12,000 Ossippee acres closed

[stopher]

If you are talking about Stopher (a representitive of the WODC) and his criticism that came from the WODC newsletter I believe (and I could be wrong) that he stated clearly this was his opinion and not that of the WODC. A fine line to make, perhaps, but still......

An opinion piece written in a newsletter, containing the disclaimer, “Any opinions expressed are those of the writer and are not necessarily held by WODC. We welcome submissions for inclusion in The Outlook. Send to News Editor, WODC HCR 64 Box 248, Wonalancet, NH 03897 or [email protected]”, printed in a font style more prominent than the text of the opinion piece, is not a fine line. It is a very distinct line. There is no ambiguity.

 

[RoySwkr]

An opinion piece written in a newsletter, containing the disclaimer, ... is not a fine line. It is a very distinct line. There is no ambiguity.

The TB map has right on it a disclaimer that these are private lands and people should treat them respectfully, which people seem to ignore just like they ignore the disclaimer on the incendiary editorial that wasn't responded to or disavowed by WODC officials.

But more importantly, the WODC has been a steward of many of these trails for over 100 years. In addition to mapping these trails, the WODC takes great care to protect and maintain the trails, while respecting the rights of land owners and working with them to resolve any issues that may arrise.

Myself and thousands/millions of other hikers truly appreciate this, and I see that the McCrillis Path issue may be resolved. I just wish the WODC had felt responsible enough after the editorial started it all to have become involved in the Ossipees after the Trails Bureau showed no interest in the hiking trails. The WODC has the skills to maintain trails without herbicide, harden much more used trails than these to prevent deterioration, and provide a presence to deter illegal activity.

 

[psmart]

I just wish the WODC had felt responsible enough after the editorial started it all to have become involved in the Ossipees after the Trails Bureau showed no interest in the hiking trails. The WODC has the skills to maintain trails without herbicide, harden much more used trails than these to prevent deterioration, and provide a presence to deter illegal activity.

The editorial may have launched the discussion on VFTT, but the problems started long before, as documented in this discussion.

Although the WODC is sometimes involved in broader policy issues, it's trail maintenance efforts are generally limited to the Sandwich Range, with a focus on the WMNF. Frankly, this type of involvement would dilute the current efforts of the Club, and would require careful consideration before getting involved. Also, as Stopher has mentioned, no invitation or request was extended to the WODC to get involved in on-the-ground activities in the Ossipees. Frankly, I suspect the landowners wanted the trails left as-is, with minimal maintenance or improvement. And that's a right they did not surrender with the conservation easement.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

With all due respect to stopher and psmart - allowing a "bomb-thrower" editorial to be published in a trail maintenance journal reflects poorly on the judgement of the WODC, especially since the WODC had not been asked to participate in managing the trails in the Ossippees. It doesn't matter how many disclaimers are published - some of the soot created rubs off on the publication in question.

 

[psmart]

Stopher's editorial started an important discussion among hikers who might otherwise have been unaware of these issues. While it has provoked a heated debate on this board, I don't believe it has done any harm as far as public access to the Ossipee trails. In fact, it has probably helped to repair relationships with unhappy landowners, who were already up-in-arms before the editorial was published. Don't blame the messenger.

 

[David Metsky]

With all due respect to stopher and psmart - allowing a "bomb-thrower" editorial to be published in a trail maintenance journal reflects poorly on the judgement of the WODC

I disagree. As an editorial, it was topical and had important information. I don't see how this reflects poorly on the WODC. As psmart said, I think if anything this would help relationships between landowners and various trail maintenance orgs.

 

[stopher]

With all due respect to stopher and psmart - allowing a "bomb-thrower" editorial to be published in a trail maintenance journal reflects poorly on the judgement of the WODC, especially since the WODC had not been asked to participate in managing the trails in the Ossippees. It doesn't matter how many disclaimers are published - some of the soot created rubs off on the publication in question.

Let me get this straight.

Someone decides on his own to reopen closed trails, “improve” some existing bootleg trails (which it turns out that the landowners were trying to reclaim/repair) , gps as much of the woods roads and skidder trails as he can, all on various privately owned parcels. He is encountered by some of the landowners while he is doing all this on their property. They tell him to stop. He tells them he needs to do all this for a hiking map he is making. He is told by the landowners that they don’t want him to map their property. He continues his work anyway and publishes the map. The landowners are not happy. My telephone starts ringing because the landowners associate me with trails and hiking. I also have to listen to endless horror stories concerning Mr. Garrison for three consecutive meetings of a collaborative conservation planning work group in which there are four landowners/agents representing the majority of the Ossipee Mountain forest block. I write an opinion piece condemning Garrison’s actions and stating that the repercussions will be detrimental to the hiking public.

And that is inflammatory? Sorry, I don’t get it. The landowners were already inflamed and it’s obvious who lit the match. Personally, I think WODC should be proud that an opinion piece denouncing such a senseless, damaging act was printed in the club newsletter. I think anyone who truly cares about the future of recreational backcountry use on private property would unhesitatingly denounce it.

By the way, if I am considered as the “representative of WODC” on this board, and anything I say or do must be construed as action or policy of WODC, then why do I keep reading that WODC made no attempt to rectify or resolve the problem when I met with the landowners numerous times, collected names of people willing to do on-site remediation work, and made offers to the landowners to do the work? I detect an inconsistency here.

One last thought: How is any of the discussion on the last couple of pages of this thread going to convince any private landowners to keep their property open to public access?

 

[dug]

edited....

 

[Kevin Rooney]

...One last thought: How is any of the discussion on the last couple of pages of this thread going to convince any private landowners to keep their property open to public access?

News flash - not everyone posting to this thread thinks that private landowners need convincing one way or the other. There's plenty of public land in NH to hike on.

 

[NewHampshire]

The TB map has right on it a disclaimer that these are private lands and people should treat them respectfully, which people seem to ignore just like they ignore the disclaimer on the incendiary editorial that wasn't responded to or disavowed by WODC officials.

It also had a rather rude statment printed on it directed at a landowner. It is kind of ironic that one would print a disclaimer asking for respect of land and property owners and in the same paragraph disrespect a landowner......

Brian

 

[RickB.]

News flash - not everyone posting to this thread thinks that private landowners need convincing one way or the other. There's plenty of public land in NH to hike on.

While I generally agree with your posts, I strongly take issue with this. Because there is enough public land for your purposes does not mean that is so for everyone. Throwing such statements in the faces of landowners does nothing for your interests but may adversely affect ours.

 

[arghman]

One last thought: How is any of the discussion on the last couple of pages of this thread going to convince any private landowners to keep their property open to public access?

Agree 100%. Well stated.

News flash - not everyone posting to this thread thinks that private landowners need convincing one way or the other. There's plenty of public land in NH to hike on.

Please parse this along with its subtleties. My take on it:

- not everyone posting to this thread thinks that private landowners need convincing one way or the other. (yup.)

- there's plenty of public land in New Hampshire. (agreed. 784,000 acres WMNF + 200,000 acres on state parks + forests)

- there is not plenty of land with public access (let alone public land) in all parts of the state. Land accessible for recreation is heavily biased towards the North Country, the White Mountains, and the hill country in the western part of the state.

- there is not sufficient land with public access, even on a statewide basis. Just my opinion. People like to spend time outdoors in the woods. Some of us don't mind driving 2 or 3 hours to do so, but judging from the people I see walking around in the woods various places, most of us like to stay close to home. There's still an awful lot of privately-held undeveloped land in NH, and every bit of it that we can encourage landowners to keep open to the public, whether by day-to-day management or through explicit mention in an easement, is welcome. I've spent too much of my life in New Jersey aware of land development practices there, to want to see NH suffer the same fate.

 

[Stan]

News flash - not everyone posting to this thread thinks that private landowners need convincing one way or the other. There's plenty of public land in NH to hike on.

Then let those people stay off private land. And, Kevin, you of all people must appreciate that the world is much larger than the WMNF and that at least some of us enjoy private lands elsewhere, other parts of NH and Maine for some nearby examples, and most of us do feel that a good rapport with private landowners is important.

On a different note, I have not met trail bandit but between his trail name, I have a strange affinity with outlaws under any name, and his passsion and competence I do believe he is worthy of some benefit of doubt if not some respect. I have met stopher and have all the reason for a great deal of respect for his good intentions and motives.

Somehow this thread has lost sight of that respect and is starting to become a pissing contest between he said and she said and IMNSHO think it is beginning to suck.

 

[RoySwkr]

The editorial may have launched the discussion on VFTT, but the problems started long before, as documented in this discussion.

The editorial appears to have been the direct source of the Concord Monitor article which was then picked up by statewide media.

Yes, the land problems existed before it was published but if you think the comments here are bad there is some on the newspaper websites that are far worse.

Frankly, I suspect the landowners wanted the trails left as-is, with minimal maintenance or improvement. And that's a right they did not surrender with the conservation easement.

I agree that they have that right, and even the right to close degraded trails entirely in consultation with the Trails Bureau. And the WODC could have agreed to maintain them to "Wilderness" level. But as they discovered, with no plan for maintenance TB and others jumped in illegally no doubt thinking they were doing the world a favor. If WODC or Stopher's anonymous group had their number or e-mail posted on the signs to report trail issues, it would head off a lot of vigilante maintenance. They don't need to do this, but I suspect it would avoid a lot of grief.

Just like the registered letter that TB sent to some landowners asking if their trails were open to the public, and after they didn't answer he put them on the map. Obviously they were not required to answer, but for 43 cents and enough ink to write NO they could have saved themselves and others a lot of anguish.

 

[--M.]

I agree that they have that right, and even the right to close degraded trails entirely in consultation with the Trails Bureau. And the WODC could have agreed to maintain them to "Wilderness" level. But as they discovered, with no plan for maintenance TB and others jumped in illegally no doubt thinking they were doing the world a favor. If WODC or Stopher's anonymous group had their number or e-mail posted on the signs to report trail issues, it would head off a lot of vigilante maintenance. They don't need to do this, but I suspect it would avoid a lot of grief.

Just like the registered letter that TB sent to some landowners asking if their trails were open to the public, and after they didn't answer he put them on the map. Obviously they were not required to answer, but for 43 cents and enough ink to write NO they could have saved themselves and others a lot of anguish.

Thanks for keeping multiple perspectives in mind, Roy, and for keeping the discussion refreshed on the original topic.

But let's keep the onus where it belongs. The mapmaker crossed the line, and has admitted publicly that he did so substantially. There are ways and there are not ways.

If a professional cartographer (MapAdventures, Delorme, the AMC) had decided on this project (a possibility that has been raised), what might they have done differently with regard to private landowners, old trails and consent issues?

 

[Tuco]

I believe there are very few people who really know all the facts- this person included. We can try and wonder based on what info is out there.....


Link to article in which Jason Stock, head of the NH Timberland Owners Association, reportedly states that "When Garrison made the Ossipee maps and published them on the internet, it felt like an invasion of privacy for some landowners, he said. But there’s no specific law against it." I can 't validate this statement, its just from the article.

http://ossipeelake.org/news/2009/12/10/ossipee-range-lands-reopen-trail-bandit-at-bay/

 

[--M.]

Yes, I've noticed from the beginning that there was a defense that included the legality of mapping private land, with or without consent. Since it's not the legality (per se) that is controversial, that's why I wonder what a corporate mapper would have done with these issues.

Part of the problem for me has been that the map itself is so well done and helpful; it's such a shame that it's creation is shrouded in so many other issues of disrespect. If it had been done differently, we would perhaps be singing the maker's praises as we respectfully gained legal access to the lands in question. Instead, we were sunk into a controversy that affected us, but was not created by us.

To view things going forward, as a moderator suggests, this could perhaps be a valuable learning experience for how to handle hiker/owner relationships. It could be a tool for getting value-for-dollar out of easements. And it could be a template for how owners maintain legitimate control of their land after an easement has been granted (thinking here of fire rings, inappropriate gem-collection, non-hiking violations).

I was very impressed by the map, very unimpressed by the method and fallout. How can shoulda-woulda-coulda be turned into a win?

 

[Grayjay]

Time. How many good things are made before their time...

 

[Amicus]

If it had been done differently, we would perhaps be singing the maker's praises as we respectfully gained legal access to the lands in question.

Hosannah in Excelsis, Bone Latro Tramitis!

So you see, some of us are singing his praises, and we tend to be the ones who know him best. Save for raising my voice in lusty song, however, I've long since given up on this thread, since it is impossible to counter the mud-slingers fairly without giving the appearance of disrespecting "the landowners" (who are not, however, the homogeneous bunch some seem to think).

 

[Paradox]

The Ossipee Range from Mount Morgan with Red Hill center extreme right.