12,000 Ossippee acres closed

RoySwkr said:

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.

Click to expand...

You and I have been down this road before, Roy. As I have already said, you are entitled to your opinion. If WODC wants to get involved in this, that's their decision. I'm willing to do some on-site mitigation work regardless of who sponsors it. The landowners are reading this thread; they have my phone number and they've demonstrated that they have no qualms about dialing it. I have already passed on offers to make repairs. If they choose to accept any offers, I'm sure arrangements can be made without inconveniencing them.

Stopher answered a question....are the property owners reading the thread?

That they are - thats a good thing because they've seen the 'other' side. Which is that the hikers discussing it here are interested in the issue, respective of their rights, not looking to offend, and willing to do what it takes to be welcomed back.

It might be interesting if someone could post(with their permission) the property owners views and how the hiking public might be able to engage them in a constructive discussion.
As Dave and I mentioned, lets keep the discussion on a civil footing.

With respect, Peakbagr, I say that the onus for reaching out goes to the mapmaker.

He should directly call or visit each of the landowners whom he agrees he has offended (leaving aside those he feels have no case). It's not the owners' problem to make it right, and it seems they have tried to be open to resolution. He doesn't need to address litter, fires, mining, or even herbicide (unless, of course, he's involved with those things). He's admitted that he has given offense; he should make the first step -- to them.

To his credit, he has acknowledged that there are moves to be made. With respect, I suggest he quietly call one or two and make a manly statement: "I gave offense, I apologize. I'll make an amend; we'll move forward."

If he feels it's really the landowners who gave first offense, let him make a case. But he has agreed there is cause for hurt feelings. Let him do the right thing, no matter how limited in scope, and provide an avenue for forward progress.

The rest is for after.

Again, it's just my opinion; I could be wrong.

--M.

A few posters here have referred to public rights in an easement. I'm getting more convinced that no one has actually read those easements ... and I haven't either ... because they are inferring rights that may or may not be explicitly stated in them.

Conservation easments usually convey only a relinquishment of rights to develop a property in favor of maintaining conditions that protect the flora, fauna and natural state of said land. If there are public rights to access the land I expect it would be over a narrow corridor and conditional upon various constraints, which one can assume have been seriously violated here.

Granted, I have not read these easements either but I have seen others, in fact I've donated a couple myself (but for historical preservation) so I am familiar with their intent and limitations.

I am not a lawyer, either, but I do know this about real estate. What is not explicitly stated cannot be inferred.

I am of the school that practiceds "this land is your land, this land is my land", but I tread lightly and quietly in doing so, not obtrusively and offensively as a few have done.

So, my webmates, let's accept that the behavior of a few has made us all unwelcome and turn that page. Instead, let's take a lesson from Stopher and think positively and constructively as to what we can do to make amends and also remember the leave no trace ethic everywhere we go so that we rermain welcome elsewhere.

Opinion (and just that) of one of those Massachusetts people (who doesn't know all the ins and outs of what's happening, just from this thread).

There are several landowners involved, DRED, TB, and the public in general. We on VFTT seem to view "the Ossipees" as a single unit (even acknowledging there are multiple owners.) I doubt the landowners see it that way...their primary concern would be for "their land" while trying to be good citizens. Someone needs to coordinate among all the interests on a regular basis. Then the public can have uniform expectations across the range and the landowners don't have to waste time figuring out who to talk with every time an issue comes up. At the risk of committing someone else's time, money, and effort, I suggest LRCT take point in some way.

There needs to be a hashing out of accepted behaviour. I agree with Roy that "no mapmaking" is counterproductive. And I don't see how we can get very far if anybody can close the property by posting a map online. But I hope anybody willing to put the effort into a map would be willing to accept resonable restrictions, such as only showing established trails accepted by the landowner. Plenty of people post here about cutting a deadfall (or sometimes much more, another topic...) on established trails. I can understand how a line on a map may attract people who think they should "keep the trail open."

Finally, how can we help address the landowners' concerns? Cleanup day? Volunteer for monitoring (like WODC does in the Wilderness on occasion)? Make a standard sign for places where people enter the Ossipees, a trailhead kiosk writ small, with information on respecting the private property? (and, of course, having us chip in towards such signage.)

But first, please, TB and rocket21, take down the map as a gesture of goodwill. For now, maybe replace it with one where the closed properties have been blanked out? It does not appear that archive.org has picked it up yet, but the longer it stays up the harder it will be to dislodge from the net. I don't think standing on our rights is going to make much progress now (right to publish, right to control access to the land...). I know the print run of the existing map is a financial hit, and I'm sorry I can't think of a good solution for that.

Peakbagr said:

Stopher answered a question....are the property owners reading the thread?

That they are - thats a good thing because they've seen the 'other' side. Which is that the hikers discussing it here are interested in the issue, respective of their rights, not looking to offend, and willing to do what it takes to be welcomed back.

It might be interesting if someone could post(with their permission) the property owners views and how the hiking public might be able to engage them in a constructive discussion.
As Dave and I mentioned, lets keep the discussion on a civil footing.

Click to expand...

I stated that the landowners are reading this thread in my first post and I reiterated it in others. Waumbek and Darren (and others I may have missed) have pointed out that landowners well beyond the Ossipees are reading this thread. Thank you. I'd add to your reputation but the computer tells me I have to spread my good will around first. I'll work on that.

I have already offered to landowners to post anything submitted to me (they have my email address too). So far, they haven't. In the absense of that, I've tried to convey what they've told me as best I can. To date, they've given me an adequate performance rating. If anyone wants to replace me in this capacity, I will gladly pass on your contact information. I didn't ask for this job; I just fell into it. And trust me (if you so choose), I fell into it about two months before I wrote the opinion piece in "The Outlook." And I feel obligated to reiterate at this time that what I wrote there was my opinion, my opinion only, not the opinion of WODC, and it was clearly labeled as such. My opinions haven't changed since writing it.

And this is probably a good time to say that, upon further reflection, Roy's suggestion that I have been showing my bias has some definite merit. I have been focused on one aspect of this issue. I believe that it is the main aspect, but it is certainly not the only aspect. I'll do my best to open my mind and look at the bigger picture. However, after reviewing everything I've written in this thread, I'm more than content to let it stand.

The Condord Monitor plans a follow-up article on this subject. Input can be provided to the reporter, Chelsea Conaboy, at:

Chelsea Conaboy
[email protected]
Concord Monitor reporter
work: (603) 369-3309
fax: (603) 224-2180


- darren

Stan said:

A few posters here have referred to public rights in an easement. I'm getting more convinced that no one has actually read those easements ... and I haven't either ... because they are inferring rights that may or may not be explicitly stated in them.

Click to expand...

I suggest you read (re-read?) post # 87.

I've read the easement in question - "Grant of Conservation Easement", and if you have the opportunity, at least read that section entitled "Purposes". I strongly support those purposes, including purpose D: "To guarantee pedestrian access to the public for hiking, cross-country skiing, hunting, fishing and other low impact pedestrian recreational activities on the property and snowmobile access on the existing snowmobile trail".

Of course, the "devil's in the details", and there doesn't seem to be any provision for who will pay for such things as maintaining parking areas in order to make public access practical, and a host of other details. So, even though land may have public access, physically getting to it may be a problem.

So, once some semblance of order is restored, and the parties in question are convinced their concerns will be addressed, it's entirely possible that some additional public $$ will need to be used to support the practical aspects of providing access to the land covered by the conservation easement.

While I agree that this discussion is valuable and is making many people aware of the many issues, it will never solve the real problems. A "campfire meeting" might be an opportunity to share views, but VFTT isn't in charge of the closure of the Ossipee forestry Legacy Tract. I have asked the NH Trails Bureau if they will set up a meeting with their people, a representaive of Chocorua Forestlands, and me. This is my olive branch.

RoySwkr said:

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.

Click to expand...

It's incorrect to say that the HikeSafe "coalition," WMNF and NH F&G, "in fact" encourages mapmaking if the implication is that they encourage this kind of mapmaking. It is also incorrect to say or at least to imply that NH F&G will automatically "fine" you if you get lost and don't have a map.

Trail Bandit said:

... I have asked the NH Trails Bureau if they will set up a meeting with their people, a representaive of Chocorua Forestlands, and me. This is my olive branch.

Click to expand...

That's tremendous. I'm sure a resolution can be reached. --Mike.

MichaelJ said:

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.

Click to expand...

Somewhere in this long thread someone brought up the fact that a landowner did have qualms about some of the features depicted on his property and asked that they be removed. His/her request was outright denied by TrailBandit (later admitted him) due to the map being in the final stages of printing.

When a wrong has been committed, one must often cede his position to a point beyond where the initial infraction occurred in order to correct the wrong and move forward.

In my opinion, DRED will err on the side of the landowners for the simple reason of keeping conservation restrictions an attractive option for landowners. The state and federal governments do not have the resources to buy up and preserve thousands of acres of real estate for our enjoyment. I will reiterate a statement from my previous post:

How many landowners who once considered entering their land into a conservation restriction have seen the debacle in the Ossipees and decided that protecting and preserving their land is not worth the potential headaches?

smitty77 said:

How many landowners who once considered entering their land into a conservation restriction have seen the debacle in the Ossipees and decided that protecting and preserving their land is not worth the potential headaches?

Click to expand...

A win-win is possible here, not too tough at all. It just depends on the participants undoing a little of what's been done and beginning again on a better footing. Let's keep a positive tack.

Trail Bandit said:

While I agree that this discussion is valuable and is making many people aware of the many issues, it will never solve the real problems. A "campfire meeting" might be an opportunity to share views, but VFTT isn't in charge of the closure of the Ossipee forestry Legacy Tract. I have asked the NH Trails Bureau if they will set up a meeting with their people, a representaive of Chocorua Forestlands, and me. This is my olive branch.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but this doesn't seem like much of an "olive branch", given that they've posted a sign saying that you are the "maker of unauthorized maps" and are "persona non grata on this property". A real olive branch would be to remove all links to the maps from all web sites, and publicly state that you will not sell any more maps until (and if) this issue is resolved.

Kevin Rooney said:

I suggest you read (re-read?) post # 87.

Click to expand...

Thank you for that reminder. I don't remember reading that before but I may have skimmed over it on the grounds it seems to use one clause out of a document that likely contains remedies and provisions supportive of the owners' position.

Is there some way to link or copy the entire document here? Personally, I'm not as interested in this contest as I am the documentation of such easements in general but others may well seek to understand the legalities under which the property owners have acted.

BobC said:

I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but this doesn't seem like much of an "olive branch", given that they've posted a sign saying that you are the "maker of unauthorized maps" and are "persona non grata on this property". A real olive branch would be to remove all links to the maps from all web sites, and publicly state that you will not sell any more maps until (and if) this issue is resolved.

Click to expand...

Check your dictionary, you seem to be overlooking the difference between "olive branch" and "capitulation."

Stan said:

...Is there some way to link or copy the entire document here?

Click to expand...

As you may have noted in one of the earlier posts, TB offered to send files containing the easement, and I took him up on that offer. I have a PDF file of the easement. With TB's and Darren's OK, I could email the file to the Admins here and they could create a link to it.

As for the content of the easement itself - personally, I thought it was an excellent document, and supported many of the goals/objectives/purposes that I, and many others in the hiking/climbing community, hold near and dear. I thought it was comprehensive and thorough, and addressed the property rights of the landowners in a fair and reasonable way. In short - I thought our $1.4M was well-spent, assuming of course, that the current closure is only temporary, and longterm solutions to public access can be put in place.

However, unless there's adequate funding to support all that goes into making public lands truly accessible, there are always going to conflicts between those individuals/agencies charged with overseeing those lands and those who want/demand access.

nartreb said:

Check your dictionary, you seem to be overlooking the difference between "olive branch" and "capitulation."

Click to expand...

Perhaps it's somewhere in between. I don't see it as capitulation to temporarily stop selling the maps. If a resolution can't be reached and TB still feels that it's ok to sell these maps, he could start doing so again. My point is that the landowners have already decided that he's the "bad guy". They may not want to even meet with someone that they have labelled as "persona non grata".

"Let me walk before they make me run." --Keith Richards

Having thought about this a little more, and seen the actual language of the posted signs, I think that it is quite evident that the poster of the signs overeacted. Noone should post damaging inferences connected to someone else's name in public places, and no sign is valid unless signed by the poster.
Moreover if anyone went to the trouble of reading the explanations, advice and stated purpose as presented on the Ossipee map, they would see that TB covered all the necessary warnings and advice about private property.
I think it is clear that we are dealing with an off the wall trouble maker, and for my money, TB owes no one an explanation.
I fail to see how, In America,anyone can prohibit the making or selling of any map. Just go out to California and buy a map to the various star's homes.