Breaking: Adirondack magazine editor sued over paddling stories
I was at the Adirondack Park Agency meeting today and ran into Adirondack Explorer publisher Tom Woodman.
He handed me a press release announcing that the editor of his non-profit magazine has been sued by two landowner groups.
The litigation following a series of stories — written by managing editor Phil Brown — on the subject of paddling access rights.
The Friends of Thayer Lake and the Brandreth Park Association are claiming that Brown trespassed while in pursuit of the story, crossing waterways and a small portage trail which they view as private property.
(Note: I also traveled the same route to report a similar story for broadcast on NCPR and NPR.)
Writing today in the Adirondack Almanack blog, Brown defends his decision to paddle the route in pursuit of the story:
I believe the common-law right of navigation allows the public to paddle the three waterways even though they flow through private land.
The state Department of Environmental Conservation—as well as several legal experts I consulted—support my position.
In September, DEC wrote to the association’s attorney, Dennis Phillips, and asserted that the waterways are open under the common law.
The department also asked the association to remove cables and no-trespassing signs meant to keep the public out.
I’ve reached out to Judson Potter, with the Brandreth Park Association, and will update this post with their comments as soon as possible.
Tags: adirondacks, legal, media, outdoor recreation
Brian,
It sounds like you will be served shortly.
Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time!
The legal point can be made by going after ADK Explorer. I doubt the landowners want the kind of publicity they would get by going after NPR, at least not until NPR is defunded by the next Congress.
That’s what Americans do. They sue. The are shocked. They are offended. They want money. They sue.
Real men and women don’t sue. They confront the person and have it out at high noon with six shooters.
I stand with the landowners in general. I would have most certainly have gone after NCPR and would think when their lawyers figure it out they will too. They may lose, probably will in fact in todays climate, but it’s the principle that matters.
The less than six shooter approach would be to call the police and charge with trespassing.
I still say law suits are always about free money.
I am in favor of making all law suits illegal. Criminal prosecution only.
Pete, I haven’t seen any dollar figure mentioned. Why do you think it is about money, rather than perhaps, an attempt to answer the legal questions Phil and others have raised ad nauseum?
Are any groups planning a paddle-in in support of Brown?
Atta boy Bret! Stand in support of your betters!
It could end up being a good thing for those of us who feel that waterways should ALL be free and open in the Adirondacks. It may possibly settle the issue or at least start to legally settle the issue.
Property rights are one thing. Water rights are a whole different ball game because unlike land, water moves.
Unless you own the whole darn water body (a private lake), you can’t really own the water.
Water is a bit like air. It moves around and should be available for all.
If you want your precious privacy, you should never own property that abuts water.
First off Knuck, I try not to engage in class envy. I’ve had personal issues with Brandeth back when I lived in Long Lake, they did a real crappy thing to a long time employee, a real dirty deal. But, as a land owner with running water on both ends of my farm, I can certainly sympathize with them. Maybe my little 10 foot wide brook isn’t in a recreational area like in the story, but the problem still exists. What happens if someone paddling through my lands gets hurt, drowns, sets my woods on fire, cuts my fences (already happened), poaches…whatever. I will be harmed in one way or another. I pay the taxes, I pay the mortgage, I’m responsible for the lands and waters. I can’t control everything, but that won’t prevent my being held legally and financially responsible for anything that happens here.
Does that make any sense to anyone else?
Bret, it will make sense to others once some rednecks start running one of these – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5q0XPMqruc – back and forth across some quiet swamp or marshy wildlife refuge that stretches between two public roads, swilling beer and hollering “we like this ‘right to navigate’ thing!”
Bret, everything you say makes sense except there needs to be a change in the laws so that no property owner can ever be sued or held responsible for anything that happens to anyone who is on their property.
I’m presuming of course there would be an exception for property owners who place mines on their land to kill people who trespass.
Sadly, we seem to be living in a time when everyone knows their rights but fails to accept personal responsibility for anything.
Pete that will probably never happen. There are cases of people being sued, and WINNING, by the guy who was burglarizing their home and got hurt. I don’t mean shot, I mean a broken leg or other injury. In an atmosphere like that why shouldn’t people be concerned?
When was it that American’s became such whiners? “Oh poor me bad people are lining up to do me harm and then sue me!”
Oh, that’s right, I remember, right after they started stealing the land from the Indians.
When was it Americans decided private property was simply an outdated notion?
When was it that decided that owning property meant that nobody else could walk on it?
Brian, accounts from before this controversy heated up make it sound as though the channel leading to Mud Pond, and Mud Pond itself is essentially a marsh, describing it as ‘extremely clogged with vegetation’ – http://www.adkforum.com/showthread.php?t=4455 (read posts 13, 20 and 27).
Images from Google (taken May 4, 2009, at the very beginning of the growing season and when water levels are typically at their highest in the Adirondacks) support these observations – http://bit.ly/a21DBL
Did you encounter something different when you traveled this route this past summer? The dense vegetation seemed to be a key detail that other paddlers warned each other about. The marshy part of this route appears to be almost a mile long – not a trivial little stretch.
You don’t think paddlers forcing their boats through an area like this might damage the vegetation, and over time create channels that would alter the water flow? Or that aggressive invasive species such as Purple Loosestrife or Phragmites would thrive in a wetland like this, especially if paddlers disturb and destroy some of the slower growing native marsh plants?
Knuck- if the concept of private property means nothing then we may as well all move onto the collective farms and gulags and start existing on misery and vodka.