had acted responsibly. They didn't, so now your appeal must go to the National Park Service.

Weary

oh, ive been reading. and i think your wrong.
i wrote the matc and got the below response:


Who is in charge of where and what official signs go on the a. t. in maine? Is it the matc or the national park service. Thank you

The MATC is in charge of all signs that are installed on the AT in Maine, with the exception of the Mahoosic Range. If you have questions about specific signs, we do have a signs chairman. If it is a matter that you want to install a sign of your making, a request must be made to the matc executive committee. We allow no commercial signs of any kind on the trail or in its shelters.
Steve Clark, MATC

seems pretty clear to me that matc is the organization to decide whether or not to put a sign identifying the side trail to whl

[weary]

Giant AMC will do whatever they want as far as cutting in connecting trails and posting signs to their lodging businesses in the 100 Mile. Tiny MATC is no match for the Boston mega-corp.

TJ you should try to moderate your blind and unthinking hatred of AMC. Or better yet just try to take an honest look at the largest and most important trail organization in the northeast -- and the organization that has probably built and maintained more trails than anyone else.

MATC has been talking about a trail crossing with AMC for the past couple of years. I haven't followed what decision, if any, may have been made. BTW, all trail crossings eventually need the approval of the National Park Service.

You do have a record of being wrong about AMC. Have you noticed that none of the massive new development that you claimed on White Blaze that AMC had planned to do in Maine, has never been done?

In fact just the opposite has happened. Rather than more development, AMC has been busy reclaiming and preserving historic structures and returning a sense of wildness to their 37,000 acres.

Weary

[Lone Wolf]

The MATC is in charge of all signs that are installed on the AT in Maine, with the exception of the Mahoosic Range. If you have questions about specific signs, we do have a signs chairman. If it is a matter that you want to install a sign of your making, a request must be made to the matc executive committee. We allow no commercial signs of any kind on the trail or in its shelters.
Steve Clark, MATC[/I]

seems Steve Clark has overlooked Harrison's camps and Shaw's. buncha BS

[weary]

as of 2003 the land was leased, but owned by a logging company, not the nature conservancy.

at the time, the owners of whl were trying to purchase the land from the logging company.

I don't have access to maps showing the land ownerships in that area. But the Nature Conservancy, I believe, bought around 50,000 acres south of Baxter Park that used to be owned by Great Northern Paper Co.

Maine owns the Nahmakanta Preserve south of the new Nature Conservancy lands.

Further south Plum Creek and a private family-owned business own large parcels. AMC. the Nature Conservancy and other conservation groups have agreed to purchase some of the Plum Creek land, when and if Plum Creek decides to sell.

Still further south and east of Whitecap the land is owned by a logging outfit from Canada, which outbid an attempt to purchase by AMC.

The Nature Conservancy purchase occurred about 2003, maybe a year or so later.

Weary

[johnny quest]

no response to the matc info, weary?

[weary]

oh, ive been reading. and i think your wrong.
i wrote the matc and got the below response:


Who is in charge of where and what official signs go on the a. t. in maine? Is it the matc or the national park service. Thank you

The MATC is in charge of all signs that are installed on the AT in Maine, with the exception of the Mahoosic Range. If you have questions about specific signs, we do have a signs chairman. If it is a matter that you want to install a sign of your making, a request must be made to the matc executive committee. We allow no commercial signs of any kind on the trail or in its shelters.
Steve Clark, MATC

seems pretty clear to me that matc is the organization to decide whether or not to put a sign identifying the side trail to whl

The National Park Service has delegated such things to ATC and ATC in turn has delegated the decisions to MATC, in return for MATC promising to follow the national guidelines.

As I've said several times MATC would probably have worked out an agreement with WHL if WHL had applied for a sign, which I don't believe they have ever done. It wouldn't have been a "commercial sign" per se, but an MATC sign to an area hikers frequent.

However, as I've said again and again, MATC has no enforcement powers. When illegal commercial signs appeared and were removed, again and again, MATC had no choice other than to notify the NPS ranger at Harpers Ferry.

Having done this, MATC, cannot now reverse the decision of the park service law enforcement officer, and retain any credibility.

Weary

[johnny quest]

The National Park Service has delegated such things to ATC and ATC in turn has delegated the decisions to MATC, in return for MATC promising to follow the national guidelines.

As I've said several times MATC would probably have worked out an agreement with WHL if WHL had applied for a sign, which I don't believe they have ever done. It wouldn't have been a "commercial sign" per se, but an MATC sign to an area hikers frequent.

However, as I've said again and again, MATC has no enforcement powers. When illegal commercial signs appeared and were removed, again and again, MATC had no choice other than to notify the NPS ranger at Harpers Ferry.

Having done this, MATC, cannot now reverse the decision of the park service law enforcement officer, and retain any credibility.

Weary

i just think your wrong, weary. this is what the matc guy wrote me next. (the underline is mine.)

Steve
Im not talking about a commercial sign. Why doesn’t the matc mark, on the existing signage, the road that leads to the dock where whl picks up? Its being suggested that nps wont allow it.

The suggestion you mentioned is incorrect. All side trails or access trails possibilities have to pass through the MATC executive board first, before it goes to the NPS with our recommendations. They usually abide by what we recommend.
For us to direct people by a sign onto private land, would first require the permission of the land owner. We would have to seek that. If you feel it may be worthwhile, write me a letter, outlining your proposal in detail, with appropriate maps any your conclusions as to why this would be an advantage to hikers. Your estimates of potential usage would also be helpful. We would then have to discuss this with the private landowner who would have the final say.
If the side trail to the landing and the landing itself is all on NPS lands, then it would be up to us.
Steve Clark, MATC

[mudhead]

I really hope you made that up.

[johnny quest]

I really hope you made that up.

nope. message me your email and i will forward his email to me...to you.
why do you say that????

[weary]

nope. message me your email and i will forward his email to me...to you.
why do you say that????

Steve over the decades has been very knowledgeable about the trail. But he is no longer a member of the MATC board.

He performed admirably during the efforts to keep industrial interests off Redington and Black Nubble during the wind power debates. But he doesn't know the background of this thread.

He thinks someone wants a new sign and he is telling them how it usually happens. He knows and I know that there is a very complex management system governing who controls what, and when, dealing with the trail.

Steve knows the very complex management system that evolved over the decades from no control over the trail in Maine, into a triumvirate system, involving private conservation organizations, MATC, ATC, and NPS.

This system is described over several pages in the MATC Guide to the Appalachian TRail in Maine. Steve is providing answers about how the system works for places that are seeking to play by the rules. His comment have nothing to do with places like WHL, which I don't believe has never applied to have a sign erected, and which rather has attempted to bully MATC into letting him to do what he wants in violation of both MATC and NPS rules.

I could write a small book about the complex relationship between MATC, ATC, NPS, and private businesses -- as could Steve Clark.

We both have tried to answer the obvious question. I in recognition of the trolls behind the question. Steve knowing nothing of such trolls, is answering in a way he thinks reflect what the questioner needs to know.

Weary

[johnny quest]

you wound me, weary.

i have been very clear in my questioning steve that im a hiker that complained to whl about the difficulty in finding their side trail. i told him about the discusion here and there has been no effort to confuse or decieve him.

he may not be on the board anymore but hes the one that answers when you email them from their website

[weary]

....hes the one that answers when you email them from their website

That's because he's filling in for a vacancy on the board.

Weary

[TD55]

So the real problem being discussed here isn't really about about wether a commercial interest can put up a sign on the trail, but wether they can put up a sign that directs hikers onto private property without the property owners permission? Am I missing something?

[weary]

So the real problem being discussed here isn't really about about wether a commercial interest can put up a sign on the trail, but wether they can put up a sign that directs hikers onto private property without the property owners permission? Am I missing something?

Yes. You are missing a lot.

[mudhead]

nope. message me your email and i will forward his email to me...to you.
why do you say that????

I say that because I read it. It seemed pretty convoluted. But then I am not a bureaucrat. I had a flashback to a Land Use Planning class I took. Juxtapose was an overused word.

[saimyoji]

"In wildness is the preservation of the world." Henry Thoreau

"So seek the wolf, and not man." James Hetfield

So nice to see the old WB spirit still lingers.

[Lone Wolf]

So nice to see the old WB spirit still lingers.

weary is only 80

[Blue Jay]

weary is only 80

OOOOH, Hey that was mean and violated TSO# 3762 section 8B. I did enjoy it however.

[Kirby]

Next time I'm on the trail near Monson, I'll take down that Shaw's sign, since it appears to be there without permission.

Kirby