12,000 Ossippee acres closed

[skiguy]

Thankyou rocket21 for temporarily removing The Map in discussion from your site. I think this is a good move in the facilitation of the issues at hand. Also the other "Important Message regarding the Ossipees" tab on your site is well put and sums up the current situation to date very well also.

 

[--M.]

I see that the "free downloadable version of the map has been temporarily removed" (http://www.franklinsites.com/hikephotos/files/nhtrailbanditossipees.php).

This is a significant development; thank you, rocket21!

Did I miss a discussion by the actual participants on why it remained and why it was removed? Are either rocket21 or Trail Bandit willing to discuss this? Has there been a response from any of the interested landowners?

Thanks again for this important development.

--Mike.

 

[carole]

Trails re-opened

 

[arghman]

yay! let's keep it that way...

 

[RoySwkr]

State message:
http://www.nhstateparks.org/news-detail.aspx?id=213

I'm not sure why the state won't disclose what the signs say, perhaps someone will post a photo

 

[Kevin Rooney]

The Bureau of Trails is strongly influenced by the snowmobile interests - winter isn't far off. No surprise the lands are being re-opened now.

 

[MichaelJ]

Egads, what terrible writing!

which activities may occur with or without landowner permission.

is not a correct summary of

which type of activities may occur on the properties without landowner permission and those activities that require landowner permission.

And even that's not great. ALL activities on private property are with landowner permission, it's a question of implicit or explicit.

 

[griffin]

State message:
http://www.nhstateparks.org/news-detail.aspx?id=213

I'm not sure why the state won't disclose what the signs say, perhaps someone will post a photo

I wonder if they're still working out the fine print.

Great news!

 

[carole]

Recent Concord Monitor article.

 

[chomp]

Recent Concord Monitor article.

From the article:

Within the agreement, Garrison admitted to marking trails, cutting vegetation and applying herbicides on private land without owners' permission. He also created maps, among them "The Trail Bandit Map of the Ossipee Mountains of New Hampshire," which he sold on the internet and to local retail outlets.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

From the article:

Within the agreement, Garrison admitted to marking trails, cutting vegetation and applying herbicides on private land without owners' permission. He also created maps, among them "The Trail Bandit Map of the Ossipee Mountains of New Hampshire," which he sold on the internet and to local retail outlets.

From the comments:

Also, why is there no mention of the $1,400,000.00 of Federal tax dollars given to the logging company in exchange for, amongst other things, guaranteed public access? There were no hiking trails depicted on the Forest Legacy Tract on that 'unauthorized map' that weren't already established and protected by our Federal tax dollars.

 

[chomp]

From the comments:

Also, why is there no mention of the $1,400,000.00 of Federal tax dollars given to the logging company in exchange for, amongst other things, guaranteed public access? There were no hiking trails depicted on the Forest Legacy Tract on that 'unauthorized map' that weren't already established and protected by our Federal tax dollars.

The State of New Hampshire owns the easement, and President Jeff Coombs of the Chocorua Forestlands consulted with the state before posting no trespassing signs. So the landowner got permission from the easement owner before posting the land. That's why this wasn't mentioned in the latest article. It was mentioned here:

http://ossipeelake.org/news/2009/08...ses-mount-shaw-and-other-ossipee-range-lands/

 

[darren]

I still can not believe that there is any confusion as to what the public gets for its $1.4 million. Do the math. The private owners of the land got about $100 per acre. If you own land, would you sell it for $100 an acre? No, of course not. That is why it was not sold. It was placed into an agreement with private people maintaining ownership and joint control with the state. That is why the private oweners of theland checked with and got permission of the state when they posted it.

The land owner could have sold the land for much more money and none of us would have access to it. So instead of complaining about how the $1.4M gets the public the "right" to do whatever you want want on pulic land, figure it out....it is NOT public land and you do not have the right to use it other than those stated in the agreement.

Duh.

- darren

 

[RoySwkr]

I'm sure that everybody is happy about 2 things in the Ossipee Range:
* The Chocorua Forest Lands parcel has been reopened to the previously-permitted uses
* Trail Bandit has agreed not to cut more trails on private land without permission

it is NOT public land and you do not have the right to use it other than those stated in the agreement.

You are missing the point - the landowner posted the land against uses allowed in the agreement and the state temporarily agreed - of course this will make people mad and I'm surprised no lawsuit was filed.

If too many people are using the Bayle Mtn Trail and it's eroding seriously, it might make sense to close that trail until it can be stabilized. It makes no sense whatever to close it because people are digging minerals or camping elsewhere. The illegal users needed equipment not carried by day hikers and it would have been easy to distinguish them. But rather than prosecuting the actual illegal campers and miners the landowner and state chose to pick on Trail Bandit who was probably guilty of neither.

And while I can see why owners of adjoining property might be upset that their land was shown on a map without property lines showing the easement, the easement seller should realize that it is unreasonable to hike on 12,000 acres without a map and hikers would no doubt be fined for doing so if they got lost. Do they really want lost people wandering around, or even worse, hordes of rescuers out that night trying to find them?

 

[Waumbek]

And while I can see why owners of adjoining property might be upset that their land was shown on a map without property lines showing the easement, the easement seller should realize that it is unreasonable to hike on 12,000 acres without a map and hikers would no doubt be fined for doing so if they got lost. Do they really want lost people wandering around, or even worse, hordes of rescuers out that night trying to find them?

You keep asserting, here and in the newspapers, that people will "no doubt" be fined for hiking in the Ossipees without a map and getting lost, implying that NH Fish & Game has supported the Bandit map and that Bandit's map has aided search and rescue. This is misleading.

 

[Snowflea]

In yesterday's (12/11/09) USA Today, this issue was the New Hampshire "blurb of the day," the section where they do little thumbprint news items on each of the 50 states. Anybody else see it?

(No, I didn't buy the paper; got it free at hotel.)

 

[Hampshire]

I did. Interesting condition to the reopening.

 

[chomp]

I still don't see what the big deal. The State of New Hampshire, owners of the recreation easement, condoned the closure of the land due to repeated abuses. This is no different than, say, closing a highway rest area because they are being used for drug deals. If anything, the fact that the state went to such extremes in closing this area should highlight the levels of abuse going on inside the area. (and I realize that the list of complaints goes beyond Trail Bandit).

In general, New Hampshire takes property owner rights very seriously. I feel like in this case, they decided to err on the side of caution when considering just how many rights the landowner retained after selling off the easement. Its consistant with the philosophy of New Hampshire in general, and overall I think that it was handled extremely well.

Here is my 2 cent impression of what happened. There were abuses of the land. The landowners complained. The state condoned the closing of the land. The state worked with the landowners to resolve some of the problem and establish new guidelines for future recreation use of the area. The land is re-opened to the public. Sounds like government working like it was intended to.

 

[skiguy]

Here is my 2 cent impression of what happened. There were abuses of the land. The landowners complained. The state condoned the closing of the land. The state worked with the landowners to resolve some of the problem and establish new guidelines for future recreation use of the area. The land is re-opened to the public. Sounds like government working like it was intended to.

I am totally going to agree here. Is this not a "CONSERVATION" Easement. The bylaws of the agreement were broken and the Landowners were totally within their rights to act the way they did. IMO a no brainer and nothing else.

 

[RoySwkr]

You keep asserting, here and in the newspapers, that people will "no doubt" be fined for hiking in the Ossipees without a map and getting lost, implying that NH Fish & Game has supported the Bandit map and that Bandit's map has aided search and rescue. This is misleading.

I doubt that F&G supported the TB map and I don't mean to imply that they did. But the HikeSafe coalition lists a map as the first of 10 essentials:
http://www.hikesafe.com/index.php/planning_your_hike/gear_list/the_10_essentials

I have repeatedly stated that I would prefer a better map with property boundaries, but until the trails bureau or the landowner provide one the TB map is the best we have and the state is out of line to object to its publication.

I am totally going to agree here. Is this not a "CONSERVATION" Easement. The bylaws of the agreement were broken and the Landowners were totally within their rights to act the way they did. IMO a no brainer and nothing else.

Only partially, it is also a RECREATION easement. We have paid to make certain uses of this property and as long as those uses don't damage the property they should be allowed to continue. The trail clearers, fire builders, and mineral collectors were all violating the law and if caught should be prosecuted and forced to pay restitution but that is no excuse to close the property to legal uses when it is easy to distinguish the illegal users by their equipment.