12,000 Ossippee acres closed

[Peakbagr]

Thanks, Dave. I was just about to say the same thing and then saw your post.
I've watched the discussion go from polite, to heated and insults are uncalled for. Address people in a way you'd expect to be treated or don't post at all.

 

[bandana4me]

More background information

Read post # 18
http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=30146&page=2

Then read this thread
http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=13775&highlight=spray

And one more
http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=13359

Decide for yourself. The map may be the straw that broke the camels back.

 

[darren]

It is difficult for the public to determine exactly what the problems have been on that land and who has been causing / engaging in those problem activities. The one thing that seems to be clear to me is that the primary thing that matters in this situation is the opinions of the land owners. These signs, particularly the one on the left, makes the opinions of the land owners very clear:

For the land owners it seems that the map is the center of the controversy. People do not make and post signs like that on a whim. It does not matter to me if someone has the legal right to make or post a map. If that map causes enough irritation to the land owners that 12,000+ acres gets closed then the map needs to go away as step one in making ammends with the land owners. Once everyone cools off, discusses their concerns, an agreement is made meeting land owner requests, then maybe a map can be produced in the future. But right now the first step seems clear, well clear to me anyway.

- darren

 

[darren]

In looking at the sign above on the right, the DRED logo is on the bottom right of the sign. Presumably the the DRED approved the sign and agreed with the action of posting them. Closing the land to public access to conserve the property's natural resources seems to meet the original agreement (according to the text of the agreement posted by KR above). If trails were illegaly cut then it is within the realm of reason to prevent public access to allow what was cut to return to it's pre-existing natural state. The map and resultant increase in traffic and the lack of resources to enforce restrictions on that increase of traffic is doing on the land is obviously another issue, and a big one at that.

- darren

ps: the sign also states that with written permission is is possible to access the land. I see that as an olive branch that is already extended by the land owner. For the land owners to be forced by the actions of a few into the corner they are in and to have them still extend an olive branch at this time shows to me that they do care about doing the right thing.

 

[MichaelJ]

I'd agree if that was a portion of truly private land, but those signs were put up by the Chocorua Forestlands. You know, the people who took $1.4M in exchange for an easement for public access. While the other private property owners certainly are within their rights to complain about the map, this corporation is in a much grayer area. Having opened public access there is no longer an expectation of privacy on their property. The left-hand sign is childish and borders on libel.

 

[darren]

granting public access means granting public access.

I disagree. Granting public access does not mean the public can go in and cut trails and do whatever else they want. What was allowed under the $1.4 million was clearly stated in the agreement. What can be done as a result of user abuse is also clear in the agreement. The sign on the right, the one with the state logo, seems to make it clear that the state agrees. Sorry, but I just can not understand how there is confusion over this.

- darren

 

[Tuco]

The sign on the right is what it is. I didn't see anything in the agreement TB sent me (thanks) that discussed parameters around what steps had to be taken to close the land. Maybe its in the Stewardship Plan, maybe its just grey and you have to deal with it.

Sign on the left makes me think that its purely personal- are the maps illegal?? Doesn't that matter any more or does the level of power the landowner have eliminate that as a consideration. Specifically to the land the signs were posted for there is a big chunk of change that says the land is open for public use; this isn't so clear to me a hang the mapmaker issue. I would be curious to get a sense of how many maps have been sold or distributed. Is it enough to assume increased poor usage if the land is related? Maybe this is info the landowners would like to know.

Would be good if every body played nice and worked towards the only thing that matters, which is opening the land for access again. I heard the first offerings from TB on it, what say the landowners? Forget the past and move towards resolution, good luck......

 

[MichaelJ]

The sign on the left directly addresses the map, making an *unsubstantiated claim* that its mere existence is criminal. That could be considered libel. Ever notice that newspapers have to refer to actions as "alleged"?

Next time you hike somewhere that's on an easement instead of publically-owned land, make sure you don't take any pictures, post a trip report, or even mention you were there, because that's the direction that many people's opinions on this thread have taken. You can have access but only if you don't tell anyone about it, because if the access ever changes, you have to forget you were ever there.

Note that I am *only* addressing the issue of the sign and the map and this particular landowner. The issues of property damage and/or any issues with another private landowner who grants access but not an easement are a separate matter altogether. And for those issues, the landowners chose to simply attack TB's (admittedly questionable) actions, instead of taking more appropriate actions that they would have had to anyway if the map had never been made.

Personally, as a landowner I would have used the map, worked with TB to mark or unmark features on it, label acceptable access points, and then I would have posted the land for no bushwhacking, access on marked trails only.

 

[MichaelJ]

Sorry, but I just can not understand how there is confusion over this.

My post is only talking about the sign on the left.

 

[darren]

The sign on the left directly addresses the map, making an *unsubstantiated claim* that its mere existence is criminal. That could be considered libel. Ever notice that newspapers have to refer to actions as "alleged"?

MJ, judging buy this other thread ,you seem to have changed your position over time:

http://forums.alpinezone.com/18870-banana-trail.html#post196394

You seem to be very distant from your prior viewpoint that trail cutting and map making should get someone "thrown in the poke". What made you change your mind? I am trying hard to see the other side of this.

- darren

 

[SteveHiker]

Pure speculation here.

Notice the difference in tone of the newer sign (on the right) and the older sign (on the left)? Also notice the state agency logos on the newer sign? Quite possible they were overstepping a little at first but now are within their rights.


A question as well. 3000 maps? That seems like a lot.

 

[TCD]

The difference in tone of the two signs is interesting. But what's important is the effect of the two signs. The July sign does NOT close the trails to hiking. The August sign does. One could speculate that the landowners became more annoyed as time went on, and decided to close the land to everyone? Or perhaps that they consulted their attorney, who advised that they didn't have grounds to single out certain users, and their legal position was better if they closed the land to everyone? Who knows.

I hope amid all this bluster that quiet negotiations have started somewhere.

 

[RoySwkr]

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.

I thought you were trying to make amends to the landowner, and since it was the WODC column that seemed to inflame this issue, I think it would be appropriate for WODC to get involved. And it's asking a bit much for the landowner to join this site and contact several people known only by pseudonym rather than let a well-known club organize something.

People do not make and post signs like that on a whim. It does not matter to me if someone has the legal right to make or post a map. If that map causes enough irritation to the land owners that 12,000+ acres gets closed then the map needs to go away as step one in making ammends with the land owners.

I respectfully disagree. One thing to remember here: the public paid $1.4 million for recreational access to the Chocorua Lumber property, hence it is closer to being "public" than property of LRCT which is still private. Mapmaking is in fact encouraged by the HikeSafe coalition, if you get lost and don't have a map you will be fined by fish and game. The part of the sign regarding unauthorized maps is entirely inappropriate and probably illegal since under the easement which was then in force they had no right to exclude anybody because of past legal activity.

I fully understand their fear of fires and entirely support their desire to exclude camping, fires, ATVs, herbicides, and blasting which are already illegal. But once they sold the recreation rights to this property, they have no more reason to prevent users from making maps than someone who had sold mineral rights has to prevent prospecting.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

...One could speculate that the landowners became more annoyed as time went on, and decided to close the land to everyone? Or perhaps that they consulted their attorney, who advised that they didn't have grounds to single out certain users, and their legal position was better if they closed the land to everyone?

In this case, I doubt the landowner has the authority to close the land. Remember - there's an easement involved. As I read the deed - DRED has the authority. The landowner sold the rights to control access to the land.

 

[HockeyPuck]

If I were in the shoes of a land owner probably wouldn't have been as patient or understanding as they seem to have been.

The property owners appear to continue extending olive branch after olive branch and according to the latest sign will potentially grant permission to visit the land, if requested.

Several maps are still available on-line giving the appearance of a stubborn and bitter ex-wife attitude, I haven't seen any signs of compromise from the map makers. In this instance it appears the immature actions of a few individuals has resulted in negative effects for the entire hiking community.

I'd suggest the land owners create a Baxter atmosphere and use a permit program granting hikers access (or non-access) based on trail usage, etc. as they see fit.

In the future, I'll be glad to request specific permission for access.

 

[psmart]

In this case, I doubt the landowner has the authority to close the land. Remember - there's an easement involved. As I read the deed - DRED has the authority. The landowner sold the rights to control access to the land.

I agree. That's why the sign on the left stops short of closure - the landowner has transferred that right to DRED as part of the conservation easement. So the closure could only occur when DRED took action, as it did in August, as indicated by the sign on the right.

Although I suspect that DRED closed the land at the request of the owner, the final decision was still made by DRED, based on what was happening on the ground.

 

[SteveHiker]

I agree. That's why the sign on the left stops short of closure - the landowner has transferred that right to DRED as part of the conservation easement. So the closure could only occur when DRED took action, as it did in August, as indicated by the sign on the right.

Although I suspect that DRED closed the land at the request of the owner, the final decision was still made by DRED, based on what was happening on the ground.

This is the point I was clumsily trying to make. Thanks.

 

[MichaelJ]

You seem to be very distant from your prior viewpoint that trail cutting and map making should get someone "thrown in the poke". What made you change your mind? I am trying hard to see the other side of this.

I didn't change my mind. I've seen no evidence that TB was the person who illegally cut the new trails, so I'm not screaming for his head at this time. If it comes to be true that he cut or reopened that which was formally closed, then yes, I'd be looking for legal retribution. However, nobody's really talking about that, are they? Fire rings and trash and the map are the hot topics.

That older post over on AZ makes no reference to mapmaking, easements, or rights of public access. I'm far more interested in discussing here these aspects of the situation then figuring out a new way to blame TB's map for everything that's wrong in the Ossipees.

 

[MichaelJ]

Although I suspect that DRED closed the land at the request of the owner, the final decision was still made by DRED, based on what was happening on the ground.

They're a public agency, doesn't that mean all the documentation on the complaints and the decision should be available? Has anyone requested this information?

 

[psmart]

They're a public agency, doesn't that mean all the documentation on the complaints and the decision should be available? Has anyone requested this information?

Good idea. Knowing DRED's specific reasons for the closure would obviously be helpful in trying to get the land re-opened.