Page 2 of 20 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 293

Thread: 12,000 Ossippee acres closed

  1. #16
    Senior Member MichaelJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Outside
    Posts
    5,141
    The linked article only talks about the property of the Chocorua Forestlands being closed. Presumably that is one (1) owner? What other private property has been closed?
    May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey

  2. #17
    Senior Member MichaelJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Outside
    Posts
    5,141
    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_pl..._ossipee_s.pdf
    May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey

  3. #18
    Senior Member chomp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Epping, NH
    Posts
    533
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelJ View Post
    What other private property has been closed?
    The Larcom Mountain Trail was closed a couple of months ago as a direct result of the Trail Bandit map being created and distributed, especially on the internet.

  4. #19
    Junior Member CTMQ_Steve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    West Hartford, CT
    Posts
    8
    Long time VFTT lurker. Sadly, it took this thread to get me out of my shell.

    This is unacceptable. I read the map creator's explanation which boils down to a cheeky, "Hey man, I just made the map, I'm not telling anyone to trespass." While this idea could be morphed into any number of politically sensitive metaphors, let's keep this to just hiking and property rights.

    Hiking is generally free. We do it on our own timetables and usually dictate where we want to go. There are enough legal mountains and legal trails between the Catskills, ADK's and New England, that this whole map thing is unnecessary and just plain stupid.

    No one is making money from it, there's no "noble cause" to further promote it and all it's doing is pissing people off.

    I know of several unpublished trails in Connecticut. Some are great connectors between blazed trails and others take hikers to unique historic points. But guess what? I not only don't publish maps with them, I actively attempt to mask the beginnings of those trails.

    Why? Because the private land owners will then blame legitimate trail maintainers and the CT Forest and Parks Association for them, and cause all sorts of unwanted headaches for us.

    As a community, we need to work with private landowners - it is THEIR LAND - and have open discussions and try to convince them trails on their property aren't so bad.

    Crap like this makes that rather difficult. Trust me.

    Addendum: Yesterday I was in the Catskills and after looking at the maps, thought the bushwhack up Halcott would be easier from the little road to the SSW of the summit. I saw no TR's from that direction so I asked an expert why that was. "Private landowner doesn't want you parking/climbing on his land" came the response. Guess what? I respected that. It's not hard.
    Last edited by CTMQ_Steve; 08-28-2009 at 02:18 PM. Reason: addendum

  5. #20
    Senior Member MichaelJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Outside
    Posts
    5,141
    Quote Originally Posted by chomp View Post
    The Larcom Mountain Trail was closed a couple of months ago as a direct result of the Trail Bandit map being created and distributed, especially on the internet.
    I was more referring to stopher's statement "I have been assured by most of the Ossipee Mountain landowners who have recently closed their property". That implies to me more closings than just the Larcom landowner and the Ossipee Forestland owner. I'm curious how many more owners / acres have been closed.
    May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey

  6. #21
    Senior Member stopher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    varies
    Posts
    335
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelJ View Post
    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_pl..._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.
    stopher will become infamous soon enough.

  7. #22
    Senior Member MichaelJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Outside
    Posts
    5,141
    Quote Originally Posted by stopher View Post
    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!
    May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view. May your mountains rise into and above the clouds. - Edward Abbey

  8. #23
    Senior Member --M.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Upper Works, Tahawus, or Massachusetts.
    Posts
    1,211
    Quote Originally Posted by stopher View Post
    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.

  9. #24
    Senior Member stopher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    varies
    Posts
    335
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelJ View Post
    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.
    stopher will become infamous soon enough.

  10. #25
    Senior Member Waumbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Avatar: "World's Windiest Place" Stamp (5/27/06)
    Posts
    1,904

  11. #26
    Senior Member Cymbidium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Lakes Region NH
    Posts
    228
    Wow after reading this article I have a different opinion of the trail bandit and his methods!! Machetes and herbicides!! Is this true?

    Quote Originally Posted by Waumbek View Post
    NH 4K 48x3 ; NH 4k W48; 52WAV 52/52; NE67: 62/67

  12. #27
    Senior Member RoySwkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    4,481
    Quote Originally Posted by Cymbidium View Post
    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.

  13. #28
    Poobah Emeritus darren's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    S. Dartmouth, MA
    Posts
    1,615
    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
    Kūlia i ka nuu

  14. #29
    Senior Member NewHampshire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Goffstown NH, Avatar:Sending out praise for the Red, White and Blue
    Posts
    1,554
    Quote Originally Posted by RoySwkr View Post
    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
    Last edited by NewHampshire; 08-29-2009 at 10:13 AM.
    Adopter: Wildcat Ridge Trail from Rt.16 to Wildcat "D". If you have any issues please contact me!

  15. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Jackson, NH
    Posts
    143
    Quote Originally Posted by Cymbidium View Post
    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?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •