Reminder about MITA Islands

[Katherine]

Shhhhh....

The names of the islands are to be kept private so only MITA members know which ones they are and where they are located.

[spider]

almost true, but not quite, a good number of the islands are open to the public....it does get confusing sometimes though.

[EEL]

As Spider says it does get confusing. My understanding is there are essentially three types of islands that are part of the MITA trail. State and federal owned islands, islands owned by individuals, and islands owned by trusts/non-profit organizations. The last two are considered private islands by MITA and should not be identified in a public forum such as the NSPN message boards. The first can be. The trick being you need to be a MITA member or at least have access to the guide to know which islands are which. Also, the MITA sites are constantly changing so you can only rely upon the guide published for the current year as some islands are dropped, some are added, and some go from camping to day use only islands.

Ed Lawson

[scamlin]

Just confirming Ed's correct about MITA islands:

• State owned islands (BPL): open to all.
• Non-profits (such as land trusts): considered private by MITA but many are open to public depending on the non-profits guidelines.
• Inndividual/family: considered private and not open to public.

Thing is, as Ed says, you need to know which are which.

The critical thing for the NSPN website is that many owners are happy to open their property to MITA-educated members who know what is allowed but may be concerned if the general, un-informed public used their property. That's why NSPN regularly reminds us to not mention specific islands by name: private owners put their island on the Trail with the understanding that only MITA members will visit.

Whatever the ownership arrangement, they all share a common characteristic: the owners (state, non-profit or private) get to set the rules for their property. They tell MITA where access on the property is allowed (many areas are off-limits), when it is allowed (e.g. bird nesting or family use), and what is allowed (camping, fires, pets, etc). Even islands that are open to the public (e.g. non-MITA members) have restrictions such as seasonal use. That is why being a current MITA member and consulting the current MITA Guidebook is important: you have the book and know when and how to be a respectful visitor and steward of the resource.

That's what keeps MITA concept viable: people who own the islands make them available to people who will use the islands responsibly and take care of them.

Scott

Edited April 3, 2013 by scamlin

[rfolster]

I think the issue of island "privacy" comes up when doing trip reports. There as always been the problem of reporting a trip to an "island that shall not be named", or the classic "MITA page ##" which does not work since the books change every year and we are supposed to destroy the old books when we get the new ones. Even if we don't use the actual name of an island, but describe it's location, we are still identifying it.

I understand that, when planning a trip, you can share the name of the islands privately through email or PM, but unless we start making trip reports private, how do we share our experiences so that others can use the info to plan their own trips?

Would it help, or go against the NSPN philosophy, to make the Trip Reports board private to paid members only?

[gyork]

..........how do we share our experiences so that others can use the info to plan their own trips? you can share the name of the islands privately through email or PM

Would it help, or go against the NSPN philosophy, to make the Trip Reports board private to paid members only? Prefer not-as an example many Newfies were able to share and enjoy Kate's wonderful trip report to that region, and I suspect nary a one is a NSPN member.

[rick stoehrer]

It comes down to conservation of a resource.

Unless MITA membership were somehow conferred or verified through NSPN membership, you'd be facing the same dilemma on a smaller scale, wouldn't you? And really, private trip reports on a kayaking website targets the real potential users of those islands so by how much are you even limiting the potential damage?

In outing privately held MITA islands to non MITA members on any forum public or private, so that they can plan their trips you help increase the stress on those island resources and on MITA's ability to maintain those islands. Those islands are fragile. Thin topsoil, crumbling rock, some of them with tree's so thick and with enough blow down that if it were to ever catch fire...ooh boy, that'd be bad. And they're already overused.

That money paid to MITA for membership pays island caretakers, maintains equipment for island clean ups and supports out reach programs to support conservation of the Maine Island Trail. It is a very worthwhile organization with a mission that most of us support and hold dear.

NOW....if MITA had a forum to post trip reports that was regulated by MITA membership...oh, chit-chat away. HEY SCOTT......you guys ever look into that? It's a logical extension of the log books you all keep on the islands already.

Til then, for me, first rule of Private MITA Islands is you don't talk about Private MITA Islands.

[EEL]

It is not clear to me why there is any need to identify an island in anyway when posting a trip report. One can describe the experience without identifying precisely where the experience occurred.

Ed Lawson

[Suz]

It is not clear to me why there is any need to identify an island in anyway when posting a trip report. One can describe the experience without identifying precisely where the experience occurred.

Ed Lawson

Agree wholeheartedly. I think people like to share things like "avoid island 1 in spring due to mosquitoes" and such. Also agree with Rick S about sharing the names of the islands. Personally MY goal is to get people to join MITA so if I privately share the islands, it defeats this goal. I know of NSPN unpaid members who have been known to join MITA to get the trail guide but then not renew as they felt they already had the info they needed. They then proceed to utilize the old resource for guidelines. This is why I don't lend my old guidebooks out. I don't actually throw them away as I have made notes in them.

[spider]

I personally have zero problem identifying publicly owned islands.

I remember very clearly, esp in the early days, that some of the resistance to the whole concept of the "trail" were with people fearing public lands would become for members only. I think the dilemma still exist and we walk a fine line with "members only" approach.

One thing seldom gets mentioned but not every place to camp is listed in the guide book. Some people purposely did not want to list their islands as part of a trail which could indeed increase their usage.

On the other side of the coin not every camping spot in the guide is usable, some are simply well intentioned but not usable.

The more we know and learn the better our chances of being in the right place at the right time

...but...

Public Lands are Public..not just for us.

Edited April 3, 2013 by spider

[rick stoehrer]

The concern is in identifying PRIVATE islands, NOT PUBLIC islands.

MITA has been granted access by PRIVATE island owners. MITA members are conveyed access to those PRIVATE islands and they are published in the MITA book as being on the trail.

The concern is that in identifying PRIVATE islands that should not be used by non MITA members (and you know...the folks that OWN them) that we are advertising them for use to the general public...and they aren't. Those are NOT PUBLIC LANDS.

In remarking upon those PRIVATE islands and how wonderful they are to kayak out to, camp on, use, etc., we are essentially saying "hey, come squat in my neighbors yard, he won't mind.", when in fact, he does mind and we shouldn't be doing that as members of MITA - an organization that is dedicated to responsible use, stewardship and conservation of those islands.

[spider]

Thanks it does help to clear up. It is only the... Private islands.... of concern. It is easy for folks to get confused.

With the public lands I'm sure we didn't want people to think they have to join yet another organisation to use what is already theirs.

[gyork]

I see no harm (and henceforce will try to adopt, as some have) in NOT reporting islands visited in trip reports, public or private. I guess by doing so (?selfishly or altruistically), it might help reduce impact on an island. Those paddlers who have a serious interest kayaking in the region will likely identify from the MITA guide the island(s) I mention in a report. If not, I would share through PM names of islands I refer to, after verifying they are MITA members, of course

[EEL]

Spider said:

"On the other side of the coin not every camping spot in the guide is usable, some are simply well intentioned but not usable."

Boy, isn't that the truth. I once told a MITA staffer I had camped on an island listed for camping, but it was not easy. He looked at me incredulously and said something along the lines of "You camped on that island? Where did you camp?"

Ed Lawson

[Suz]

I tried to camp on an island near Boothbay that unexpectedly had two goats on it. We tried hard to find a place to set up tents but while looking, the goats tried to eat our deck lines, our life jackets and our spray skirts that were on US. We ended up going to a 'no camping' island nearby and set up at the foot of the lighthouse - the only flat spot around. Wasn't an unpleasant place to camp but the people restoring the lighthouse arrived very early the next morning - but after we had already broken down our tents. They had a good laugh about the goats.

I called MITA afterwards and told them they needed to note that there were goats now on the island and no where to set up camp. They didn't exactly word it that there was no room to camp!