12,000 Ossippee acres closed

[Amicus]

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.

No offense, but I think that's wrong. I've hiked trails and bushwhacked in the Ossipees since '90, and have seen some fire-rings, including on Chocorua Forestlands property. In every case, they appear to be party spots used by ATV'ers, and to attribute them in any way to TB's map is absurd.

MarcHowes posted elsewhere a crass but funny mock ad he'd found, the point of which is that there are no winners in Internet flame wars, so that to participate in them is worse than a waste of time. I agree with that sentiment, but don't have quite enough detachment to refrain from pointing out just a few of the more egregious lies in that article.

- It implies that TB created the Banana and Gorilla Trails, giving them Caribbean names. In fact, you can read about them by name in AMC Guides from the '60s, and, long before TB, they had whimsical banana and gorilla-shaped blazes that have mostly faded away. I believe the names, trails and blazes are all the work of Camp Merrowvista.

- I have only known TB for a little over a year, but have had the pleasure of a dozen or s hikes with him, many of them in the Ossipees. If he still owns a machete, he doesn't bring it on hikes, and I've seen no sign of herbicides anywhere in the Ossipees.

I have no stake in TB's map or its dissemination, other than giving a copy to a friend who I know will use it as responsibly as I do (if he uses it at all), but the crap he has had to take from people who should know better is remarkable to me.

 

[NewHampshire]

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

Thanks for the link! While my opinion changes little it does raise some questions what the company plans to do concerning this matter.

Look, it comes down to this. TB made a huge mistake. He is being belligerant about it (which I can somewhat understand since it is only human nature to fight back when attacked personally...right or wrong.) If he had simply worked to rectify the issue in a more diplomatic way from the very beginning then there would be little issue here. When TB finally "mans up", takes his lumps and makes at least gestures to rectify the issue then I will give him his due and let this issue rest. But as long as he continues to try and make the case that is nothing but squeaky clean in this then there will be no change in many peoples opinion.

Brian

 

[McRat]

Can I make a suggestion?

This is clearly a complex issue, with signifigant implications within our hiking community and outside. I do not think internet forums are the most effective tool for this.

I have heard a lot of chatter from many sources, some of it proving true, some false, and much still honestly unknown. Almost all emotionally charged.

We are mostly friends here, if for no other reason than a common affinity for the mountains. Let's keep that in mind.

I am proposing a campfire summit.

Let us get together, determine the facts calmly and see where we can go from there. The longer term goal would be to eventually to do something similar with the landowners - after we are agreed on facts, determined where apologies and action are necessary, and decide what we as the hiking community can do to be stewards of the lands generously entered into easement.

I'll handle the arrangements. I've got a good track record for pulling off odd events. Email me at Russ.McRat at the gmail dot com if you would be interested in attending so I can figure out if this is a backyard or campground affair.

I believe we can find a better way forward working together than arguing amongst ourselves for all the world to see.

 

[rocket21]

I have hiked the Ossipees for just over 2 years now. While I've done very little bushwhacking in the Ossipees, I've hiked most of the trails in the Ossipee Mountain Forest Legacy Tract. My last visit to Bayle Mountain was on 7/23 and to Mt. Flagg, 4/16. I do not recall seeing any evidence of herbicide, fire rings (aside from the Mt. Flagg Shelter, which I believe is used by Camp Merrowvista), blasting caps, etc.

For those interested, I have compiled some information about this situation. Of interest to some might be the signs posted around the Ossipee Mountains Forest Legacy Tract, as well as a side by side comparison of two Ossipee Mountains Legacy Tract maps - the Trail Bandit map and the map available from the New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Conservation (you will notice that all hiking trails displayed on this portion of the Trail Bandit map are displayed as protected trails on the NH DRED map).

http://www.franklinsites.com/hikephotos/Ossipee

I do not have anything else to say about this matter at this point. Feel free to contact me via e-mail or PM if you have any questions on what I've said or posted.

 

[darren]

OK, the information on the Ossipee Mountains Forest Legacy Tract is interesting. Now what about the other 60% of the land that has been closed? Who are the land owners of those 7000 acres and what deal do they have with the state? One of many does not make a case.

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.

Agree that is is probably local high school kids partying, however just like with the stock market, truth rarely gets in the way of perception. I still have no idea why the olive branch hasn't been extended by removing the map. The map certainly seems to be the center of land owner anger right now. Things obviously need to be worked out and then maybe a map agreed by all parties can be distributed later. But things need to be worked out. Continuing to say "I have the right to make and post a map" over and over just does not help the situation.

- darren

 

[una_dogger]

Thanks for posting that link, Rocket21.
As someone who has made a concerted effort NOT to get involved in this discussion, and its predecessor; I appreciate your effort to put some objective information out there.

Its seems this topic cannot be avoided within this community -- thank you Russ for providing a little counter balance.

If access to these lands was guaranteed by use of Federal Public Funds -- I'm sorry, I don't agree with the "private landowner has the right" to close access. Monitor it, yes....protect it and the quality of the land, yes.

I have hiked in the Ossipees once, on group hike comprised of members of this forum and of Rocks on Top. It stands out in my mind, as one of the most organized and thoughtfully planned group hikes I have ever been on. TB was there, and though we didn't get the opportunity to spend much time together, I could help but think all along this hike, what a wonderful network of trails these were, how nicely maintained they were. I think and I really don't care who finds this objectionable or offensive, that TB should be proud of the work he has done and we all should think about the time and effort that goes into tending a beautiful trail. I can't really count too many people that I've known in my life who've dedicated themselves, thier time and thier energy to put something fantastic out there for others to enjoy selflessly. To paint someone who makes any such contribution as a terrible person falsely is disappointing.

If things were done that were wrong, I'm sure they will come out in the wash. And lets try to remember that trail maintenance is not homocide, people.

 

[rocket21]

Now what about the other 60% of the land that has been closed? Who are the land owners of those 7000 acres and what deal do they have with the state? One of many does not make a case.

I should have addressed that in my previous (and "only" post). I've never met Mr. Coombs or Ms. Bryant-Kimball, but I believe their private property is in the Northern Ossipees. Outside of the Larcom Trail (the lower half was closed this winter and is dicussed in the previous thread), I'm not aware of any hiking trails depicted on the Trail Bandit map in that entire region.

I don't know where the 12,000 acre figure comes from, but the vast majority of the hiking trails in the Ossipees are open to the public courtesy LRCT (8,278 acres).

Please feel free to contact me via PM or e-mail if you have any further questions.

 

[MarkJ]

Besides the map ,4 hike reports up to Larcom are still on the website.
That should be removed ,to not encourage anyone who may Google the Ossippee's for a hike,out of respect of the landowner.

 

[Waumbek]

If access to these lands was guaranteed by use of Federal Public Funds -- I'm sorry, I don't agree with the "private landowner has the right" to close access. Monitor it, yes....protect it and the quality of the land, yes.

I don't know what the terms of the public easement were, but I expect they contain a provision for just that, monitoring and protecting the quality of the land. That has just happened. The land has been closed to further vandalism. Whether or not it is 100% enforceable is not the issue; the message has gone out that herbicidal clearing of a 1/2 mile of trail, tree cutting, and so forth, is not going to be overlooked. (Surely someone knows who is behind all this.) Everyone was outraged when Jay was trashed with illegal cutting. The same attitude should prevail here--especially since we all own a piece of it.

 

[jrichard]

If you'll allow me to somewhat philisophical for a minute -

I've found the TB map interesting, but I'd also like to see it voluntarily removed. It could be replaced with a map color coding private tracts, with big warnings not to enter. It's probably best to remove trails on the private lands too. I think these were honest misunderstandings that will take time to work out.

But here's the thing - the TB map coupled with the (likely unrelated) partying only brought this to a head. This sort of problem is brewing everywhere. In southern NH, ATVs were welcomed in Milford but then had to be turned away due to practically instant overuse and poor manners of a few riders. As the population increases and open land space decreases, hikers and hunters stray into backyards prompting to land owners to post their land. (Yes, I've seen this firsthand.) Teens have caused land to be posted by partying on trails. Long time anglers are puzzled by posted signs when land gets developed or attracts overuse. The problem is universal.

So if it wasn't TB, it might have been anyone else, perhaps just a compilation of trip reports causing increased traffic.

In a way it is sad. I think we're just seeing that the lines will be drawn sharper everywhere. Implicit contracts are going to need to be more explicit. It's the age we live in.

 

[MichaelJ]

Besides the map ,4 hike reports up to Larcom are still on the website.
That should be removed ,to not encourage anyone who may Google the Ossippee's for a hike,out of respect of the landowner.

No need for revisionist history here. That's like saying every trip report of the Mt Cabot Trail in the past should be removed.

 

[stopher]

I have attached a screen shot of the Ossipees taken from the GRANIT data mapper. I hope it shows up. Green shade is conservation land. I added a red outline around land identified by GRANIT as owned by Chocorua Forestlands. 5000+/- of these acres (easternmost) make up the Forest Legacy tract. The westernmost 7000 acres are known as the "Retsof" and "Thompson #2" lands. Together they make up the 12,000 acres discussed in the Monitor article. It is all owned by Chocorua Forestlands. The orange outline is a rough depiction of other private land owned by those who have posted their land in response to the activities of Bob Garrison. I can’t say for certain that all this land has been posted but the land is owned by those who have said that they have closed at least some of their property to public access. One family owns much more property to the north but I haven’t seen any “no trespassing” signs along that stretch of route 25 so I didn’t include those properties. However, I would advise anyone contemplating accessing the Ossipees from the north to do your homework and check with the landowner(s) before starting your trip.

 

[MarkJ]

No need for revisionist history here. That's like saying every trip report of the Mt Cabot Trail in the past should be removed.

Historical Revisionalism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence,motivations and decisionmaking processes surrounding an historical event.

This ain't no historical event.Just remove the info from the internet.Your mentioning a trailhead and we're talking about 12,000 acres.

 

[arghman]

Interesting discussion.

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.

There's nothing wrong with publishing publicly available information. Things like terrain, topography, and feature names (e.g. "Mt Shaw") are public information. Even property boundaries are public information.

The problem is that publishing trail locations unfortunately carries an unwritten, implicit suggestion that the trails in question are in fact usable by the general public, especially when the trails have names and mileage information. IMHO, to publish a trail map without including property boundaries showing areas open to public access (e.g. LRCT, SPNHF, WMNF), and verifying that the trails in question are open to public access, is irresponsible. It's less irresponsible than clearing & marking trails on someone else's private property, but it's still irresponsible. Writing things on the map like

To my knowledge, there is no part of the area where camping is specifically allowed. It might be a good idea to get landowner permission before camping and certainly, before kindling a fire.

are just lame. With the exception of public property where camping and/or fires are specifically permitted, you should NEVER camp or set fires anywhere, whether on public or private lands, without getting permission to do so.

I have the LRCT's "Hiking Trails of the Castle in the Clouds Conservation Area" (looking at it right now). With two exceptions (lower portions of the Bald Knob Trail and Shaw Trail), all trails are on LRCT property and there are several other trails not included. the property boundary is clearly shown. I like the cartography better on the Trail Bandit Map, but it's wrong to post unauthorized trails.

We have a snowmobile club in our town, from what I understand they have some kind of trail map for their membership, but they also work very hard to keep open discussions with all private landowners to get permission to ride snowmobiles on the trails in question. One of these trails goes across a property owned by SPNHF that I monitor occasionally; there was unfortunately some miscommunication recently and someone in the club had put up a whole bunch of signs for the snowmobile trails w/o asking permission of the landowner. This is hopefully a situation that will be resolved soon, but it's another example of irresponsible behavior.

All of us, whether we are mapmakers, newspaper reporters, snowmobilers, and hikers, have both a privilege and a responsibility when it comes to unposted private land. The privilege is that we are allowed to use it. The responsibility is that we need to treat it as a privilege, and not a right, that we are on someone else's property by virtue of their permission, and need to treat that property with respect.

rocket21: my 2c on your website is that this page is a responsible compilation of information. However if you are going to keep up the information on the trail bandit map page, unless you do a bit more to point out that this area is private land, that the map doesn't show private land boundaries, that the trails are not all authorized for public access by the landowner, and that because of recent misuse this is a real problem in the area, I think you are helping contribute to the mapmaker's irresponsible behavior. The "Important Notice" at the top isn't enough. Just my 2c.



On another note, does anyone know who maintains this web page on a trail crossing the Tates peaks? There's no mention of where the property boundaries or the fact that this trail is on private land and is not an authorized trail.

 

[BobC]

On another note, does anyone know who maintains this web page on a trail crossing the Tates peaks? There's no mention of where the property boundaries or the fact that this trail is on private land and is not an authorized trail.

A couple of years ago, I hiked with the woman that maintains that site. If you follow that link, then go to the bottom of the page and click on the link where it says "Website by Leapfrogprogamming.com", and then click on the contact information link that comes up on that website, you will find her contact info.

 

[Tuco]

I have followed this with interest; not because I have interest in hiking in the Ossippee's, nor know any of the parties involved, but simply its interesting stuff.

I don't proclaim to understand tha laws involved but note some observations:

- a lot of what we read here is heresay. I don't doubt from the landowners that there have been affronts to the land, such as herbicide and littering, etc. But comparing Waumbecks reference to Jay clearcutting; its hard to get angry when I haven't seen whats been done- nor can I since the access has been denied- its my nature, without proof I see its all just talk (and I note nobody needs to prove anything to me).

- There was a payment for an easement, and it wasn't small change as some of the earlier posts referenced. 1.4 million. Not having read any of the exact details, just a summary I don't know exactly what rights it gives the landowners. Its their land, but there are stipulations- thats just fact. What the stipulations are I don't exactly know.

- The "Map" has been stated as a source of contention with the owners, and I get it. It may not provide all warnings some would like and idfentify property and private as liked. couple of questions been rolling around my head here- 1) is the map legal? I suspect so, 2) is it really the source of the people doing the damage? may be, but not proved and 3) do the owners of the land have the right to close access to the land (based on the easement) in response to the existance of a map? I have intepreted comments I read to say it has something or a lot to do with it. Would removing access to the map give good will that might move towards a quicker resolution? Sounds like it.

In the end- I wonder if closing access the land is sort of a cooersion to get the map removed from public access since people have spent much time on the discussion on the map. Or is it only in response to the damage and illegal use of the land? Either way- whats the prognosis for acces being allowed again? Is there a legal way this occurs, a public forum (NOT INTERNET) etc?

When I reread this I felt as my thoughts leaned towards the favor of open land access and not having issue with the map- the reality is I admit to not knowing enough to have any good opinion. For me opinion without the facts is too emotionally driven. I've read lots of opinions here, and wonder if everybody's knowledge base on the facts is better than mine???

No value added here, just the ramblings of a hiker whose hikes were delayed a day due to rain

 

[MarkJ]

Tuco-I wouldn't "hang around " for the results on this one.The lands closed ,glad I did hike that area earlier this summer'before it got closed.

 

[stopher]

Re: the Concord Monitor article. It barely scratches the surface. I have been told by two landowners and one agent (caretaker/land manager) of a third landowner that they encountered Mr. Garrison on their property and informed him that they wanted no trail work and no mapping on their property. This was well before the map came out and in all cases it was confirmed by Mr. Garrison in an email exchange. However, details that the landowners requested not be shown were shown on the final map and, according to one landowner, some trail work continued after these encounters.

From an R. Garrison email of 5/17/2009:
“I met [name deleted] on the road that day and asked her about it. She said it was her land and she didn’t want any trails shown on her property and had covered up the paint marks on the trees. I removed the trail from the map. She also insisted that I not show the logging roads that are on the Delorme and USGS maps. I feel that this was unreasonable and didn’t remove them.”
The owner felt otherwise and the land is now posted. Furthermore, I’ll be darned if I can find some of these woods roads on any map; and I went back to the 1930 USGS quad and the 1860 Walling map.

“I met a [name deleted] once and he had no specific request other than “We don’t want a map”. I noted in the tax records for his property that some of his land is in the current use category that specifically allows hiking, hunting, fishing, etc.”
The land isn’t in that category anymore and it is now posted. The landowner’s version of this surprise encounter on his own land differs somewhat. He said he informed Mr. Garrison that he didn’t want Garrison doing ANY work on his property and certainly didn’t want it mapped. The landowner informed me that trail clearing continued after this encounter. Some clearing was done with herbicide (this is the second instance of herbicide use that I am aware of; the other one, reported by LRCT staff and corroborated by carole in the “WODC Outlook” thread, occurred on LRCT property). One logging road is shown on the map in the same line style as secondary town roads, which can cause some real confusion. Other woods roads and skidder trails are shown that I can’t find on any other map nor can I understand why they would be on any map other than the owner’s land management plan.

“I had a run in with the caretaker of the properties up at the end of Mountain Road. He was just belligerent and said no one was welcome here, but couldn’t define the boundaries of “here”. I wrote a certified letter to [name deleted] that is the owner of record of a lot of land up there, requesting what their wishes were about people hiking on their property, but they didn’t respond.”
In the absence of authorization from the landowner, he should have heeded the caretaker. But regardless of the warning, Mr. Garrison mapped the woods roads and skidder trails and published them in his map. His excuse of not knowing where “here” was is pretty flimsy considering that he could locate the lot on a tax map well enough to identify the owner. This land is now posted

5/18/2009
“I am guilty of putting the Larcom Mountain Trail on the map without asking anyone.”
Again, he should have taken a cue from the caretaker. Before the map, the landowners tolerated occasional use of this little-known trail. It is now closed to public access.

So it appears that, contrary to Mr. Garrison’s assertion that he tried to contact landowners about his project, landowners encountered him and asked that he not map their property or show certain features on their property. Mr. Garrison assigned himself as sole arbiter and not only ignored requests, he added insult to injury by labeling the landowners as “irate” and “beligerant (sic)” in the text of his map. Way to go, Bob.

Furthermore, Mr. Garrison publicly announced his intentions to open up trails in the Ossipees (Backpacker 2007) and later he admitted to doing so. This was all done without authorization of the landowner and contrary to management plans for the property. Source: emails received by me from Bob Garrison and personal communication with an agent of the landowner.

From an R. Garrison email of 2/2/2009:
“I took it upon myself to fix up these neglected trails. I didn’t ask anybody for permission, as in my experience, any request is ignored or automatically denied.”

The facts are: Mr. Garrison cleared unauthorized trails, GPSed private routes on private property, published and distributed the map, all in spite of protestations by the landowners. Anyone who thinks the landowners are the bullies has it ass-backwards. I join the rallying cry: Take down the map!

 

[arghman]

are the lower portions of the Bald Knob and Shaw trails at risk of closure?

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Can someone clarify something for me - is any/all of the land which is now closed covered under the agreement for which a $1.4M taxpaper payment was made? And, if so, how much land?