View Full Version : ADK Hundred Highest

06-30-2005, 09:37 PM
Just wondering. Is there anybody here who has an interest in completing the ADK 100 highest?

07-01-2005, 02:42 AM
Someday maybe. Not for a while, still working on select mountains (Hurricane and Goodnow are next). I think I have like 50 remaining. :p

07-01-2005, 10:37 AM
Ummmmmm................. Yes ;)

07-01-2005, 10:54 AM
Maybe. I still haven't finished the 46 yet and have no idea when I will. Hmmm, maybe I should just finish both at the same time.

07-01-2005, 11:37 AM
I've been thinking about it.

07-01-2005, 12:21 PM
No interest in finishing, but would like to hike some more of them.

07-04-2005, 11:15 AM
I am. I figure once I get done with my 46 I'll be over halfway there.

Two are private property...and I've read somewhere that one of those the owner denies permission.

I would like to do a lot of the trailess ones in the winter. Puffer, Cellar and Avalanche being on my list for this winter.

07-04-2005, 11:43 AM
Two are private property...and I've read somewhere that one of those the owner denies permission.

Which is their right. Just because there's "a list" doesn't mean they HAVE to grant access. Maybe it would be more appropriate to call it the 99 highest then?

Tim, how are you planning on finishing knowing this fact? Waiting for the owner to die? ... or something more drastic? :p If someone knows the owner (is it Sunrise Mt?) maybe they could send them here to see we're not a "bad bunch of folks", just hikers looking for a way up. :)

07-04-2005, 12:22 PM
If you stay at Elk Lake Lodge I think you can hike 2 of the private HH (correct me if I'm wrong) Sunrise and Boreas. I forget the name(s) of the more-difficult-to-obtain-permission one(s).

07-04-2005, 01:00 PM
If you stay at Elk Lake Lodge I think you can hike 2 of the private HH (correct me if I'm wrong) Sunrise and Boreas. I forget the name(s) of the more-difficult-to-obtain-permission one(s).

As of a few years ago, that was correct. It is a hefty fee for a weekend to stay there. I believe it is like $500 dollars! Bring the credit card when you go.

07-04-2005, 01:36 PM
Actual summits? There are actually 5 that on ON private property. Sunrise and Boreas (Elk Lake). Dun Brook, Unnamed (Fishing Brook Range) and Wolf Pond Peak (which are all controlled by 2 sperate hunting clubs).

The primary approach to Cheney Cobble, North River and Fishing Brook pass through land controlled by Hunting Clubs. Traditional approaches to Buell and Panther cross private property, but getting permission to go those routes is difficult. Other routes (albeit longer) that do not pass private property exsist. All other peaks can be hiked totally on state land so long as you research you routes carefully (which I do).

As Neil stated, if you stay at the Elk Lake Lodge you are welcome to hike their trails and property, thus removing the trespassing issue for those two. For the ones on Hunting Club Property, you can actually join the club (if you qualify), the owners themselves can grant you permission (not likely) or, the easiest, find a members of the clubs can provide you legal access as guests of his/hers. As long as they are with you, it legal to do that. I plan to and/or have been fortunate use some of those legitimate options to receive permission to hike those peaks on private property.

Bottom line, This list is not an all-consuming goal for me and I intend to finish it ONLY IF I can do so legally and without trespassing....... EVER. I think that one of the reasons that this list is so difficult and there are so few finishers is that there are significant logistical issues to work out. My son is doing the list as well and I think it would be a very poor example to plan on "blitzing" these peaks with total disregard for the legitimate rights of property owners to control access to their land. Not to morally grandstand, but I'd hesitate to say that the list was completed unless it was done within the context of legal hikes. "Blitzing" used to be done quite a bit, however with the increasing popularity of this list (and more hikers), I think its incumbant to anyone attempting it to "take a high moral stance" in order to protect the landowners rights, otherwise, they will simply tire of the crap and BLOCK ACCESSS FOR EVERYONE.

I would STRONGLY encourage anyone that wants to hike any of the peaks on this list (but particularly the private ones) to do the advance work neccesary, including getting permission if needed. Also, as I'm discovering, the bottom 54 are (generally) WAY MORE DIFFICULT than the top 46..... not even close. :eek:

07-04-2005, 01:42 PM
As of a few years ago, that was correct. It is a hefty fee for a weekend to stay there. I believe it is like $500 dollars! Bring the credit card when you go.

You can stay ELK LAKE LODGE (http://www.elklakelodge.com/) for something like $110 a night per person. Is that steep, sure, but it really is a nice place and at least you'll enjoy your post hike evening ;). I plan on staying a few nights there with my son (close to $450) for the weekend.

Some of the hunting clubs cost a pretty penny too.

Hey, unlike the top 46, the rest of HH ain't free :boozing:

07-04-2005, 04:29 PM
Mavs isn't Wolf Pond Mt directly south of Boreas and part of the Elk Lake property? My son and I climbed that from Boreas when Boreas had a "legal" trail. This was in 1992 and we bushwhacked along the ridge to Wolf Pond Mt. There were no posted signs or indications that it was closed in any way. I just assumed it was Elk Lake Property. A few years later Grace Hudowalski called telling me tomorrow was her birthday and she wanted to climb Sunrise asked if I was interested in going with her. I told her I would love to but was not available the next day. Grace said "are you going to let an old woman climb by herself?" I told her no backtracking adding the mountain was closed to hiking by Elk Lake. She said "oh well then that's out." A half hour later she called saying "The Elk Lake people are real nice and we can climb Sunrise tomorrow meet me at the boulders. One car will be enough." So my wife and son joined us. I have no idea what Grace said to the people at Elk Lake but if you knew Grace she had the ability to get her way.

07-04-2005, 06:07 PM
Alot of people think so, BUT ELL's Clear Pond Preserve does not actually own the summit area of Wolf Pond Peak...........

A quick look at the map below shows this clearly. You can get to just below the summit on the NE flank of the peak, but if you tread on the summit, you've entered the property of another private owner. Some have used this approach and "blitzed" just the summit area and counted it. Again, some may consider that fine, but technically it's tresspassing.

Same goes for Sunrise, you can actually get very close to the summit of Sunrise via the backside (from the northeast) along state land, but, the actual summit is just inside ELL land. See map below.


I have some hiking friends that are freindly with a close associate of the owner and have climbed it (Wolf Pond) with permission. I'm hoping they will be kind enough to invite me along the next time they go. One can only hope ;).

07-05-2005, 12:11 AM
Mavs as you describe it crossing the ridge from Boreas to Wolf Pond Mt technically is trespassing. But if it is not posted is it trespassing? Back in 92 access to Boreas was open as the state trail was still operational. Obviously that is not the case today. As there were no posted signs anywhere on Wolf Pond Mt along that route in 92 no one would know they could not be there. In that case it is not trespassing. Only guest of Elk Lake Lodge can be on Boreas legally today but unless that property line is marked on Wolf Pond Mt the situation is the same. Are there posted signs there now? I will give you another example

This was the case when the compromise herd path up Panther Brook was put in place. The issue then was peak baggers crossing Finch Pruyn land leased by hunting clubs. The abandoned Santanoni Trail along with a cross country route to Panther Peak were the popular access points. In my discussions with Dick Nason the man in charge for FP at the time it was learned that the only posted signs or identification of private boundaries in place were along the Bradley Pond Trail. Dick admitted if one were to approach from any other direction they would have no idea where the boundaries were and FP could not prosecute trespassing. To resolve the issue Dick agreed to
mark the property line to identify where the boundary was. The 46R's could then install a herd path on the state land side of the line. It was FP who actually cut the wide path to mark the line. We 46R's only flagged the route and did not have to do any clearing. Dick's crew cut such an obvious path a blind man could have followed it. As Finch Pryun admitted it is not trespassing if your property is not clearly marked. It was this agreement that helped lead the way to a similar resolution for the Allen route.

I agree that to cross private property without permission to climb one of the 100 highest or any Mt for that matter is trespassing. I would not do that, nor do I believe any responsible hiker would. I suspect as there are several of the 100 in this situation that is why no official 100 highest club has emerged.

Mavs I agree with you and respect your opinion but I submit that many hikers who you say "blitz" to get to a peak may in fact not be aware they did anything wrong. As Finch Pryun readily admitted it is their obligation to mark their property if they wish to limit access. They would not have paid a crew to cut that swath to mark their property otherwise. In the case of my son and I crossing the ridge from Boreas to Wolf Pond Mt, Elk Lake allowed hiking on Boreas in 92. If Wolf Pond Mt was in fact private property there was no designation stating whose property it was. It could have been Elk Lake's and therefore perfectly ok to go there. Since no posted signs existed on the ridge it is clear the owner did not care then. So the notion of "blitzing" does not apply. I would submit in regard to today's hiker who is legally on Boreas the same applies if the owners did not identify their property and post it. How is a guest of Elk Lake to know where the property begins and ends? In the case of Sunrise we had Elk Lake's written permission to be there.

As I said I will never knowingly trespass on someone's property without permission but the property owner has the obligation to tell you where his property is.

07-05-2005, 01:41 PM
Antler, you may in fact be right and that back in 92, that was legal. I certainly am no lawyer either, But Im not sure that tresspassing would not be prosecutable today simply due to the fact that an area is "not posted". An individual landowner may not decide to press charges, but I beleive they can still decide to do so. Take RR tracks, the tracks themselves and the immediate area around them are, IN FACT, Private property and you can, and occationally are, prosecuted for tresspassing for goofing off on them, despite the fact that they are not typically "posted" along the entire length of them.

In that location, between Boreas and Wold Pond. I wouldn’t expect to find “Private Property” or “No Trespassing” signs because it’s all on private property and the property line is only between private landowners. Unless there was a dispute between landowners, why would you post signs over such a large area in that case? You might find evidence of old property survey lines, but I wouldn’t expect the area to be posted as say you MIGHT find between public (State) land and private property.

DON”T GET ME WRONG – I almost always will not and DO NOT pass judgement on people. I’m not saying that “blitzers” (just my term, and not meant to be negative) are bad people and evil. I’m quite sure that some people have ACCDENTLY strolled across Private Property without permission. I have. In fact quite recently I did, and only received retroactive permission from the owner after the fact (but permission just the same). It certainly is a far better cry than KNOWINGLY disregarding private property, but at the same "my ignorance did not make it right", .

Besides, there IS NO standard, no club, no patch, and no lofty set of guidelines to meet. This is just MY standard. I have no right to begrudge others for their actions but at the same time I think that, for me, If I unknowingly trespassed on a hike, if I later reached a summit, I would not count it. Besides, it’s almost no excuse anymore. Private Property lines are clear and printed on some maps (the NG ones for example). Whenever you bushwhack, there is a some work that you are required to do beforehand (such as routefinding), and I just consider this one other research item to “check out” before climbing.

Again, I’m just me and certainly am NO AUTHORITY on the matter. I would hope others feel the same, but, if not, than there really isn’t much I can do.

07-05-2005, 02:53 PM
Mavs, again we are in agreement but the maps, ADK guide book map for example only separates private from state lands. So I can see where in this case someone legally on Elk Lake Land, such as a guest or one who obtained permission for a hike of Boreas would not know when they ventured onto another land holders property. IE the Boreas-Wolf Pond ridge. As back in 92 the maps property lines revealed only state vs private and not individual parcels. Until you mentioned it recently I thought the whole mass in there was Elk Lakes. And again back in 92 this was no big thing as few were doing these peaks and the issues revolved around the Santis and Allen. This discussion just highlights the importance of doing careful research to avoid creating problems for everyone. Why not start a 100 highest "legal" peaks club dropping off those on private property as there seems to be conflicts over the actual positioning of peaks anyway. Those who climb the legal list can then get their patch. I wonder who would be interested in that.

07-05-2005, 11:02 PM
We sure sound pretty much agreement on this one :). This is really the only case were this happens anyway (having to cross from one private owner to another) on the HH list anyway. All the other times it's just being cafeful and cautious as to not cross over private land to reach a public summit (or get permission first).

To be honest, the REAL concern would be primarily with HUNTING anyway, and not so much with hiking. For Instance, if I got permission to hunt and take game and property X, and through ignorance (or otherwise), strolled into property Y and took down some game animal without express permission from the owner of that property, he's (or she) likely gonna be pretty pissed and much less accepting of the excuse of "OH, I just did not realize this was not Mr. X's land". Hikers don't really causes excessive damage or "leave a lasting trace". I would imagine much of the real annoyance with hikers from property owners, would probably be the real arrogance and disreguard over property and land rights displayed by SOME hikers. That and litter or other unsightly crap left by some of those same hikers :rolleyes:

As for the club, there has been talk of it through the years, but I don't think there has been much interest in it (and some real resistance from some). To be sure, we certainly don't need another 46r type club that just encourages hitting each summit. I'm not sure I'd support that either. One thing's for sure, unless some attention is paid to it at some point, there is enough traffic on these peaks that down the road, you'll have a similar situation as you do on the so called "trailless 46". Poorly designed, crappy and badly erroding paths that will require the DEC to step in and fix it (at taxpayer expense). Also, it's a pretty small group that has actually finished it (like less then 30-40 (know one really knows) so it not like a huge pool of volunteers.

There's a few more just plugging along at the list (I'll be pushing 70 within a few weeks), but most of the traffic are not us HH seekers, it more likely natural spillover from the hordes of hikers escaping the more crowded peaks nearby. We ignore this fact at the peril of these peaks :(

Ned Kipperson
07-08-2005, 02:14 AM

This link answers the question about posting of land. Yes you can be charged for trespassing even if you didn't see signs. The penal law states that "curtilage", ie. mowed or otherwise improved areas are subject to trespass laws, like buildings, or other property. "Unimproved" areas are not subject to penal law trespass. Of course, a landowner could try to prove that his land is improved because he has logged part of it, built a trail or road, etc. Under the Environmental Conservation Law, any land is subject to a charge of trespass, whether it's posted or not, because posted signs fall off, get torn down intentionally or by animals. The difference is in the seriousness of the offense between penal law (ie. rape, murder, sex with farm animals) and ECL (hunting, fishing, state land, etc.).

On the argument that a hiker doesn't "know it's posted land because there were no signs present": That may be true, but if the lines are drawn on the map, like the ADK maps, it's apparent which terrain is private just by looking at the map. If you're nearing the top of a peak which only the summit is private, you know that you are approaching private land and should turn around without permission to go there. :headbang:

07-08-2005, 10:24 AM
Neil, Tim, et all - just wanted to agree with the statement that doing the 100 highest will definitely be a much more difficult task then the 46. If anything, pure logistics. Also the bushwacks and difficult terrain I'm sure we'll encounter. This is one reason I'm not 100% committed yet. I want to get more "used to" the more rugged side of climbing before I jump in with both feet. :)

A lot of my "need to climb someday" mountains are on the 100 highest. At this moment helping Val and my friend Quentin with their 46 is top priority. The ADK Top 100 and my winter 46 will take care of themselves in time.

07-08-2005, 11:44 AM
helping Val .

I like the word "accompanying" better :)

I agree with Antler Peak. It would be better ethically to make it the Hundred Highest legal peaks. Although I don't see the need for a patch. For me it would just be a personal goal with my own rules/requirements.

Here is a good resource link: http://members.aol.com/qam1/adkmts.htm

07-08-2005, 12:51 PM
I like the word "accompanying" better :)[/URL]

Oh, no mistake - you need HELP. :boozing:

07-08-2005, 05:04 PM
Here is a good resource link: http://members.aol.com/qam1/adkmts.htm

Val (and everyone else),

While qam's site is a great resource (I use it and have contributed to it), the list that is generally (but not always) accepted is the one in the back of the ADK quidebook developed by Tony Goodwin.

Here is that -ADK 100 LIST- (http://www.adkhighpeaks.com/46er-flash/adk100.htm) as posted on my site.

There are some differences as he uses a different set of criteria than Mr. Goodwin did. It realy doesn't matter, but most people I know are using the Goodwin list, then adding a few extra moutains whose elevations may soon change and boot two current peaks off the list ;). (i.e. Bullhead and Wilmington for Brown Pond and Sawtooth #5)

:rolling: :rolling: confused yet :rolling: :rolling:

04-03-2006, 02:23 AM
Just ran back accross this post. In the intervening months, and with additional research, I've learned;

Sunrise's summit is just off ELL property and can be approached soley on state land from the E (but its still easier from ELL). Wolf Pond's summit is entirely on ELL property and you can climb it legally as a paying guest of the lodge.

for those keeping score, that 4 summits on PP, 2 on ELL (permission easily obtained). 2 in the Fishing Brook Range (permission obtained by joining the hunt club that provides access, or being a guest of a member of same ;).

Not that hard, is it.

The Ogre
03-23-2007, 10:58 AM
I (and hopefully others) appreciate the fact that you looked into this closely. Having recently finished the 46, and closing on the W46, I am planning to climb the 100. I don't think anyone should trespass to attain a summit, it's bad form and it endangers trails and easements that are already in place. It also endangers the possibility that those landowners might be more gracious in their policies (i.e. a permanent easement) in the future.

I know...:beatdead: (what a great emoticon)

Thanks again for looking into this.

03-23-2007, 11:57 AM
Just ran back accross this post. In the intervening months, and with additional research, I've learned;

). 2 in the Fishing Brook Range (permission obtained by joining the hunt club that provides access, or being a guest of a member of same ;).

Not that hard, is it.

Fishing Brook range can be accessed pretty easily from the NP Trail.Just climb Burnt Mt., which is east of the trail just south of 28N.Burnt has nice views to the north and east. Once you are on top of Burnt (2900+-) the Fishing Brook Range is to the south and east. Hope you like those spruce trap thingys.
As far as access from the hunt club is concerned, The Minerva Fish and Game Club lease about 5000 acres that abut the state land to their south and east,that FBR is on. They are always looking for new members who like to hike.I can help with that.Most clubs have rules prohibiting guests because of liability issues.

03-23-2007, 12:48 PM
From just a liability standpoint, neither the Clubs nor Finch Pruyn can be sued by a hiker for or other user of the land as the NYS General Obligation Law immunizes the property owners or leaseholders of liability.

I don't think this is a correct staement. All of the clubs are required by FP to have liability insurance. I beleive that this law only pertains to established trails with easements?
Does anyone know the particuliars of this ?
I am unclear.

03-23-2007, 01:34 PM
thanks , that clears alot up for me.

03-23-2007, 02:42 PM
Careful. Nothing is black and white in the law.

General Obligations Law 9-103 provides a certain immunity, but there are several exceptions. See, e.g., Samuels v. City of New Rochelle, 778 NY2d 640 (N.Y. 2004)(discussing the payment-to-use-land exception); Blair v. Newstead Snowseekers, Inc., 769 N.Y.2d 807 (2003)(discussing the willful conduct exception); Arquette v. High Braes Refuge, Inc., 739 N.Y.S.2d 526 (N.Y.Ct.Cl. 2001)(discussing the owners own negligence exception). There are others.

04-07-2007, 04:34 PM
Panther and Buell can be climbed by joining one of the Clubs that control each side of the ridge.
I was under the impression that these summits were on State Land. Couldn't Buell could be reached fairly easily from Wakely Dam?

04-08-2007, 07:54 AM
It would stand to reason that the watershed or ridgeline would delineate state from private land and would be a safe assumption. A phone call or 2 to the county seat's tax map office might clear that up. Even if the actual summit was on PP I would be satisfied going to within a few yards of it.