AMC and Blueberry

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by P-3 Guy

I'm an AMC volunteer at Three Mile Island Camp who for more than 10 years has been the direct AMC/TMI liaison with the trust representative. I have a copy of the written agreement, as do the trust representative and the appropriate AMC staff, including the management team on Three Mile Island. My previous post provided clarity and full transparency. What more do you need? As you have pointed out, there are "signs posted all over the Island" stating PRIVATE PROPERTY - NO TRESPASSING. How can it be any clearer? The written use agreement, similar to a lease or rental agreement, isn't something that would normally be made available for public inspection. It's a private agreement between two parties. It isn't filed at the Carroll County Registry of Deeds, but you can certainly easily verify the ownership of Blueberry Island by doing an online search at the registry's website. Use the search term "Priscilla Lodge Blueberry Island Trust." You can do a title history search if you like. Ancestors of the Anderson, North and Gray families have had an ownership interest in Blueberry Island going back to the 1800s.

Thank you for this.

There was a thread similar to this on the iBoat Facebook page a couple weeks ago, and I. Just. Don't. Understand.

My MO is if it's not clearly public, or if explicit permission hasn't been given, stay off.

I know NH law says different, but, as I said on that thread, I draw a clear line between legality and courtesy.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

Thank you for this.

There was a thread similar to this on the iBoat Facebook page a couple weeks ago, and I. Just. Don't. Understand.

My MO is if it's not clearly public, or if explicit permission hasn't been given, stay off.

I know NH law says different, but, as I said on that thread, I draw a clear line between legality and courtesy.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

I am not aware of any part of New Hampshire law that allows for unfettered public access, even for recreational purposes, to private property when the property owner has explicitly told the public by means of posted signs stating "Private Property - Keep Off - No Trespassing" or something similar that such use is not welcome. Otherwise, what's the point of owning real property if the owner has certain burdens of ownership (property taxes, maybe insurance and costs of upkeep) but can't enjoy the benefit of personal, private use? If I have this wrong, I hope someone will chime in with a reference to an applicable statute.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by P-3 Guy

I am not aware of any part of New Hampshire law that allows for unfettered public access, even for recreational purposes, to private property when the property owner has explicitly told the public by means of posted signs stating "Private Property - Keep Off - No Trespassing" or something similar that such use is not welcome. Otherwise, what's the point of owning real property if the owner has certain burdens of ownership (property taxes, maybe insurance and costs of upkeep) but can't enjoy the benefit of personal, private use? If I have this wrong, I hope someone will chime in with a reference to an applicable statute.

Maybe I wasn't clear: NH common law (link below) allows public use of private land unless appropriately posted.

My point was that people should assume all land is owned/private even if not posted.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...fgfNsiWnKZvwxH

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

Maybe I wasn't clear: NH common law (link below) allows public use of private land unless appropriately posted.

My point was that people should assume all land is owned/private even if not posted.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...fgfNsiWnKZvwxH

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

Understood, and thank you. Should there be any debate about whether or not Blueberry Island is appropriately posted? An effort is definitely made, but it's not uncommon for signs to be ripped down. ("Signs? What signs?")

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by P-3 Guy

Understood, and thank you. Should there be any debate about whether or not Blueberry Island is appropriately posted? An effort is definitely made, but it's not uncommon for signs to be ripped down. ("Signs? What signs?")

Every time I've been to Blueberry, it's been CLEARLY posted. It's only a few times a summer, though, so I can't attest to 100% of the time.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

[Randardo]

Signage and language to the effect of…. Would go a long way to clarifying for all.

Private Property, off limits to Winnipesaukee boaters… No Trespassing with the exception of AMC Staff and guests residing at Three Mile Island per cooperation between Blueberry Island Owners and the AMC.

[tis]

I'm sorry, but this really irritates me. Even if somebody doesn't have signs, it's pretty obvious SOMEBODY owns an island or any land and what makes people think they have a right to use other people's property????? I just don't get this entitlement mentality.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tis

I'm sorry, but this really irritates me. Even if somebody doesn't have signs, it's pretty obvious SOMEBODY owns an island or any land and what makes people think they have a right to use other people's property????? I just don't get this entitlement mentality.

That would be State law enshrining a tradition that dates back to colonial times.
I must post my property legally against trespass or it is considered open to non-motorized use trespass. Or I have the option of fencing my entire property... a rather expensive option.

RSA 635:4 defines the legally requirements of posting property.

The other question would be the property tax classification of the island. If the island was in a Current Use II status... very hard to post, as hunting/fishing/scouting has to be allowed with some reasonable exceptions.

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

That would be State law enshrining a tradition that dates back to colonial times.
I must post my property legally against trespass or it is considered open to non-motorized use trespass. Or I have the option of fencing my entire property... a rather expensive option.

RSA 635:4 defines the legally requirements of posting property.

The other question would be the property tax classification of the island. If the island was in a Current Use II status... very hard to post, as hunting/fishing/scouting has to be allowed with some reasonable exceptions.

The island isn't big enough to qualify for current use.

[Randardo]

Keep drinking the AMC Flavor-Aid Brother, congrats on 10 years, hope you got a cool t-shirt!

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by Randardo

Keep drinking the AMC Flavor-Aid Brother, congrats on 10 years, hope you got a cool t-shirt!

Don't you worry; what I get for what I do is much better than a t-shirt.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Randardo

Signage and language to the effect of…. Would go a long way to clarifying for all.

Private Property, off limits to Winnipesaukee boaters… No Trespassing with the exception of AMC Staff and guests residing at Three Mile Island per cooperation between Blueberry Island Owners and the AMC.

Oh please. This is America--no one owes you an explanation for their private property.

[Randardo]

PRIVATE PROPERTY
AMC
Appalachian Mountain Club

Private Property Define:

Private property refers to the ownership of property by private parties - essentially anyone or anything other than the government. Private property may consist of real estate, buildings, objects, intellectual property (copyright, patent, trademark, and trade secrets).

This sign alone makes my point, it "appears" to the layman that Blueberry Island is "owned" by the AMC....

This is getting more and more entertaining!

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by Randardo

Signage and language to the effect of…. Would go a long way to clarifying for all.

Private Property, off limits to Winnipesaukee boaters… No Trespassing with the exception of AMC Staff and guests residing at Three Mile Island per cooperation between Blueberry Island Owners and the AMC.

It's been clarified for you. Three Mile Island Camp staff and guests know that they are allowed to use Blueberry Island under an agreement with the owners. If you are not in either of these groups, the numerous signs clearly tell you that you need to stay off the island, and this is all you really need to know. I have given you the courtesy of a full explanation as to how things work, which is more than you are entitled to. Thank you for respecting the wishes of the Blueberry Island owners by staying off the island.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by P-3 Guy

It's been clarified for you. Three Mile Island Camp staff and guests know that they are allowed to use Blueberry Island under an agreement with the owners. If you are not in either of these groups, the numerous signs clearly tell you that you need to stay off the island, and this is all you really need to know. I have given you the courtesy of a full explanation as to how things work, which is more than you are entitled to. Thank you for respecting the wishes of the Blueberry Island owners by staying off the island.

Actually the statement ''Private Property'' does not legally qualify under the statute.
While the written agreement provides the AMC with some management authority over the property, the signage is less than required by statute. RSA 635:4 is pretty specific in that it must state what is not allowed - such as ''No Trespass without the written permission of the AMC".
The SFPNHF has some pretty distinct signage used around their properties, and those they manage, along with even more explicit signage at what would constitute a natural point of entry.

The statute is very hard to prosecute... and an island probably would make it worse... since the "first" offense is seldom even bothered to be ticketed with the violation.

I have found over the years that there will always be that certain percentage of the population that will push the limit beyond common courtesy... which is why we probably have a statute in the first place. Those will be the ones that you'll have an issue with.

[Randardo]

So why bother posting anything and instead allow any and all to use the island? The AMC goes through such trouble to make the property "exclusive" to their guests, gosh it's like we're at a resort.

I've asked all along for the AMC to clearly define the rules, simple request as I see it.

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Actually the statement ''Private Property'' does not legally qualify under the statute.
While the written agreement provides the AMC with some management authority over the property, the signage is less than required by statute. RSA 635:4 is pretty specific in that it must state what is not allowed - such as ''No Trespass without the written permission of the AMC".
The SFPNHF has some pretty distinct signage used around their properties, and those they manage, along with even more explicit signage at what would constitute a natural point of entry.

The statute is very hard to prosecute... and an island probably would make it worse... since the "first" offense is seldom even bothered to be ticketed with the violation.

I have found over the years that there will always be that certain percentage of the population that will push the limit beyond common courtesy... which is why we probably have a statute in the first place. Those will be the ones that you'll have an issue with.

You don't know what the full written agreement does (or does not) provide.

The AMC cannot grant island use privileges to third parties.

[John Mercier]

I didn't say I did.
I stated the sign is not a legal posting according to the statute.

It does not define what is prohibited.
It simply states that it is Private Property.
The statute is specific in that the sign must state what is prohibited.
And must include the owner/manager and their address.

[Randardo]

Precisely! NO ONE KNOWS what the agreement says save for the AMC, good heavens we're flirting with ignorance, arrogance, and stupidity.

Why the secret???? Exactly what I asked of Tracy Pizzo who completely dismissed and deflected my questions today... She added the most ignorant and uninformed statement ever... "I've never been out to Blueberry Island, but I know there aren't any issues out there"

Let everyone know what the agreement says and post signs accordingly.

Glad the AMC is taking care of you P-3!

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by Randardo

Precisely! NO ONE KNOWS what the agreement says save for the AMC, good heavens we're flirting with ignorance, arrogance, and stupidity.

Why the secret???? Exactly what I asked of Tracy Pizzo who completely dismissed and deflected my questions today... She added the most ignorant and uninformed statement ever... "I've never been out to Blueberry Island, but I know there aren't any issues out there"

Let everyone know what the agreement says and post signs accordingly.

Glad the AMC is taking care of you P-3!

Why are you pushing this? It's PRIVATE PROPERTY and you don't have permission to use it.

If you want permission to use it, become a Three Mile Island worker or guest.

Otherwise, YOU'RE exactly why so many private properties are no longer accessible by the public—no different than a snowmobiler bypassing closed gates, a mountain biker ignoring trail closed signs, kayakers using an island property for a bathroom, etc.

In fact, in your original letter, even YOU recognize that—even with clear signage—people are still leaving trash, damaging flora, etc.

I really don't understand what you're trying to do here.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

[fatlazyless]

I recall from an old Winnipesaukee Forum thread on Three Mile Island, maybe ten or fifteen years ago, it was said that Three Mile Island and a couple small adjoining islands owned by A.M.C. were in current use and paid the town an agreed $20,000./year as a property tax payment for land and buildings for their three(?) islands.

Renaming the Appalachian Mountain Club to be the Appalachian Money Club by Appalachian Trail thru-hikers as they hike through the White Mountain National Forest is a comment sometimes heard on the trail.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

Why are you pushing this? It's PRIVATE PROPERTY and you don't have permission to use it.

If you want permission to use it, become a Three Mile Island worker or guest.

Otherwise, YOU'RE exactly why so many private properties are no longer accessible by the public—no different than a snowmobiler bypassing closed gates, a mountain biker ignoring trail closed signs, kayakers using an island property for a bathroom, etc.

In fact, in your original letter, even YOU recognize that—even with clear signage—people are still leaving trash, damaging flora, etc.

I really don't understand what you're trying to do here.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

Actually... in your example.

The snowmobiler and mountain biker trails as described would be legally prohibited under the RSA 635:4 because of the gate and the posting that the trail is closed. They could be cited for a trespass violation.

The kayakers, though not very well-mannered, didn't violate any law... unless the property was legally posted against trespass.

As property owners, it is our responsibility under the law to follow the law as to our intent. We must fence/gate or legally post the prohibition with our name and address.

If they change the sign to meet the legal requirement, LEOs would be able to cite the violation. Without that, someone authorized must verbally inform anyone to enters the property that they must leave... and should they want to press charges need to contact an LEO immediately. The LEO can only act when they witness the trespass.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Actually... in your example.


The snowmobiler and mountain biker trails as described would be legally prohibited under the RSA 635:4 because of the gate and the posting that the trail is closed. They could be cited for a trespass violation.

The kayakers, though not very well-mannered, didn't violate any law... unless the property was legally posted against trespass.

As property owners, it is our responsibility under the law to follow the law as to our intent. We must fence/gate or legally post the prohibition with our name and address.

If they change the sign to meet the legal requirement, LEOs would be able to cite the violation. Without that, someone authorized must verbally inform anyone to enters the property that they must leave... and should they want to press charges need to contact an LEO immediately. The LEO can only act when they witness the trespass.

Yes, John, we get the semantics.

My point is the line between courtesy and legality and why the OP feels he deserves an explanation.

Clearly the owners of Blueberry want people to stay off their property unless given explicit permission as evidenced by the posted signs.

Evidence of why—damage, trash, etc.—has been given.

Whether or not those signs meet the legal requirements should not matter—the intentions are clear, so people should stay out.

My additional belief is that, even without signs, people should assume landowners don't want strangers on their land.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

As property owners, it is our responsibility under the law to follow the law as to our intent. We must fence/gate or legally post the prohibition with our name and address.

If they change the sign to meet the legal requirement, LEOs would be able to cite the violation. Without that, someone authorized must verbally inform anyone to enters the property that they must leave... and should they want to press charges need to contact an LEO immediately. The LEO can only act when they witness the trespass.

Sure, but there is no law requiring them to post anything. If they decide to post then people can be prosecuted, but that is the owner's/AMC's prerogative, not responsibility. This whole idea that the owners or the AMC (also private, BTW) owes anybody anything in this case is some kind of weird socialist BS.

Plus, John, I'm doubly pissed with you--you're supposed to be the conservative, and I'm supposed to be the liberal, haha

[tummyman]

Folks...STOP replies to this thread. All it does is fuel more nonsense from the original OP. He got his answer more than once. Why debate or respond? He apparently has a problem that cannot be solved with respect for others property. And let's not all play lawyer with what signs can or cannot be used. ENOUGH !!!! Just let him go away. The more people respond, the more this goes on and on. Surely there are more important things to do than debate nonsense. Just my opinion....from now on, this thread is not worthy of my time and it should be likewise to others.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by tummyman

Folks...STOP replies to this thread. All it does is fuel more nonsense from the original OP. He got his answer more than once. Why debate or respond? He apparently has a problem that cannot be solved with respect for others property. And let's not all play lawyer with what signs can or cannot be used. ENOUGH !!!! Just let him go away. The more people respond, the more this goes on and on. Surely there are more important things to do than debate nonsense. Just my opinion....from now on, this thread is not worthy of my time and it should be likewise to others.

Thanks for the nudge—you're totally right.

Have a great day, friends!

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

[Randardo]

Yep, too exhausting for me as well, I'll go away as well! See you on the lake!
Randy

[ApS]

Originally Posted by tummyman

Folks...STOP replies to this thread. All it does is fuel more nonsense from the original OP. He got his answer more than once. Why debate or respond? He apparently has a problem that cannot be solved with respect for others property. And let's not all play lawyer with what signs can or cannot be used. ENOUGH !!!! Just let him go away. The more people respond, the more this goes on and on. Surely there are more important things to do than debate nonsense. Just my opinion....from now on, this thread is not worthy of my time and it should be likewise to others.

Just shut up?

[longislander]

In agreement with Tummyman.

However, a comment on the statements regarding the legal issue of postings etc.

"Trespassing" is not just about "posting"; cf. Title 635: UNAUTHORIZED ENTRIES, especially RSA 635:2 I. A person is guilty of criminal trespass if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place.

https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa.../635/635-2.htm

https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa.../635/635-4.htm

https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa...C-LXII-635.htm

Hopefully this won't trigger another long debate, on how to define trespass.

[Winilyme]

Originally Posted by tummyman

Folks...STOP replies to this thread. All it does is fuel more nonsense from the original OP. He got his answer more than once. Why debate or respond? He apparently has a problem that cannot be solved with respect for others property. And let's not all play lawyer with what signs can or cannot be used. ENOUGH !!!! Just let him go away. The more people respond, the more this goes on and on. Surely there are more important things to do than debate nonsense. Just my opinion....from now on, this thread is not worthy of my time and it should be likewise to others.

But this wouldn’t be a proper forum post if it didn’t eventually devolve into some form of bickering.

[John Mercier]

Because none of them ever look at the history of posting and the outcomes.

The farmer on the Rockingham Recreational trail, that decided ''Private Property'' as enough. But now has a felony on his record.

Even more recent and local, Ward Bird that was sure he was innocent... until he was prosecute, found guilty by 12 residents, and sentenced with a felony.
If it wasn't for a ''liberal'' Governor; he would have sat in prison for years.

They don't even consider the recent attempt to lower the standards for legal posting... that has the support of private property owners everywhere.

Heck, if no one question the posting of my woodlot, I would have never known that my neighbor took it upon himself to make that decision without any authority whatsoever.

Legal posting as prescribed tends to end the question.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

Sure, but there is no law requiring them to post anything. If they decide to post then people can be prosecuted, but that is the owner's/AMC's prerogative, not responsibility. This whole idea that the owners or the AMC (also private, BTW) owes anybody anything in this case is some kind of weird socialist BS.

Plus, John, I'm doubly pissed with you--you're supposed to be the conservative, and I'm supposed to be the liberal, haha

It is tradition dating back to the 1600s. Socialism wouldn't even really be a thing for 200 years after that. And it is considered conservative to retain tradition, which is why the law is as it is.

The AMC doesn't get a special set of statutes differing from other landowners. They just now feel the heat of population that farmers have felt for decades.

All attempts to change the posting rule have failed, except for motorized use... which prior to about 2003 was open anywhere that it was not posted prohibited.
That change was a pressure on snowmobiles losing dominance.