WODC Outlook, May 2009

There are some strong allegations made in the latest WODC Newsletter regarding Trail Bandit's Ossipee Map and its depiction of trails on private property. I have a copy of the map and have appreciated it greatly in my roaming of the Ossipees but I think the issue and facts are worth discussing.
At a minimum, we should identify any trails that have landowner concerns and stay off them as a community.

Edit to add scan of document:

For those who haven't seen the latest WODC Newsletter, the concern is about encouraging public use of trails on private property without the permission of the landowner.

Unlike the nearby WMNF, the Ossipee Mountains are private property. Have the landowners granted permission for the public to maintain or use these trails?

Those are some pretty strong allegations. I find it very hard to believe that Trail Bandit would use herbicide on a trail.

About the map: I think that anybody that looks at the Ossipee Mountain Map that I have put together, will find that I have shown "What is out there". I have only shown as trails, tracks that are blazed, maintained, and regularly used as hiking trails. The only "trail" that is shown that there have been any concerns about, that I am aware of, is the Larcom Mountain trail. I have heard that a no trespassing sign has been put up at the beginning of the trail on Mountain Road. Before putting the trail on the map I wrote a letter (certified) to the owner of record, asking what their wishes were as to hikers using their land. They did not respond. At that time, the only signs were "No hunting with bear dogs". The map has been available on VFTT for about a year and I asked for comments, corrections, and corrections. A number of you made helpful suggestions that I incorporated into the map. Two landowners contacted me and requested (demanded) that I remove trails shown on their land. I removed both trails. One of the landowners, who seems to be accustomed to "Being in charge", and having people respond with a "how high" to the jump command, demanded that I remove any features of any kind on her land, from the map. She has been expending a lot of time and energy trying to stir up any landowner who will listen. I feel that if there is a major logging road, skidder road, or well used snowmobile trail on the land, it can be shown as such on a map. Look at the uSGS, Delorme, etc maps and you will see such features. The USGS does not get permission from land owners before making a map. A map that shows no features on private land wouldn't have much on it. Check out the map and make your own conclusions. Mr. Conrad, of the WODC, should really check his facts before printing a rant to fill in a blank space in his news letter.

Thanks, TB.
Better to have this out there than for all of us to fear we are trespassing every time we check out something new in the Ossipees.

While I dont condone anyone cutting or maintaining an unauthorized trail on private property, I regard access to that property somewhat less clear due to the following

The current use designation that many large landowners utilize in NH gives a property tax discount to owners that leave their land open for public use. There are instances where the owner takes the discount but "forgets" the public access provision. There is no central registry of this information so it would need to be a town by town search to determine that status. The property tax records would be public record, although gaining access to them is sometimes difficult. This does not imply that if they take the discount, that someone can build a trail on their land, the owner just cant post it no tresspassing. The discount is on a year by year basis so anyone trying to use this to justify long term access could be disapointed if the landowner elects to lose the discount.

Loss of recreational liability immunity, if the owner posts the land, they lose some if not all the immunity to being sued if a member of the public gets injured on the property. This can introduce an additional cost to a large landowner as they would be prudent to obtain appropriate liability insurance not required if the land wasnt posted. This doesnt give the public any rights, but it is motivation for a landowner not to post. Many recent large landowners are not aware of this statute, and it can sometimes be used to an advantage in convincing them to keep their land open.

Of somewhat more concern to the landowner is "squatter rights" (AKA prescriptive rights or right of adverse possession). Bascially if an individual or the public in general can prove that they have "openly and notoriusly" used a piece of private land for an extended period of time ( many years), without the landowner objecting, then the individual or public may have gained the right to continue this use. The establishment and maintenance of an organized (or non organized) trail and the documentation of it, is definitely something that would end up supporting this right and therein may be the issue with a landowner, of course it could go the other way as the map deliniates private property so anyone using it is acknowledging that they are on private property. Essentially the squatters rights "clock stops ticking" whenever the landowner can establish that they have acted to restablish their property rights. Reputedly Rockefeller Plaza in NYC is closed for one day per year to the public to reestablish that it is private property. Squatter rights have been considered the "nuclear option" by outdoor organizations and large government entities as if they elected to go to court to establish public rights on a trail over private property (I.E. the Mt Cabot trail), numerous other trails and accomodations on private land may close overnight and create far more ill will than would be gained by opening that one trail. I would strongly urge anyone considering this approach in the Ossipees to consider the harm that would most likely occur.


One major confusion out there is that just because a piece of land is covered by a conservation easement, does not neccesarilly give the public right to access it. It is entirely up to the agreement that was signed by the owners when the easement was created. Quite frequently the easement is strictly for development rights which prevents the owner from subdividing the property in the future, the owner is free to post the land just as they were previously. There is a large block of land with hiking trails in Northern VT which is covered by a development easement (west of Hazens notch?), where the hiking trails are at the "pleasure of the landowner". The owners can and do shut down the trails on occasion and have a caretaker to keep an eye on the property to enforce these closures. I am aware of a case in the local area where an illegal snowmachine trail was built across a conservation easement on a landowners property without their knowledge or consent and the agency who manages the easement went after the landowner to stop the use and mitigate the damage. It did not proceed past a discussion stage, but nevertheless got the landowner cranked up.

Maine has some colonial statutes regarding free right of access for "fishing and fowling" to great ponds and waterways that have been interpreted for public access, but I do not beleive that NH has those protections.

Do note , I am not a lawyer and dont pretend to be, if you are thinking of using this guidance to do anything, see a lawyer or do your own research.

peakbagger said:

Maine has some colonial statutes regarding free right of access for "fishing and fowling" to great ponds and waterways that have been interpreted for public access, but I do not believe that NH has those protections.

Click to expand...

I have a NH Fish and Game Dept. brochure squirelled away somewhere that addresses this, stating that hikers (or hunters, anglers etc.) can legally walk over any land that is not posted. Whether that derives from a statute or common law, I could not say. Does that Maine statute trump even posting, for land that leads to such "ponds and waterways"?

You make a number of good points. There is a fine line to be walked between preserving our rights against landowners who would overreach and antagonizing them into posting their properties. In my own experience, Trail Bandit has been conscientious in his attempts not to cross that line.

peakbagger said:

The current use designation that many large landowners utilize in NH gives a property tax discount to owners that leave their land open for public use. There are instances where the owner takes the discount but "forgets" the public access provision. There is no central registry of this information so it would need to be a town by town search to determine that status. The property tax records would be public record, although gaining access to them is sometimes difficult. This does not imply that if they take the discount, that someone can build a trail on their land, the owner just cant post it no tresspassing. The discount is on a year by year basis so anyone trying to use this to justify long term access could be disapointed if the landowner elects to lose the discount.

Click to expand...

I will do some more research here but I do know there are different levels of Current Use which imply different contingences.

Amicus said:

I have a NH Fish and Game Dept. brochure squirelled away somewhere that addresses this, stating that hikers (or hunters, anglers etc.) can legally walk over any land that is not posted. Whether that derives from a statute or common law, I could not say. Does that Maine statute trump even posting, for land that leads to such "ponds and waterways"?

Click to expand...

Yes, in some cases. Most famous is the right to travel along private ocean beaches if you have fishing gear which was litigated a few years back.

In NH, the state owns natural "great ponds" of over 10 acres but only the water thereon and some may not be reachable by public access.

I would say that while I agree with some of the opinions of the WODC author, there seem to be serious problems with his facts and a retraction should be published.

RoySwkr said:

I would say that while I agree with some of the opinions of the WODC author, there seem to be serious problems with his facts and a retraction should be published.

Click to expand...

Exactly. He makes a lot of accusations that go far beyond the scope of a normal opinion column.

NH current use discount is 20% and what happens it someone posts who is receiving this discount

See http://www.nhspace.org/faq.shtml#6 for a FAQ on current use


"What is the Recreational Discount?
The Recreational Discount is an incentive for landowners to keep their land open to others for six low-impact land uses; skiing, snowshoeing, fishing, hunting hiking and nature observation. In exchange for agreeing to allow all six of these activities, the current use assessment is reduced by 20%. No other recreational activities must be allowed, and the landowner may post against any other uses. Participation in the Recreational Discount is optional. (RSA 79-A:4,II) "

Of course, those who are inclined to be vengeful may use the option in paragraph 2 but I think it may still be the start of the "nuclear effect".

"What if I receive the Recreational Discount AND post my land?
There is a provision that allows a landowner who is receiving the Recreational Discount to post with the permission of the local assessing officials. An example of this would be when a farmer wants to post a field he is pasturing cows in during hunting season. Town officials usually grant this type of reasonable request.

However, if someone posts their land while receiving the Recreational Discount without the permission of local assessing officials, the 20% reduction will be removed the following tax year, and the property will not be eligible to receive the discount for the subsequent 3-year period, and a penalty is incurred. "

I've had some concerns about the Trail Bandit map since the start. The legalities are being discussed already but there's always the problem when a trail map is published that includes private land. There can be repercussions and unintended consequences unless you proceed with care and diligence. Landowners, in my experience, are quick to anger and slow to forgive when they perceive that someone is taking advantage of them. Regardless of the legalities, any publishing project requires active PR and working with the folks on the ground.

As I read the article, he wasn't accusing Trail Bandit of using herbicide or illegal cutting, just that it has been reported. Who knows if the reports are accurate or if others are using the map as a basis for opening more trails? The problem is that other landowners are perceiving this as a problem and may decide to take their own actions.

When I was working with the ATC routing the AT near Dartmouth we found the land owners to be a tricky bunch to work with. Anything that is perceived to reduce the value of their land or to restrict their right to do what they wanted was met with strong resistance. And owner A certainly kept aware of what was going on with owner B.

If a land owner has posted his/her land for no hiking, what is the purpose of showing an old road though the land? If the property lines are clearly marked on the map and shown as no tresspassing that's one thing, but what if it's not clear to a map user that certain areas are off limits? The Whites doesn't have much of that but I know the Daks does; how is it handled on their maps?

-dave-

peakbagger said:

NH current use discount is 20% and what happens it someone posts who is receiving this discount

See http://www.nhspace.org/faq.shtml#6 for a FAQ on current use


"What is the Recreational Discount?
The Recreational Discount is an incentive for landowners to keep their land open to others for six low-impact land uses; skiing, snowshoeing, fishing, hunting hiking and nature observation. In exchange for agreeing to allow all six of these activities, the current use assessment is reduced by 20%. No other recreational activities must be allowed, and the landowner may post against any other uses. Participation in the Recreational Discount is optional. (RSA 79-A:4,II) "

Of course, those who are inclined to be vengeful may use the option in paragraph 2 but I think it may still be the start of the "nuclear effect".

"What if I receive the Recreational Discount AND post my land?
There is a provision that allows a landowner who is receiving the Recreational Discount to post with the permission of the local assessing officials. An example of this would be when a farmer wants to post a field he is pasturing cows in during hunting season. Town officials usually grant this type of reasonable request.

However, if someone posts their land while receiving the Recreational Discount without the permission of local assessing officials, the 20% reduction will be removed the following tax year, and the property will not be eligible to receive the discount for the subsequent 3-year period, and a penalty is incurred. "

Click to expand...

Good Info...Is it not still possible to be in Current Use and not be receiving the additional recreation discount and therefore be able to post your land without penalty other than being put into a different(Higher) Current Use tax bracket?

David Metsky said:

If a land owner has posted his/her land for no hiking, what is the purpose of showing an old road though the land?

Click to expand...

Historical perspective? I, for one, collect maps for more than their use today be it on foot or by car. Trail Bandit has made it perfectly clear on his maps that much of the Ossipees is on private land and landowners rights must be respected. This should be enough of a disclaimer. When asked by landowners, as stated above, he has removed trails from his map that exist on their respective properties. It is up to those who hike the woods to respect the land they walk on. Even if there was no official-unofficial map, there'd still be people hiking through the Ossipees.

What's next? Landowners suing google for making satellite images available on their maps? This is already taking place in other countries.

skiguy said:

Is it not still possible to be in Current Use and not be receiving the additional recreation discount and therefore be able to post your land without penalty other than being put into a different(Higher) Current Use tax bracket?

Click to expand...

Correct. The land owner has the option of taking the discount or not.

Tobit said:

Historical perspective? I, for one, collect maps for more than their use today be it on foot or by car.

Click to expand...

Again, the point is to understand the consequences. Legal or moral or not, if the map leads to closing of land to hiking it should be weighed in the decision making process. Right now (if the opinion piece is to be believed) some local land owners are upset and in part they blame the map for encouraging people to hike, cut, and blaze on their land. Perception is important and it may be necessary to go above and beyond what is required in order to placate the landowners in question.

I'm not trying to lay blame on anyone, but if the goal is keep old trails open for hikers it pays to look at the big picture.

David Metsky said:

...if the goal is keep old trails open for hikers it pays to look at the big picture.

Click to expand...

Public use of private land has always been a delicate issue. By tradition, NH land owners are pretty accepting of other folks enjoying their property in a respectful way, so most don't resort to "No Trespassing" signs. However, these same open-minded land owners are going to start feeling differently if they see a growing numbers of people on their property claiming they have a right to be there. And publishing a trail map that encourages additional use could easily precipitate the closure of the land to all visitors.

I have been a volunteer trail maintainer with the LRCT for several years. I am acquainted with much of the issues being discussed regarding the Ossipee range in and outside of the Trust properties.

First, I will say that the Ossipee’s have held the interest of many, myself included, and many have explored vast amounts of the range. Anyone remember Peter Miller’s posts in the old Trail Conditions about his trips? I miss his posts.

Second, this is not a recent issue but one that is several years old. One of the first trails I hiked in the Ossipees was one that was an old but nearly abandoned trail that was reopened without authorization. I did not know this at the time as I thought it was part of the Trust’s trailwork, since they had recently acquired the Castle property. I soon found out differently and was aware that several trails had been or were being opened without authorization. I have seen no negative effect to date except for the posting of the Larcom Trail. Hopefully, that will change and no others will be posted but only time will tell.

Third, the comment on herbicide use is factual as I and at least one other poster here saw evidence of it several years back. I posted regarding it here and took several pictures (they no longer are up but are available if anyone is interested). More than one trail had been sprayed and some spraying was done on and some off the Trust’s property. This had been done more than once. I informed those in charge and know they were upset and I am sure any other landowner would have been also. I am not aware of any lasting plant damage done from the spray and am pretty sure it is no longer being done but apparently the lasting effect is that it is more widely known and damaging in the long run as other property owners are very concerned as to their properties.

My opinion now regarding the map: It’s a very nice map. I also understand that property owners fear their land being over run with bad hikers damaging their land. I personally don’t see that as happening as I don’t see the Ossipee’s as ever having the same popularly as the mountains further north.

I was disappointed to see that in the WODC newsletter.

I joined the WODC in May of 2008. I didn't receive a single piece of mail (not even a confirmation of payment, though it was processed immediately) for nearly 6 months (a newsletter). The second piece of mail received was this April, a letter for renewal. That sat on my desk for a week or two until I received this, the third piece of mail from WODC in a year's worth of membership.



The Trail Bandit Ossipee Map is one of my favorite maps. There are a lot of maps out there that show trails and roads in the Ossipees on posted private property - USGS, DeLorme, etc.

Based upon what I know, both from direct sources in the hiking community as well as locally, the accusations in the 'rant' are generally inaccurate.

The Larcom Trail situation is unfortunate. A large portion of it is on LRCT property - why purchase land for a trust with recreational use as part of its mission statement, when it's landlocked and inaccessible? Note that this is the only trail in the entire Northern Ossipees on the map.

I am not aware of any other trails have been called into question. I've run into plenty of people on non-LRCT trails - none of them even knew of the existence of any maps. Rather, they knew about the trails either from word of mouth or from having hiked them for decades.

I am not aware of any new trails that have been cut on private property (I believe the LRCT has added some trails recently, I don't know offhand if those were historical or not). With the exception of the Sentinel Trail, which is maintained by the owners, and the Bayle Mountain Trail, I believe I have found listings for every other trail in old AMC White Mountain Guides.



In the WODC newsletter rant, one phrase in particular jumps out at me - "I find it impossible to defend..." I don't understand why one would be asked to defend a map of a range not covered by the WODC in a WODC newsletter - it just seems out of place to me.

For now, I do not plan to renew my WODC membership. I enjoy the trails and will continue to clean up blowdowns in the Sandwich Range as I do in other parts of the Whites.

Thanks to all who are researching the access problems. In NH, there is a 20% additional deduction in the appraised value of the owner's current use land if he specifically allows recreational use of the land. This includes hunting, fishing, hiking, etc. I don't think it allowes 4 wheelers, snowmobiles, or people with chain saws that want to make a new trail. I have checked into some of the tax records of the land in the northern Ossipees and have found that in general, the owners have not opted for the extra 20%. There is one owner, that owns a number of parcels that has taken the extra deduction on some interior lots, but kept the surrounding lots in the higher tax bracket. Sneaky bugger, open all land with no access. Another thing that researchers might look into is what land has conservation easments on it, and the wording of those easements. Something like $1.5 million dollars of federal (think tax payer) dollars was spent to preserve over 10,000 acres on the Ossipees. That land is open to hikers, hunters, and fishermen. Please leave your chainsaw at home. A lot of other parcels have been preserved by the Lakes Region Conservation Trust. They have ownership and easements on far more Ossipee lands than I understood until recently. The summits of the Larcom Mountains are owned by the LRCT but not the approaches. The UNH GRANIT web site has a map layer (with errors) that all you GIS people can import and place on the Ossipee maps. If anyone is interested, I can send more detailed information on the above. If you haven't wandered off the beaten track and gone exploring in the Ossipees, you should. It is a beautiful place. Most, but not all, landowners won't mind your intrusion. Again, leave your chain saw at home.