Things Heat Up as Neighbors and Community Question Stinchfield Trail Closings

| 5 min | by Doug Marrin |

Neighbors of Stinchfield Woods and the community of hikers who enjoy stretching their legs there were surprised by signs announcing trail closures on November 24. The sudden move has left many folks asking questions.

Jason Aric Jones is a direct neighbor to Stinchfield Woods and serves on the State of Michigan’s Non-Motorized Trails Advisory Workgroup. He is involved in creating and maintaining natural surface trail systems around the State of Michigan. Jones was surprised by the abrupt trail closures.

“There are a few aspects of the University’s decision that are especially troubling,” he states. “First, these trails have existed for decades, and the community has used them for decades. For them to be closed off without notice or attempt at resolution via direct engagement with the community is a problem.”

The closure signs are scattered around the southeastern portion of Stinchfield and read, “THIS TRAIL IS NOW CLOSED FOR THE SAFETY PURPOSES AND FOR RESPECT OF OUR NEIGHBORS PRIVACY. FEEL FREE TO USE THE OTHER TRAILS AT STINCHFIELD WOODS.” Contact information for U-M’s property management is also listed in the finer print for anyone with questions.

Located halfway between Dexter and Pinckney, approximately on the northwest corner of Dexter-Pinckney and North Territorial roads in Dexter Township, Stinchfield Woods is a 777-acre U-M research natural area used for training in forest and sustainable ecosystem management. A part of the University’s School for Environment And Sustainability (SEAS) authority, the forested tract is primarily a research area containing U-M’s radio tower and the University’s large radio telescope.

Stinchfield Woods consists of tall pines and hardwoods and is a relaxing trek in any season.

When contacted, U-M’s Property Manager explained, “We closed off the trail that runs north and south on the east side of the property because visitors kept wandering onto our neighbor’s property. Dogs out for a walk with their owners, unleashed, have run onto neighbors’ property causing problems.”

Stinchfield Woods is one of several U-M properties open to the public. Numerous trails among the tall pines, rolling hills, and mature woods make for scenic and tranquil hiking, birding, and Nordic skiing. Local outdoor enthusiasts have enjoyed the pristine woods for decades.

Public reaction from those out on the trails varied depending on the person’s history with Stinchfield Woods. Newer visitors to the woods seemed to accept the trail closures as necessary property management.

“That’s really too bad that it has been a problem for the neighbors,” said Kate, who started using the trails two months after the Stay-at-Home order went into effect. “I hope they don’t close anymore.”

“It sounds like it might be the old story of a few people ruining it for everyone,” observed a father out for a stroll with his adult children.

However, some veterans of long walks in Stinchfield were dubious.

In his mid-fifties, Mike has been walking and running the trails since he was a teenager. “I’ve seen them close a few trails for repair and regrowth, like maybe three times. I’ve never seen them use yellow rope, homemade signs, and brush. It’s pretty ugly for an area they pride themselves in preserving.”

Others questioned the authenticity of the signs. “They’ve misspelled a word in the finer print,” pointed out one woman. “You’d expect better if it was the University.”

“The whole wording of the thing is weird,” commented her friend.

Many people have emailed U-M SEAS at the address on the signs. This week the department responded to those emails apologizing for any confusion surrounding the signage. The email goes on to explain the ongoing issue with neighboring property owners, stating in part,

“We prioritize doing what we can to keep our visitors safe. Over the past several years, we have received complaints from multiple adjacent landowners reporting trail users and at times, destroying private property signs and barriers as well as their off-leash pets who are not following leash rules, trespassing onto their private property. Neighbors have installed trail cameras and shared the footage with us…Since the private property owners’ attempts to add signage and barriers have not been effective, unfortunately, we must close this small portion of border trails.”

The approximately 70 acres of the 777-acre woods has been closed off after being open for decades.

But many other neighbors of Stinchfield Woods are quick to speak against the closures feeling they favor one landowner in particular.

Francie Wesorick, whose 6.5-acre property borders the woods, had this to say in response to the email: “I’m disappointed in their solution to close trails. It seems there could be a more creative remedy that would serve our community in a more productive way. Perhaps, better signs, better fencing or rerouting some trails.”

“We bought our home in 2013 because of the proximity to Stinchfield and easy access to the trails,” she adds. “We have a wire fence that runs along the border of our property that was put in by the University many years ago. Every once in a while, we have a lost hiker in our yard or a dog that has been separated from its owner, but it’s not often and not a problem. It’s to be expected when you live next to hiking trails.”

Another landowner who also has property adjacent to the woods said, “I think it’s important that people know that the University has made a decision that greatly benefits one particular person at the detriment of many, many others.”

In an email sent to SEAS, she explains that sharing a border with Stinchfield was a deciding factor in the purchase when she bought her property more than twenty years ago. She daily enjoys the trails and land and helps clear branches, litter, and invasive species. “I have been a good neighbor to Stinchfield Woods,” she says in the email.

She succinctly identifies the heart of concern echoed by other Stinchfield neighbors, saying, “I was dismayed to see the recent ugly signs blocking many of the trails I frequent that approach the privately owned land on the east. I would like to know the nature of the safety and privacy issues used as an explanation for ceding a large portion of University land to private ownership. Why are those neighbors granted special treatment and access to trails that are not on their land, whereas I am now considered a violator if I use trails that I have been using for 20 years without harm?”

Numerous signs with brush/log piles have been put in place to close the trails.

Tom Wilson also lives adjacent to Stinchfield Woods. He sent an email to SEAS and had this to say in regards to the response he received: “They did address some of my initial queries. Taking the reply at face value, more than one property owner has raised complaints. They reportedly do have evidence of people vandalizing and trespassing, which of course I find very unfortunate for the many more people who use and treat the property with respect.”

“I appreciate the challenges they face and that those have been amplified during the increased use during the pandemic,” he adds.

As much as he would like to see the University work together with the neighbors for a solution, Wilson would like to see all the adjacent property owners included in the answers. “I do still think the specific closures were ultimately motivated by the one property owner plus the County Road Commission, based on what was closed.”

One of the trails is near an old WCRC gravel pit. The impression some have received is that the WCRC had a say in the closures. Communications Manager for the WCRC, Emily Kizer, clarified for Sun Times News, “We did not close these trails. They are located on U of M property, not WCRC’s.”

“I hope SEAS understands that there is a large and caring user community that would be more than happy to engage in such informed conversations,” concludes Wilson.

Like Wilson, Jones also believes the University’s sudden move resulted from one landowner’s multiple complaints.

“I also believe that the trespassing claims made by the one landowner bordering the property are hyperbole,” he states. “The landowner’s home is nowhere near the back of his property, which has a deer blind set-up. There is nothing wrong with hunting, but I believe their complaint is rooted in the fact that they want to shoot in their backyard. If people are hiking just across the property line, this gets in the way of their shooting. In addition, people hiking on those trails disrupt the movement of deer into their property. But, these are all things one should consider before purchasing land.”

The Sun Times contacted the property owner in question, but he has declined comment at this time.

“If I were concerned about privacy on my land, I could erect a privacy fence,” stated a neighbor. “If the concern of the property owners on Dexter-Pinckney Rd is trespassing or privacy, it seems it would be up to the neighbors to erect fences on their own land, not the University. If the concern is hunting, it seems it is up to the neighbors to hunt responsibly.”

“I would like to know why SEAS chose the neighbor on Dexter-Pinckney Rd for special treatment,” she adds. “The action taken by SEAS has a big negative impact on me, and on many, many other trail users. The use of the trails has increased dramatically during this pandemic, and many people will be disappointed when the snow falls and those heavily skied trails will no longer be available.”

It’s a sentiment Jones echoes. “It doesn’t seem right to take away a longstanding natural jewel for the community at a time when trail use is at a peak due to COVID simply because of one selfish neighbor.”

The trail closures have prompted the formation of a Facebook group, Friends of Stinchfield Woods, in an effort to engage the University toward a more equitable solution.