12,000 Ossippee acres closed

[stopher]

No, of course not. However, the land owners are citing recent trail maintenance and herbicide use as a direct result of TB's map. The herbicide damage carole found pre-dates the map by at least 2.5 years so the map is totally unrelated to this incident.

On rocket's website, the earliest version of "the map" is dated December 15, 2006. Does this prove anything? No. But is the timing consistent? Yes.

 

[Amicus]

Does this thread really need to be discussed any more?

Wow, bandana4me, you sure have time on your hands, to track down the photo-posting site where I post my hiking pix. I wrote that casual intro in a more innocent time, before I realized how closely every word on this topic needed to be scrutinized. They represent my thoughts at the time but I didn't check facts and can't vouch for their accuracy.

I've long since thought this vituperative thread could usefully cease and am sorry you dragged me back in.

 

[carole]

Concord Monitor story - part 2

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Thanks for the link, Carole. This article seemed a bit more balanced, and didn't demonize TB.

 

[Waumbek]

I've long since thought this vituperative thread could usefully cease and am sorry you dragged me back in.

Vituperative, as in "harshly abusive"? I don't think so. Actually, the comments and questioning have been rather restrained, with a few prods from moderators. Everybody seems agreed that this situation could and should have been headed off much earlier and it's a shame that it has gotten to the brink of potential lawsuits that might tie up the land for years. Live and learn for the future.

 

[Peakbagr]

To all contributors - IMO the thread ceased offering much new information a while ago. Stick to the issues and avoid personalizing.

 

[--M.]

To all contributors - IMO the thread ceased offering much new information a while ago. Stick to the issues and avoid personalizing.

There's one piece of new information in the article that needs acknowledging:

Garrison asked Trails Bureau Chief Chris Gamache last week if he would organize a meeting with Coombs or a representative of the landowner. He wants to have a "heart-to-heart" and find out just what damage has been done, he said. Gamache said he is working to set a time for that meeting.​

I'm no fan of the mapmaker's methods or philosophies, but this represents concrete action toward reconciliation. I offer praise for this and encourage the participants to continue working toward a solution that undoes the damage and restores whatever access existed previously.

Is the map still available on a public website? Would someone please explain why?

--Mike.

 

[am&pm]

If you want to hike the Ossipee Mnts, Get a written permission slip.We did.

 

[Peakbagr]

I should amend what I'd last written. The link to the Concord Monitor seemed like a fairly good and non imflammatory summary.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

...Is the map still available on a public website? Would someone please explain why?

--Mike.

Dunno - maybe others have other opinions than you as to what constitutes free speech? Wild guess on my part, though.

 

[--M.]

If the answer is some form of "Because it's my right," then I wouldn't argue. I'd ask, is it profitable?

This issue is impacting others. The actual rights of the mapmakers are no longer the only question. The owners are now also asserting their rights, and everyone is losing.

The map is offensive to the owners. They're upset about it. Whether it's someone's right to make the map is becoming an irrelevant and damaging distraction to the real questions at hand.

Why is it profitable for the map still to be offered?

When it's time for me to hike the area, I'll approach the owners personally, requesting permission, not demanding it as a right.

Most of these owners are private individuals, not big bad mega-corporations.

 

[Waumbek]

Most of these owners are private individuals, not big bad mega-corporations.

Well, this may or may not be to the point, I'll let others decide, but Chocorua Forestlands is not necessarily the total villain it is usually characterized as in this thread. Sure, it's a business corporation, that's America for ya, but it also happens to own (or did own) one of the most highly respected mills around here, H.G. Wood Industries in Lisbon NH, which prides itself on green forestry, community projects, and high grade products. H.G. Wood keeps local, small logging operators, 1 or 2 person outfits, in business up here, especially important now that the bigger mills have shut down. It pays fairly, promptly, is known for demanding quality, and I didn't hear that it stiffed any loggers last winter, which other mills did. If HG Wood is any reflection on Chocorua Forestlands, then I would not assume the latter is bad simply because it is a corporation, actually an LLC.

 

[stopher]

Well, this may or may not be to the point, I'll let others decide, but Chocorua Forestlands is not necessarily the total villain it is usually characterized as in this thread.

I don't know either. But since you raised the point, they have pretty much the same good reputation here. Having been employed by forest products companies myself, I know there's a wide range in business and forest stewardship ethics. Chocorua Forestlands is one of the better ones. They have a "hands-off" policy for the old-growth timber on their land. As for the Forest Legacy easement, Jeff Coombs told me the development and gravel rights alone were appraised at 1.8 million, which makes the easement a true bargain sale. As for the public access issue, my guess is that Chocorua Forestlands is acting in good faith with DRED to get the trails reopened.

 

[RoySwkr]

I, optimistically, doubt the closed areas will remain off limits permanently.

In the Concord Monitor article, a DRED official is quoted that the closure is temporary. I speculate that deer season may have an effect on this.

But removing/revising it and modifying its copy on Rocket's site are about the only things we, as a public face of the hiking community, can do at this point.

I suggested that the Larcom Trails be modified on the online map long ago. If Stopher cares to point out which logging road is incorrectly shown as a town road that should be fixed too. Then the new map can be posted and all earlier versions deleted. That seems like a conciliatory move to me and is also in line with the desire to produce an accurate map.

 

[RoySwkr]

Historically, it's my understanding the Bureau of Trails represents the interests of ORHV users - ATV'ers, snowmobilers, etc - and those people are their constituency. Pure speculation on my part, but it will interesting to see what the Bureau's position on the closure will be as winter nears.

There is definitely an ORV focus, but they also have/had a coordinator of non-motorized trails which job was filled by one of the more active Trailwrights people.

And again, as we froth over the Chocorua Forestlands' closure, let's not forget Larcom Mountain, another loss with no such public funding involvement.

The article in the often geographically-challenged Monitor says that the summits of Larcom and Little Larcom are owned by LRCT (with lower slopes owned by others), and it appears from the NH Granit map that they may be green space of some sort.

If the owner could be found and asked if permission had been given to maintain trails there, either the upper part of the trails could remain official trails on the TB map or else we'd know there are other trail-clearing rogues in the Ossipees.

 

[RickB.]

If the owner could be found and asked if permission had been given to maintain trails there, either the upper part of the trails could remain official trails on the TB map or else we'd know there are other trail-clearing rogues in the Ossipees.

I got the impression, the last time I was there (before all this), that the owners were the ones keeping the lower trail cleared, with a wide, mowed swath.

 

[stopher]

The article in the often geographically-challenged Monitor says that the summits of Larcom and Little Larcom are owned by LRCT (with lower slopes owned by others), and it appears from the NH Granit map that they may be green space of some sort.

The summits of Larcom and Little Larcom are indeed owned by LRCT. A couple of points should be made:

1. LRCT is a land trust dedicated to protecting natural resources through acquiring fee-simple and conservation easement interests. Although it provides a substantial amount of recreation opportunities, that is just a part of its mission. Not all its lands are actively managed for recreation.

2. Much of the LRCT land in Tamworth was purchased with funds granted by Sweetwater Trust. These aren't the people you would normally go to if you were planning to build and maintain trail systems. Sweetwater Trust is geared more toward wilderness and "forever wild" management. I don't know for sure that the Larcom property is included in the Sweetwater Trust-funded holdings of LRCT, but anyone interested in making the upper parts of the trails "official" better talk to Don Berry (LRCT Director) first.

 

[gaiagirl]

Interesting. I always assumed Little Larcom was privately owed since that is a hike we (Tin Mountain Conservation Center) have done with children from our South Tamworth summer camp location on Kate Thompson's property. Guess I'll be asking lots of questions about this soon.

 

[Tobit]

Interesting. I always assumed Little Larcom was privately owed since that is a hike we (Tin Mountain Conservation Center) have done with children from our South Tamworth summer camp location on Kate Thompson's property. Guess I'll be asking lots of questions about this soon.

The peaks of both Larcom and Little Larcom are indeed owned by LRCT. However, much of the surrounding property is owned by the Bemis family. Kate Thompson, a Bemis relative, was quoted in the second article published in the Concord Monitor. Here is a copy and paste of the Larcom parts of the article:

"Try not to upset the landowners, leave a mess, or do anything that might cause them to post their land," Garrison wrote.

Only one area of trails, those around Larcom Mountain, has not appeared on previous maps, he said. When he stumbled upon the trails off Mountain Road in South Tamworth, they were well-worn, clearly marked with yellow arrows and unposted, he said.

The trails have since been posted.

"There seems to be a sentiment that locals are welcome up here and outsiders should go away," Garrison said.

The peaks of Larcom and Little Larcom Mountain are owned by the Lakes Region Conservation Trust. Much of the surrounding land is owned by the Bemis family.

Kate Thompson, a cousin of the Bemises, lives on Mountain Road.

"There's a hope that responsible local hikers will understand that they are still welcome," she said.

Asked about Garrison's feeling that outsiders aren't welcome, Thompson said it depends on whether people treat the private land with respect. She said the region's long tradition of welcoming people to use the land has been abused.

I've found her words very refreshing.

 

[RoySwkr]

...anyone interested in making the upper parts of the trails "official" better talk to Don Berry (LRCT Director) first.

Perhaps one reason that the lower Larcom landowners didn't want the trail on the map is that LRCT might discover it had been extended onto their property?

It's too bad that the TB map didn't include property boundaries as it would help this discussion, but somehow I doubt he'll be back out there for awhile.