12,000 Ossippee acres closed

[stopher]

Also, does anyone know the relationship between the tract of land in question and the tract noted in this linked .pdf:
http://na.fs.fed.us/legacy/legacy_places/nh/pdfs/nh_ossipee_s.pdf

I'm fairly certain that yes, it does include this tract. Note that both the Trails Bureau press release and the USFS pdf reference Bayle Mountain. Also note that the TB press release doesn't mention the snowmobile trail. There is a separate agreement with the state beyond the Forest Legacy easement that protects the snowmobile trail so I assume that it will remain open this coming winter. But as I understand it, the hiking trails have limited protection and the landowner can opt to close access when conditions warrant. Apparently the Trails Bureau agrees with the landowner that, for the time being, the conditions warrant closure of the trails.

As for all the other land in the Ossipees that may have been posted during the past 3 or 4 months, I have no way of knowing every acre of posted land but I can say that virtually all the O.M. land in Sandwich is closed, a considerable amount in Tamworth along the the Sandwich line, and most of the land above the Cold Brook bridge on Mountain Road in South Tamworth. I'm aware that a group of landowners including a local land trust in the southeast Ossipees have been watching all this but at this point I am not aware of any significant tracts of land being posted there. Anyone please correct me if I am behind the times on this.

Re: a previous question about posted land, you can always ask the landowner for permission to walk on their property. My guess is that they'll probably say OK. They may require specific restrictions but none of them are ogres whom you should be afraid of contacting. That said, I'm not about to post contact information for any of them. You'll have to do your own homework.

 

[MichaelJ]

I'm fairly certain that yes, it does include this tract. ... But as I understand it, the hiking trails have limited protection and the landowner can opt to close access when conditions warrant. Apparently the Trails Bureau agrees with the landowner that, for the time being, the conditions warrant closure of the trails.

I just find it interesting that the press release notes the preservation of "maintained trails" which seems counter to the notion that advertising, using, or maintaining them is just cause for closure. (yes, it doesn't mean *anyone* has the right to maintain them, but I'm simply talking just cause here)

I eagerly await more real factual details on this exciting topic!

 

[--M.]

Re: a previous question about posted land, you can always ask the landowner for permission to walk on their property. My guess is that they'll probably say OK. They may require specific restrictions but none of them are ogres whom you should be afraid of contacting. That said, I'm not about to post contact information for any of them. You'll have to do your own homework.

Thank you. My question was to the general attitude toward individual hikers and whether a sea-change had taken place (as appears to be the case with Cabot, to the north, where the owner appears generally uninterested in granting access). If the owners felt a new direction were warranted, then I wouldn't even ask; if they felt that this was a point that needed making -- but that individual cases might differ -- well, then I might be bold enough to ask permission.

I would be interested to hear more details on how they reached this point, especially between May and now.

Thanks again,

--Mike.

 

[stopher]

I just find it interesting that the press release notes the preservation of "maintained trails" which seems counter to the notion that advertising, using, or maintaining them is just cause for closure. (yes, it doesn't mean *anyone* has the right to maintain them, but I'm simply talking just cause here)

I eagerly await more real factual details on this exciting topic!

Yes, it does seem counter to the intention of protecting a tail corridor. I don't know that I can give you a satisfactory answer but I'll do my best. A conservation easement can be intended to protect any number of natural resources. In the Forest Legacy program, these can include "essential wildlife habitat, protect water quality, offer outstanding recreation opportunities, afford outstanding scenic views, are home to historic sites, and/or provide the opportunity to continue traditional forest uses." Every conservation easement is tailored to fit the individual parcel and the management plans of the landowner. In this case, I would think that the primary purpose of the easement is to "continue traditional forest uses" (i.e. comercial timber management). The trails are likely ancillary, and may even be behind wildlife habitat and water quality in importance. Note that in the USFS sheet it says, "Six miles of maintained hiking trails are also protected from development..." -- this does not necessarily protect public rights but it does remove the biggest threat that could result in the loss of a trail. This provision may not be what you or I would like it to be, but it certainly increases the likelihood that a trail will remain as a possible use of the land.

As for the specific reasons and logic for closing the trail, NH Trails Bureau and the landowner would be better able to address that.

--M: There are at least five landowners now that have posted their land. They may have taken different routes to reach this point. However, I have been told by each that the unauthorized trail map had a lot to do with it. Four of them made their decision back in May. As to why Chocorua Forestlands took longer, I can only speculate that (1) being part of a larger business operation, the decision process took longer and (2) they had to work with the easement holder (State of New Hampshire, Department of Resources and Economic Development) before reaching a final decision.

 

[Waumbek]

Today's Concord Monitor article:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090829/FRONTPAGE/908290349

 

[Cymbidium]

Wow after reading this article I have a different opinion of the trail bandit and his methods!! Machetes and herbicides!! Is this true?

Today's Concord Monitor article:

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090829/FRONTPAGE/908290349

 

[RoySwkr]

Wow after reading this article I have a different opinion of the trail bandit and his methods!! Machetes and herbicides!! Is this true?

The Concord Monitor article is full of errors including that the summit of Mt Shaw is closed, it is owned by LRCT and not covered by the closure. Read my comment there.

I doubt that that TB did much of this other than making the map, their article verges on libel in my opinion. But trying to give facts to the Monitor is a waste of time if they don't fit their slant.

Hopefully TB will issue his own denial here so people who care will know the facts.

 

[darren]

After reading that article I am leaning toward the British method of guilty until proven innocent. The problem is he is not talking so it is tough to be proven innocent if you don't even try.

Of course, one person that is guilty with out a doubt is rocket21 for still leaving the map up on his website. He has been on this site recently so he is aware of these threads and what is going on and he continues to leave the map up on his site.

- darren

 

[NewHampshire]

Hopefully TB will issue his own denial here so people who care will know the facts.

Frankly he was given that opportunity in the previous thread (which I linked on the first page) but did not do himself much justice other than to show he has some kind of bias against legal landowners and how they choose to manage their land.

Brian

 

[Tom & Atticus]

Wow after reading this article I have a different opinion of the trail bandit and his methods!! Machetes and herbicides!! Is this true?

Machete? What machete?

 

[TEO]

A) Do we live in communist China or something? My understanding is that Trailbandit created the map using publicly available resources and that he's removed some trails at the request of some landowners. Is that incorrect? The property owner own the property and that's it. They're acting like bullies trying to censor public information.

B) The notion that the fire rings, litter, and beer bottles are linked to the online map that's only been around since January seems pretty specious.

C) Jason Stock apparently doesn't have the brightest bulb, "'It would be like me walking to your house and taking pictures over the hedge in the backyard and then posting them on the internet,' Stock said. 'That's a real problem.'" Has he heard of Google Earth?

D) Trail Bandit guilty until proven innocent or because he didn't comment for the newspaper article? And for some of you, your state's slogan is "Live Free or Die"?

E) Keep that map up, Rocket21.

 

[NewHampshire]

They're acting like bullies trying to censor public information.

Are you serious? Bullies? They have asked a person to stop disseminating information about their property...no sticks and stones breaking bones, no angry, shotgun wielding (unlike the Mt. Cabot Trail) just a bunch of upset landowners asking for him to stop selling his map.

B) The notion that the fire rings, litter, and beer bottles are linked to the online map that's only been around since January seems pretty specious.

I have not seen anyone here point a finger at TB for any of the noted above. Not even TB's detractors. But frankly his map has created more use of said land (whether you want to admit it or not), so he is partially responsible.

C) Jason Stock apparently doesn't have the brightest bulb, "'It would be like me walking to your house and taking pictures over the hedge in the backyard and then posting them on the internet,' Stock said. 'That's a real problem.'" Has he heard of Google Earth?

And has not Google Earth and similar programs taken criticism for this!?

D) Trail Bandit guilty until proven innocent or because he didn't comment for the newspaper article? And for some of you, your state's slogan is "Live Free or Die"?

Ugh, this always chaps my hide. 1) We are not a court of law. We, as private citizens, have EVERY RIGHT to form our own opinions with given information. This is why when you arrive for jury duty the judge lectures you your supposed to make your judgment according to law not your personal feelings on what the law should be. It is also annoying when anyone throws out the old "Live Free or Die" motto argument. Freedom is not unconditional. We have rules. We have laws. We have restrictions on our lives. All are for the better of the general society. Just try and rob a bank screaming "But this is the live free or die state" and see what the cops say.

E) Keep that map up, Rocket21.

Thanks. It's attitudes like yours that will be seen by landowners and ENSURE the land stays closed.

Brian

 

[MarkJ]

Larcom up and throw away the key! The map should not be on the Franklin site.

 

[darren]

A) Do we live in communist China or something? My understanding is that Trailbandit created the map using publicly available resources and that he's removed some trails at the request of some landowners. Is that incorrect? The property owner own the property and that's it.

You are exactly right, they are the land owners and that is it. Period. In this country, unlike China (as you mentioned), a person can own land and it is their private property. They have the right to post it no tresspassing and close it to the public. In some cases they can choose to get a tax break by opening up access to the public. But then of course they have the right to choose to turn down the tax credit and not allow public access. It is their land. They paid for it with their hard earned money. They have the right. Period.

E) Keep that map up, Rocket21.

It is that kind of attitude that will continue that the land remain closed to the public.

The map has increased activity on the land.

Is trail bandit and rocket21 responsible for creating fire rings and leaving beer bottles? I doubt they did those things, but the increased traffic due to the map has indirectly resulted in activities like that.

The land owners are pissed off and the map has been at the center of the controversy for a long time now. Yes, people have the right to make maps. Yes they have the right to post them online. But when it is in the common interest of the hiking community, they should have the common sense to take them down. Take the map off the web would be seen as a gesture of good will. It would be a start in the right direction. Leaving the map online and saying that you have the legal right to post it at this point is saying "screw you" to the land owner. It just makes hikers look bad in the eyes of land owners everywhere. And don't for a second think land owners in other areas aren't following this.

- darren

 

[Waumbek]

And don't for a second think land owners in other areas aren't following this.

- darren

Make that a "millisecond." The "recreational discount" that keeps private land open to hikers is worth as little as a few hundred dollars or less, not thousands and thousands, and it would cost some landowners more than that to have their land cleaned up and restored after vandalization of the kind that has gone on in the Ossipees. Besides, who needs the outrageous insult and hassle of these vandals? I'd also like to see that map come down. It is simple arrogance to leave it posted now. Taking it down admits no guilt, although I too find the map itself at least indirectly implicated, just says that in the interests of getting this resolved, you'll make this gesture of reconciliation. And ditto NewHampshire on how irrelevant the "live free or die" argument is. C'mon, it's 18th century sloganeering.

 

[CTMQ_Steve]

I'm trying my hardest to bite my tongue here.

A very small minority who feel that map is public domain somehow are doing a great job of making the entire hiking community look like a bunch of spoiled self-righteous pricks.

Who benefits from that? All you're doing is providing an excellent example to the hundreds of other landowners with trails on their property to say, "See? Here's why I don't want your trail on my land."

So even if the article is full of inaccuracies and exaggerations and even if the map is public domain and even if Trail Bandit didn't machete and herbicide the place and even if no one here built a single fire ring there, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

You are providing a glowing neon reason for other landowners to shut off their private land to our hobby.

 

[MichaelJ]

Is trail bandit and rocket21 responsible for creating fire rings and leaving beer bottles? I doubt they did those things, but the increased traffic due to the map has indirectly resulted in activities like that.

I actually doubt there's a correlation between the highly inappropriate activities and the map. The kind of people who would do such things would do so with or without a map like TB's. They'd use topo or just knowledge of the area. They may even be locals.

I mean, really, if people are illegally camping and partying out there, it's pretty easy to spot the overnight-parked cars and have something (legal) done about it, no?

Heck, given that the map came out in the spring, how possible is it that the fire rings were set up over the winter by snowmobilers?

Just things to think about. I think TB did many questionable things, bad things even. I'm not denying that. However, I think the activities being claimed by the landowners had nothing to do with the map, were/would have happened anyway, and they're using the whole TB situation as a scapegoat or final straw to closing their land.

 

[Trail Bandit]

I guess I have to reply to all this since not replying makes you guilty as charged. I did not reply to the Concord Monitor reporter because I was hiking up Whiteface and Passaconaway yesterday and didn't get my phone and e-mail messages until today. I would have liked to hear what the reporter had to say and have a chance to add some input of my own before it was published.
The main piece of private property being discussed here is the Ossipee Mountains Forest Legacy Tract. Chocorua Forestlands was paid $1,400,000.00of tax payer money to not develop the land and keep it open for hiking, etc. forever. The land owner has objected to a map of the property being distributed. It seems that he wants to keep the cash and avoid letting people know where the proerty is and what maintained trails there are. The easement spells out a lot of conditions that the land owner seems to ignore. It is a beautiful area. It is all private land, but on this tract, you paid for the right to hike there on and off the maintained hiking trails.
I am being accused of doing all sorts of things and the list seems to change and grow daily. Since there so many of you that want to discredit me and the map, I will resist the temptation to get involved in the did too, did not discussion.
I would like to comment the part of the discussion that concerns St. John. All but one of trails shown on my map there have been accepted as
"A valuable addition to the hiking trail system of Virgin Islands National Park". The trail that I show that was not accepted did not follow an old Danish road and couldn't be included because of NPS guidelines. I have also prepared a version of my St. John hiking map for the Park Service, and you can purchase a copy at the National Park Visitor's Center in Cruz Bay, St. John, VI.
I have spent many days there doing trail maintenance and plan to do it again this winter. In the tropics, a machete is a required trail maintenance tool, due to the proliferation of thorny vines. The machete is useless in the forests of NH.

 

[Tuco]

The main piece of private property being discussed here is the Ossipee Mountains Forest Legacy Tract. Chocorua Forestlands was paid $1,400,000.00of tax payer money to not develop the land and keep it open for hiking, etc. forever.

http://www.fs.fed.us/na/durham/legacy/text/legacy_places/nh/text/nh_ossipee.shtml

 

[BobC]

I actually doubt there's a correlation between the highly inappropriate activities and the map. The kind of people who would do such things would do so with or without a map like TB's. They'd use topo or just knowledge of the area. They may even be locals.

I mean, really, if people are illegally camping and partying out there, it's pretty easy to spot the overnight-parked cars and have something (legal) done about it, no?

Heck, given that the map came out in the spring, how possible is it that the fire rings were set up over the winter by snowmobilers?

Just things to think about. I think TB did many questionable things, bad things even. I'm not denying that. However, I think the activities being claimed by the landowners had nothing to do with the map, were/would have happened anyway, and they're using the whole TB situation as a scapegoat or final straw to closing their land.

I have to agree with this. It seems highly unlikely that the type of people that would set up fire rings and leave trash on private property are the same type of people that would either log onto the internet and download the map, or buy it from Trail Bandit. I think it's more likely that it's locals who know about the area regardless of any new maps.