12,000 Ossippee acres closed

I think if we've learned anything from this incident it's this: Conservation/recreation easements by themselves are not enough to provide public access to land. There needs to be some type of funding mechanism to provide ongoing support of trails (whether they be hiking, snowmobile, butterfly watching, whatever), and that should likely include maps. It's not enough to use federal taxpayer dollars, purchase some form of easement and hand over control to some local/state agency - funds to manage the land, build/maintain trails, put up signs, create parking areas and all the rest - in the real world an easement is not enough.

If there are VFTT'ers who labor to create these easements and related mechanisms - please put your considerable skills to work and create sustainable, funded mechanisms to support and maintain this type of public space over the long term.

Trail Bandit and Mary labored hours you wouldn't believe to save fading trails in the Ossipees, over a span of years. On top of that, he spent hard cash he knew he'd never get back to print a map so that others could see what they'd preserved. His reward - multiple blows to the head, because he crossed (inadvertantly) a couple of powerful owners who have done a great job of propagandizing, with help from all the wrong places.

Amicus said:

Trail Bandit and Mary labored hours you wouldn't believe to save fading trails in the Ossipees, over a span of years. On top of that, he spent hard cash he knew he'd never get back to print a map so that others could see what they'd preserved. His reward - multiple blows to the head, because he crossed (inadvertantly) a couple of powerful owners who have done a great job of propagandizing, with help from all the wrong places.

Click to expand...

The December 10, 2009, Concord Monitor article referenced by Carole states...
Is this untrue? I'm shocked to read that this was admitted, given the assertions of innocent, well-intentioned, helpful behavior by the accused. How could he admit to these things? Does the Monitor owe him an apology and a libel settlement?

It goes on to state that...
and that...
So, does this mean that "powerful owners" includes neighbors to Chocorua Forestlands and the state Attorney General? Has the Monitor gotten it wrong here as well?

Why would Mr. Garrison agree to such terms if they had no merit? Why would the NH Attorney General insist on them? Why are these neighboring (private) landowners apparently being so vindictive?

Or, Amicus, is your propaganda as partisan as anyone else's?

This case has always seemed to this outside observer to be about a rather basic disrespect.

I'm very pleased to see the hiking community on these pages repudiate Trail Bandit's presumed representation of their interests. He never spoke for me, and I'm grateful that the damage he did will probably not prevent me from hiking the Ossippee ring dike, where permitted.

--Mike.

Kevin Rooney said:

If there are VFTT'ers who labor to create these easements and related mechanisms - please put your considerable skills to work and create sustainable, funded mechanisms to support and maintain this type of public space over the long term.

Click to expand...

The land trusts have wised up in recent years, and now in reward for their donation of a conservation easement, most easement donors are asked to contribute several thousand dollars in order to fund stewardship costs in the coming years/decades/centuries.

RoySwkr said:

Only partially, it is also a RECREATION easement. We have paid to make certain uses of this property and as long as those uses don't damage the property they should be allowed to continue. The trail clearers, fire builders, and mineral collectors were all violating the law and if caught should be prosecuted and forced to pay restitution but that is no excuse to close the property to legal uses when it is easy to distinguish the illegal users by their equipment.

Click to expand...

It is absolutely an excuse. If the line between Conservation and Recreation is that blurred than it should have been closed alot sooner.

Is the agreement available as a matter of public record, or is it a closed document?

MichaelJ said:

Is the agreement available as a matter of public record, or is it a closed document?

Click to expand...

In order to be binding on future ownwer's of the property, a conservation easement is publicly recorded, like a regular deed.

I believe that some of the applicable content was already quoted earlier in this thread.

No, I don't mean the easement, I mean the agreement between TB and the state, which if the Monitor was able to quote, must be a matter of public record somewhere, no?

I hope those property owners that choose to keep their land posted are justly denied the recreational-access tax benefits.

--M. said:

The December 10, 2009, Concord Monitor article referenced by Carole states...

"Within the agreement, Garrison admitted to marking trails, cutting vegetation and applying herbicides on private land without owners' permission."​

Is this untrue?

Click to expand...

Let's just say that the Monitor hires mostly young reporters who often get their facts wrong. The original Ossipees article said that the summit of Mt Shaw was closed which it was not.

If you read that statement closely, all that TB admitted to was clearing and marking trails which both in the Virgin Islands and the Ossipees seem to be only historic trails and not new ones. If you got a professional forester to evaulate the loss in stumpage value on those trails I'll bet it would be less than $10 and might even be $0 as thinning might be beneficial to the forest.

So it is somebody else that has been mining, building fires, and cutting new trails yet the landowner, the state, and the WODC seem to be interested only in coming down on TB rather than identifying the actual miscreants. The landowner obviously was surprised by the increase in public use following the easement, and future easement sellers should be duly warned. I was told by an individual in the trails community that the NH trails bureau only cares about motorized trails because that's where their funding comes from, and their actions here seem to prove that. As for the WODC, after printing the poison-pen column that started this whole mess I'm surprised that they seemed to make no attempt to run work trips to ameliorate the damage or to initiate a ridgerunner system to identify illegal users.

Having hiked with TrailBandit only once, I did not get the impression of him that many have here. He and I have not been in communication since this blew up, but I have been following the scuttlebutt rather closely.

At the very least, I would like to thank Rocket21 and TrailBandit for their efforts in defusing the situation, as well as all those who have been working towards productive solutions.

I get the impression that they could have continued their defense indefinitely, and I worried that some of the attacks would cause them to further entrench themselves. I applaud that they swallowed pride and took the steps necessary to get things reopened. That isn't easy for anyone, particularly if you feel you are in the right.

I know what they say about good intentions, but they had them. Aside from some text I found questionable, it was a beauty of a map; the product of hard work intended to benefit the hiking community - only to be mothballed or burned.

Rather than arguing a (quite plausible) freedom of speech/press claim for years though the court system, TrailBandit has removed himself as the lightning rod of the landowner dispute allowing them to focus on the more egregious damages done by non-hikers that also led to the hiking community being banned from the area.

Thanks for the effort, TrailBandit... and thank you for putting the hiking community ahead of your pride. I really wish things turned out differently, and will hope to share some miles and smiles together in the New Year.

Details of Consent Agreement

Here is the text of the Consent Agreement between the State of NH and Robert Garrison, plus the related agreement between Chocorua Forestlands and Robert Garrison. I am posting this at the request of an area landowner, who provided the document.

This is based on OCR from a scan of the agreements. Hopefully I have corrected all the OCR errors. I can provide the PDF scan of the original documents upon request.

=================================================

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In re: Robert Garrison

Consent Agreement

NOW COMES the State of New Hampshire, by and through its attorneys, the Office of the Attorney General, and enters into the following Consent Areement ("Agreement") with Robert Garrison.

Parties

1. Robert Garrison is a natural person residing at (home address removed). Robert Garrison also uses the pseudonym the "Trail Bandit."

2. Michael A. Delaney is the Attorney General of the State of New Hampshire. The Attorney General has broad statutory and common law authority to protect the public interest and public lands.

3. Chocorua Forestlands a timber management company located in Tamworth, New Hampshire. The New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development( "DRED") holds a forest legacy easement on approximately 5500 acres of Chocorua Forestlands' property.

4. Chocorua Forestlands, LLC is expressly made a third party beneficiary of this agreement.

Allegations

5. At all times relevant to this Agreement, Robert Garrison has:
a. entered on private lands in New Hampshire, including land owned by Chocorua Forestlands LLC, without permission;
b. marked trails on private lands in New Hampshire without permission;
c. cut vegetation on private lands in New Hampshire without permission;
d. applied herbicides for the purpose of killing vegetation along trails on private lands in New Hampshire;
e. created trail maps called, among other things, the Trail Bandit Map of The Ossipee Mountains of New Hampshire and has plans to publish a second edition;
f. published such trail maps for sale on the internet and local retail outlets;

6. By performing these acts, Robert Garrison has trespassed on private land, damaged private land and sold trail maps depicting trails on public and private land without first obtaining permission of the landowners.

Agreement of Discontinuance

7. The Parties enter into this Agreement pursuant for the purpose of settling an ongoing dispute, and to describe the practices and procedures Robert Garrison will follow when on public or private lands in New Hampshire:
A. Robert Garrison agrees that he will not enter on private land for the purpose of marking, mapping, ascertaining or otherwise locating ails within New Hampshire without the prior consent of the landowner.
B. Robert Garrison agrees he will not produce any further map, depicting trails on private lands in New Hampshire, by whatever means including electronic transmission, without the prior express written permission of the landowners.
C. Robert Garrison agrees that he has performed the activities identified in Section 5 "Allegations" on the Chocorua Forestlands property.
D. DRED and other NH State Agencies agree to discontinue all investigations against Robert Garrison it may have initiated for any actions identified within this document.

8. The Attorney General may and shall monitor compliance with this Agreement. If the Attorney General determines that Robert Garrison has violated any term or condition of this Agreement, he shall have the authority to seek an immediate injunction and such other relief as he may deem necessary to ensure compliance with this Agreement.

9. In addition to my remedy under paragraph 8 of this Agreement, a violation of this Agreement shall constitute prima facie evidence of a violation of RSA 358-A as an unfair or deceptive trade practice.

10. This Agreement shall be binding on the parties on the date it is accepted by the Attorney General or his representative.

Date: Nov 25, 2009 (signed) Robert Garrison

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Michael Delaney
Attorney General
Date: 12/2/09 (signed) Richard W. Head, Associate Attorney General

====================================

AGREEMENT

Now come Chocorua Forestlands, LLC, a New Hampshire limited liability company located at 844 Whittier Road, P.O. Box 599, West Ossipee, New Hampshire 03890 and Robert Garrison( home residence edited out) (collectively the "Parties"), and in consideration of the understandings and obligations described in the Consent Agreement executed by and between Robert Garrison and the State of New Hampshire dated 12/2/09 (the "Consent Agreement"), the Parties agree as follows:

A. Chocorua Forestlands agrees to remove the general property posting requiring written permission to access its lands and will replace the current signs with new signs identifying activities which do not need permission to occur and identifying those activities which need landowner permission.

B. Chocorua Forestlands agrees to not seek legal action against Robert Garrison for any actions identified within the Consent Agreement which occurred prior to the date of this Agreement.

C. From the date of this Agreement forward, Robert Garrison agrees to not enter any properties of Chocorua Forestlands without express written landowner permission.

D. The Parties agree to abide by the other terms and obligations contained in the Consent Agreement.

It is further agreed that this Agreement is intended to avoid or terminate litigation. This Agreement shall be binding on the parties on the date it is executed by both Parties.

Date: 11/25/2009, (signed) Robert Garson

Date: 12/2/2009, (signed) Jeffery Coombs, Managing Member, Chocorua Forestlands, LLC

I don't think including the personal info is necessary. I know all this info is "out there", but it doesn't mean this forum needs to contribute to an invasion of privacy.

Agreed, home residence info now removed.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

In the course of this adventure, did anyone ever conclusively determine if producing a map of privately-owned but publically-accessible lands is in any way regulated by statute or established precedent?

Thank you, PSmart

MichaelJ said:

In the course of this adventure, did anyone ever conclusively determine if producing a map of privately-owned but publically-accessible lands is in any way regulated by statute or established precedent?

Click to expand...

I was told that it was not, but TB agreed to this to end the matter and because after this case he wasn't about to do it again

If map-making was illegal, DeLorme and Rand McNally would be in jail

AMC maps regularly show trails on private land if you want an obvious precedent.

One might also note that TB did not admit to several of the activities alleged by the landowner, even though by so doing he would have been exempt from prosecution for them.

RoySwkr said:

If map-making was illegal, DeLorme and Rand McNally would be in jail

AMC maps regularly show trails on private land if you want an obvious precedent.

Click to expand...

The Consent Agreement does not seem to challenge the general right to produce or publish a map. However, paragraph 9 states that "a violation of this Agreement shall constitute prima facie evidence of a violation of RSA 358-A as an unfair or deceptive trade practice."

RSA 358-A is the "Regulation of Business Practices for Consumer Protection", which is apparently being invoked based on the sale of a product (the map) which the AG considers to have violated the provisions of this statute, presumably by containing incorrect information about the condition of the trails or rights of public access.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXXI/358-A/358-A-mrg.htm

Hold on a second. Is that really the Associate Attorney General's name?

SteveHiker said:

Hold on a second. Is that really the Associate Attorney General's name?

Click to expand...

It does look odd, but that's what google will show you on official NH web pages if you check! I guess he prefers Richard to the alternative ...

Consent Agreement said:

6. By performing these acts, Robert Garrison has trespassed on private land, damaged private land and sold trail maps depicting trails on public and private land without first obtaining permission of the landowners.

Click to expand...

The sad thing is that under this agreement he can't issue a new map with the objectable features removed, so people who have the old map will just keep using it.

The WODC publishes a map showing many trails on private property, did they get explicit permission from every landowner to print the map or did they assume that the agreement to use the land also allowed mapping it?

psmart said:

RSA 358-A is the "Regulation of Business Practices for Consumer Protection", which is apparently being invoked based on the sale of a product (the map) which the AG considers to have violated the provisions of this statute, presumably by containing incorrect information about the condition of the trails or rights of public access.

Click to expand...

Hmm, I would have said that the disclaimer printed on the map that this was private property and should not be abused would have covered it. But some commenter on the Concord Monitor site said he thought it was all National Forest and wouldn't have used the map if he knew it wasn't, so that shows how useful any disclaimer is.

RoySwkr said:

Robert Garrison agrees he will not produce any further map, depicting trails on private lands in New Hampshire, by whatever means including electronic transmission, without the prior express written permission of the landowners.

Click to expand...

The sad thing is that under this agreement he can't issue a new map with the objectable features removed, so people who have the old map will just keep using it.

Click to expand...

Why not? if there's a clear list of things that the landowners want taken off, + all parties can agree that w/o those items a map is ok, there could be an updated map. He just needs written permission of the landowners in question to comply with it. If one landowner in particular is being a stick in the mud, just take the features regarding that landowner's property off the map, & problem solved.

IMHO this is the way it should be done by default, by everyone, whether it's Trail Bandit or AMC or staff in my town. If you can't get permission from a landowner to put features (excluding base landform features on the USGS maps) on their property onto a map, those features shouldn't be on the map. That's what I'd want to be done if my property were in this situation.