12,000 Ossippee acres closed

[griffin]

Blaming hikers is easy. They've got a map. How 'bout the local stir crazy teens and young adults with nothing else to do in wonderful NH but tear it up with trail riding in all seasons. What better thing to do on a Saturday night but ride a machine into the woods away from town and parents, cops etc, have a bonfire and party with your friends? Wait, sounds like Barnes Field.

Of course the problem is bigger than hikers. But to add a little spare change to your pile -

- even if we hang all the garbage and fire rings on non-hikers, I think the unauthorized trail building/maintenance is another story.

- the landowners appear to be banning ALL access, not just hikers, correct?

- off-roaders and Those Darned Kids! may not qualify as "hikers" but they are as capable of researching their playgrounds online as we are. Just because a map was geared towards hikers doesn't mean they're the only ones using it.

- from what I"m reading, I don't think they're singling out hikers, they're singling out one hiker, TB, and his map.

I also don't think TrailBandit and the map in question are solely responsible for the abuse that's going on, but I don't think it's unrelated, either (or that the hiking community can wash it's hands by pinning some of the damage on teenagers or ATV-ers)

 

[bandana4me]

Well maybe I am off base but….

Ok lets step back for a moment and start at the beginning to see how this all transpired rather than looking at the end result.

In November of ‘08 (and only the people involved will know the true timeline) there was a discussion about making a map of the Ossippees. There was also a discussion of creating the Ossippee 10.

The map was being created and (again players will know timeline) the landowner (or Owners) had asked that certain roads not be included in the map (note prior to the final map). While the map was being discussed (on the VFTT) and created it was receiving rave reviews from whom? Members of the VFTT! They were encouraging, praising, thanking and supporting the map.

Now think of the Landowner (or owners), out numbered and getting no support to stop the map from being published with the information they requested NOT to be published. Were they being unfair to ask that the Roads not be published? Were they trying to stop the map from being published? Were they just asking for a modification on the map? Input claimed to be asked for from the map makers!

Map gets published with the support of the members of the VFTT! This was done with cheering at this great accomplishment. Noting, that it was the most informative map of the area (it had roads that other maps did not have on it).

Now put yourself in the Landowners shoes. Alone, isolated and a published map with information you did not want the public to know about. Back against the wall how can you stop the map now?

Who acted irresponsibly?

Who STILL has the map available?

Who still has a link to the map?

Who is to blame?

In all FAIRNESS to the membership here, it was probably an assumption on the members, that the map makers were acting in good faith (with permission) to make this map. The map makers reputation was the basis of support for the map in question.

The damage is done.

 

[--M.]

Hold on a second:

There has been damage done, but it is not irrecoverable; let's focus on improving the situation, as we're all now in it.

If people are really interested in making some progress here, perhaps Mc Rat has a good idea:
A campfire get together. I will gladly come and express my views and listen carefully what others have to say.
...

If Mc Rat can get the concerned landowners to come too, so much the better.

When this map was first published, I recieved a message from one of the landowners, that I had to remove all features shown on a piece of land that he had just purchased. ... I responded in an improper, childish fashion. ... I am more than willing to make a public apology to this landowner, but that may not solve the problem.

The owners have a complaint. It has a focal point, an individual, who has agreed that there is at least some basis for the complaint.

This is significant because it shows a way forward.

The mapmaker agrees that at least two of the sides should be talking, mapmaker and owners. Again, this should be recognized, since it shows forward progress and signals that the time for piling on could be passing.

It's not really about fire rings or beer bottles or all that other stuff (I'd bet the owners know there are more angles here than just one or two), although the side issues do seem to be aggravating factors. Nor should fingers especially be pointed at the hiking/reviewing community: it's incumbent on the mapmaker to vet his work before publishing it, not on the bbs participants to ask if he did his homework.

Kevin Rooney also makes a point that the details of the easements should be known and that the owners have responsibilities, too. I'd bet that at least some of them are willing to review their decision to post their land, after the main complaint has been addressed.

As long as the mapmaker recognizes the need for addressing whatever complaint he agrees the aggrieved parties legitimately have, then I suggest it's time to move past making the case and move toward getting us back to where access can be negotiated. Once the core issue of consent has been addressed, then it may be time to press the case for renewing access.

Personally, I think it could be handled between the main parties (without the need for a town-square drama), but if an open forum ("a campfire get together") is the preferred method, so be it. Let progress continue.

Just my opinion...,

--M.

 

[griffin]

Why is it OK for them to paint us all in the same light to get him, but it's not OK for me to say I have witnessed snowmobilers trash the summit of Mount Shaw?

Who said it "wasn't ok" for you to post about snow mobilers trashing Mount Shaw or anywhere else? Or that it WAS ok to paint all hikers with the same brush?

It's easy to say "we didn't do this (even if hikers may have been involved in the unauthorized trail maintenance), we shouldn't have to deal with the consequences" Doesn't always work that way, though.

This isn't about trash or fire rings or hikers or snowmobilers. It's about a map that some landowners don't like

I don't blame them, if the damage reports are true. Like I said, hikers aren't the only people who go to the trouble of looking for out-of-the way places to go. Or do you really think high schoolers, snow mobilers, etc. don't know how to use the internet?

What's important is that both sides need to come to a compromise.

KDT

I'm with you on that one.

 

[kevinmac]

I am not sure if it has been mentioned but another reason for concern by the landowners has been trespassers in search of precious gems on the lands and their use of blasting caps to extract the gems. This info. per NH Trails Bureau.

 

[una_dogger]

I am not sure if it has been mentioned but another reason for concern by the landowners has been trespassers in search of precious gems on the lands and their use of blasting caps to extract the gems. This info. per NH Trails Bureau.

This has not been mentioned in this thread.

That's a serious claim and no doubt it will fuel some more fire to this discussion that seems to be moving forward in a positive way, can you elaborate with more concrete information to substantiate your claim?

Edited to say, that I would think having people hiking on the land would be a strong deterrent to active illegal mining...its much more likely that criminals would get caught doing something illegal if people are around.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

I took TB up on his offer earlier today and he sent me a copy of the easement deed. I'm not an attorney, but I can read. Paragraph 5E says, in part "... the public shall have the right to pedestrian access to, on, and across the Property for hiking, cross country skiing, snowshoeing, hunting, fishing, and other low impact recreational purposes, except camping. The property may be posted against public access or otherwise restricted by the Easement Holder in the public interest, or to prevent natural resource degradation". The Easement Holder was defined early in the document as the State of New Hampshire, acting thru the Department of Resources and Economic Development.

So, it seems pretty clear - to this legal layman at least - that the public has a legal right of access to the lands known as Chocorua Forestlands, LLC, present difficulties notwithstanding. I'm hopeful that the State of NH and Chocorua Forestlands can work out terms to once again allow public access. Otherwise, I'm reasonably certainly what will happen there is what now happens at the Cabot trailhead - the hiking public knows it has a legal right-of-way across the land, whether the USFS wishes to enforce it or not. My crystal ball says certain members of the hiking community would take the same view of Chocorua Forestlands as they do of the Cabot trail.

It is in everyone's interests that access issues to lands which are public - in whole or in part - be resolved. Personally, I think shutting down public access over fire rings and herbicide spraying is rather heavy-handed - perhaps a bit of surveillance would have been a wiser approach. But, it's easy to second-guess.

Attempting to restrict someone's rights of free speech in the form of map-making is certainly not a solution either, especially since the source of the information is already in the public domain.

Let's hope this issue gets resolved quickly and amicably. I'm sure the inn-keepers and others in the tourist business in the Ossippee area who depend upon the goodwill of visitors to the region hope so as well.

 

[The Hikers]

I have not been following this thread until today, and I am broken hearted to read all this.
The Ossipee Range is my ancestral homeland, and we have always felt free to roam it. I had a few bushwacks in mind for this fall, and I suspect I may go through with them.
Perhaps an arrest is needed to find the legal basis behind all this.

Am I to throw away my TOPO disks which show most of what is on the infamous map?

 

[psmart]

"The property may be posted against public access or otherwise restricted by the Easement Holder in the public interest, or to prevent natural resource degradation". The Easement Holder was defined early in the document as the State of New Hampshire, acting thru the Department of Resources and Economic Development.

That appears to give DRED the authority to close the land to prevent "resource degradation".

 

[Kevin Rooney]

That appears to give DRED the authority to close the land to prevent "resource degradation".

That was my take on it as well.

 

[RoySwkr]

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.

Stopher,

Thank you for posting the NH Granit map, one of the few factual items in this debate

But I still think you show your bias by referring to "activities of Bob Garrison" rather than "map-making by Bob Garrison and vandalism by parties unknown"

Has the WODC considered sponsoring a work day to clean up campfire rings, flagging, etc. to show that hikers don't approve of such activities? I'd come.

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.

The AMC WMG did it for nearly 100 years, but have finally put WMNF boundaries on their maps

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.

While landowners are entitled to their opinions, and in the absence of easements can certainly forbid ground mapping on their properties, I'm not quite sure why they would want to. If I owned any forest land and it was open to public recreation, I would want for the public to have the best maps possible so as not to require bivouacs or rescuers tromping all over. If you fail to carry the 10 essentials, fish & game can fine you for getting lost, so the NH Trails Bureau should support accurate mapping.

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

The Bald Knob Trail has been posted for "No Trespassing" as long as I can remember, but the AMC guide tells you to ignore the signs. How come WODc isn't on their case?

On the bright side, no one is arguing about where Faraway Mt is any more.

Don't worry, that will be back - fortunately the revisionist geographers are now being viewed as the bad guys

Has anyone offered to pick-up the trash or remove fire rings? Block the trails that the landowners do not want in use? Ask where would be an acceptable parking area for the hikers?

I just did (above) before reading this, but you thought of it first!

Well yes they did sign an agreement to do this. As with any agreement once the conditions for that agreement are “BROKEN” then the agreement becomes null and void. Why would you even want to bring this to a legal issue when this can be resolved by following the LANDOWNERS requests?

I'm not sure whether the easement required continued public access, but I'm darn sure that spot vandalism doesn't void it or all conservation easements would be worthless.

 

[MarkJ]

If anyone has output on this Roy Does.RS is the bomb!!

 

[kevinmac]

Can you post a link to that? All I can find is this:

http://www.nhtrails.org/trail-news-and-conditions/news.aspx

No mention of blasting caps?

KDT

The director told me when I spoke to him on the phone the other day

 

[NewHampshire]

Can you or he substantiate that? I think you're trolling.

KDT

Wow, thats a bit rude don't you think? If it matters any I have heard the same rumor blasting caps were involved. There is plenty of disagreeing going on in this thread, but there is no need to insinuate someone is trolling.

Brian

 

[una_dogger]

The dialogue has been very informative, substantiatied, and moving towards a place that this community should be proud of.

Bringing up a serious charge like the use of explosives really deserves more backing than word of mouth. There is a term for that type of behavior on internet forums.....

Certainly if the trails were being closed due to this activity, I would expect there would be official postings (not landowner postings) that would reflect that at other areas for the safety of the public, and that information would be available publicly.

So, until presented with real information about the use of blasting caps on hiking trails in the Ossipees, I'd really like to see this discussion get back to where it was going, and thanks to Kevin and others who have been very involved in keeping it on track, focused, and moving towards resolution, not backwards with more insinuations and unsubstantiated claims.

I have heard the same rumor blasting caps were involved. There is plenty of disagreeing going on in this thread, but there is no need to insinuate someone is trolling.

Brian

I'm sorry,Brian, with all due respect, you are describing "rumors" you heard...people who start them and/or use them to stir the pot on the internet do certainly get labelled...I don't doubt you've heard plenty of rumors, we all have...they just don't do much to serve this discussion...perhaps KevinMac can elaborate on the legitamacy of his post, if it was a rumor he heard or something someone of an official post would like him to make public on this forum?

I think the majority of us following this thread with great interest and particpating with the overall goal of seeing this land use issue clarified and resolved, are doing a tremendous job sorting through emotion, rumor and fact ... I sincerely hope we can all keep going in that direction...

 

[stopher]

Stopher,

Thank you for posting the NH Granit map, one of the few factual items in this debate

But I still think you show your bias by referring to "activities of Bob Garrison" rather than "map-making by Bob Garrison and vandalism by parties unknown".

That’s parsing words very finely, and in the case of the land outlined in orange, I don’t think it applies. There are four landowners who recently (within the last 5 months +/-) posted their land in that area. Three told me they posted in response to activities of Mr. Garrison. The fourth said it was partly due to Mr. Garrison’s activities and partly due to increased abuse of the area, including fire rings, this past spring. Whether or not the increased abuse is a product of the map is open to debate. He went on to say that the local teenagers have their favorite spots where they drive to and he’s been breaking up their fire rings and cleaning up their mess for years, but the recent increase in fire rings and trash has been happening in the more remote areas, not where the beer parties happen and not where the ATVs and snowmobiles go. The fire rings in the remote areas scare him. He pointed out that it’s near impossible to get fire fighting apparatus up there. He said he wants to reopen his land but after reading the comments of some of the people here he’s more reluctant to reopen the land than he was before this thread started. As a life-long hiker, he just can’t understand the attitudes of some of the posters. He echoed a statement I recently received in a VFTT private message: “They just don’t get it.” He and his wife manage their land for timber. It pays the taxes and they manage to save a little bit for the future. When he talked about his concern about fire, she said, “That’s our retirement up there.” How many of us would be willing to trust anonymous strangers with our retirement fund? This couple has been doing it for years. Now they have some serious doubts, even though closing their land goes against the way they’ve always tried to manage their land. But even so, he said, “I’ll grant permission to those who ask.”

Has the WODC considered sponsoring a work day to clean up campfire rings, flagging, etc. to show that hikers don't approve of such activities? I'd come.

Me too. And bandana4me. And I've received other private message offers. But that's up to the landowners. They know where to find us.

 

[NewHampshire]

I'm sorry,Brian, with all due respect, you are describing "rumors" you heard...people who start them and/or use them to stir the pot on the internet do certainly get labelled...

Which is why I said "If it means anything." I clearly stated it was a rumor. Kevinmac says his information came from the director of the NH Trails Bureau. I am sorry, but I am willing to accept the fact he is telling the truth. He has been a member of this site, in good standing, just as long as Kevin has. he is not some "newbie" in on the game making statements out of the gate to stir the pot.

What's rude? Spreading unsubstantiated rumors! That's what. Show me something to make me believe this happened!

To further what was said above, he says the information came from a legitimate source. You are entirely free to call the same source and see if the information is correct. Kevin may not have seen the physical proof, but I will once again take it on faith that the director of the trails bureau knows what he is talking about. So yes, I will again say it is actually pretty rude.

And as a side note I want to thank Trail Bandit for finally offering to extend an apology to the land woners. You may not think it will do any good, but it is a start.

Brian

 

[una_dogger]

. he is not some "newbie" in on the game making statements.

I really don't think its relevant how long a member has been on this site, its the quality of the information that they are contributing to this discussion that will serve the discussion.

A brief statement about "blasting caps" certainly cannot be expected to be taken at face value -- given the volatility of this discussion on this and previous threads and the reaction to "lack of information" on all claims -- it really should be expected that any new information describing the reason for closure would be fully disclosed and presented in a meaningful, transparent manner.

 

[NewHampshire]

I really don't think its relevant how long a member has been on this site, its the quality of the information that they are contributing to this discussion that will serve the discussion.

A brief statement about "blasting caps" certainly cannot be expected to be taken at face value -- given the volatility of this discussion on this and previous threads and the reaction to "lack of information" on all claims -- it really should be expected that any new information describing the reason for closure would be fully disclosed and presented in a meaningful, transparent manner.

Well, it was good enough for me, but hey, I guess we all have different standards.

But honestly it really matters little to me any more. I am satisfied that TB is willing to offer his apology, and this thread seems to merely be going the direction of "Arguing for the sake of arguing" so I am divesting myself of this and going the way of McRat. As a Fool Scout I join him in neutrality and will reiterate the offer for a fireside chat is still out there.

Brian

 

[David Metsky]

Moderator speaking
Stop the name calling, address the details of the post, not the poster. Learn to play nice or don't join in this discussion.

If you have problems with a poster - send it in email or PM to a moderator.