Trespassing

[54fighting]

Will the police respond to trespassing on a posted vacant lot to access the water or do they view it as a civil matter (no breaking and entry, no damage)?

[burgerunh]

If your land is properly posted per state law they should respond. A first offense probably only warrants a warning.

[54fighting]

Thanks.

There is a “no trespassing sign” hanging on a locked, heavy metal chain that spans the access point that they are using. There is also a “security camera in use” sign. Either they don’t believe the camera sign or they don’t care having they’re pic taken. They don’t seem to have much interest in the concept of private property (other than perhaps their own).

[camp guy]

I think this question needs to be addressed, in person, directly to the police department of your Town. The Forum is not an enforcement agency, and is not, probably, an authority on the trespassing laws and enforcement policies of the local Towns.

[Woodsy]

If the property is posted properly, the PD will get involved. It will not be their highest priority and if they figure out who it is, don't expect them to receive much more than a stern talking to... Of course once that happens, it could escalate.

Woodsy

[longislander]

Opeartive word: criminal.


"Under New Hampshire Law RSA 635:2, someone has committed criminal trespass if they know they are not licensed or privileged to be in a place, or if they remain in a place after being told to leave."

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

https://www.tennandtenn.com/criminal...%20misdemeanor.

[54fighting]

Originally Posted by camp guy

I think this question needs to be addressed, in person, directly to the police department of your Town. The Forum is not an enforcement agency, and is not, probably, an authority on the trespassing laws and enforcement policies of the local Towns.

It will be and was; just wondering if anyone had personal experience. That’s all I’m ever looking for here; it’s just a starting point. I would always confirm anything I heard on a general discussion forum.

[54fighting]

Originally Posted by ITD

Don't know how this post ended up in this thread, it was for the Verizon tree thread, lol.

The trespassing issue is a tough one. I think the best way to handle it is to talk to them, then call the cops while you are there.

I think it’s pretty cut and dry. If I were there, I would handle it directly and that would be the end of it. They know I’m not so they take advantage. I’m not expecting much. I think most people, even those who are willing to ignore a sign, would no longer do it if they were caught doing it.

[longislander]

VI. In this section, "property," "property of another," and "value" shall be as defined in RSA 637:2, I, IV, and V, respectively.

RSA 637:2 Definitions. –

https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa.../637/637-2.htm

[ITD]

Originally Posted by 54fighting

I think it’s pretty cut and dry. If I were there, I would handle it directly and that would be the end of it. They know I’m not so they take advantage. I’m not expecting much. I think most people, even those who are willing to ignore a sign, would no longer do it if they were caught doing it.

Sorry you have to deal with this, there are a lot of entitled people out there. I don't know where your property is but the Moultonboro police are very responsive and would probably get right over to give them a talking to.

[BroadHopper]

As discussed, the property must be posted No trespassing.

If there is any vandalism or destruction of property police will definitely take notice otherwise they will take it under advisement.

[54fighting]

Originally Posted by ITD

Sorry you have to deal with this, there are a lot of entitled people out there. I don't know where your property is but the Moultonboro police are very responsive and would probably get right over to give them a talking to.

Thanks. I didn’t want to bug the police if this wasn’t something they would want to address. I certainly wouldn’t involve them if I were there to address it myself. I know they have better things to do. Some people have told me I shouldn’t care if I’m not there and not using it. But I paid for the property, and I pay the taxes. And I’m not interested in encouraging this or encountering it when I am there. More importantly, this is something I would never do. It seems fundamental; I don’t take or use something that does belong to me. Anyway, the police were responsive, so I appreciate that.

[TheProfessor]

There are a multitude of cameras that are used to collect pictures of wildlife.

LINK

Resolution varies. One that can catch a license plate would be of help.

Even these with proper signs might help. LINK

[Susie Cougar]

Originally Posted by 54fighting

Thanks. I didn’t want to bug the police if this wasn’t something they would want to address. I certainly wouldn’t involve them if I were there to address it myself. I know they have better things to do. Some people have told me I shouldn’t care if I’m not there and not using it. But I paid for the property, and I pay the taxes. And I’m not interested in encouraging this or encountering it when I am there. More importantly, this is something I would never do. It seems fundamental; I don’t take or use something that does belong to me. Anyway, the police were responsive, so I appreciate that.

What are they actually doing on your land? If there is a chain blocking the entrance, how do they get in? Are they using your land to access the lake?
Is this a regular, every day thing? Is there not a public area nearby that gives them access to the lake?

I’m sorry you are going through this and I hope this is not the new norm.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

If these entitled people who think nothing of trespassing on property that isn’t theirs should become injured while trespassing, do you think they will think twice about suing you? Now think carefully…….

[54fighting]

Originally Posted by Susie Cougar

What are they actually doing on your land? If there is a chain blocking the entrance, how do they get in? Are they using your land to access the lake?
Is this a regular, every day thing? Is there not a public area nearby that gives them access to the lake?

I’m sorry you are going through this and I hope this is not the new norm.

They park on the road and duck under the chain. It’s not an every day thing, but literally as I’m typing this my trail cam is showing them there again. It’s to access the lake. I don’t know if there is a public access point nearby, but it’s not my obligation, among all of the owners on the lake, to provide access. The irritating thing is this - if they had taken the time and effort to find out who I was and asked I probably would have said ok. But that ship has sailed.

[54fighting]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

If these entitled people who think nothing of trespassing on property that isn’t theirs should become injured while trespassing, do you think they will think twice about suing you? Now think carefully…….

NH is strong in this regard. State statutes provide that anyone accessing your property, with or without permission, has no claim against the property owner.

[camp guy]

...until the injured party hires a lawyer specializing in injury claims.

[Descant]

I know this is troubling to the OP, but I can't help wondering about some things. For example, is it a driveway, or as is not uncommon, a class VI road where it is illegal to block? Do the trespassers have permission from a previous owner? Is adverse possession for lake access possible, etc.
It would seem to me that the chain going up and down is an obvious indicator that nobody is home.

To the OP: Where's "your guy"? Most people have a "guy" who watches the place when it is vacant to be sure it doesn't freeze up, or a tree fall into the living room, or shovel the roof, etc. while nobody is there, etc. Maybe the guy who plows? You do keep the access open so fire apparatus can get in, right? (if not, does your insurance co know?) BTW, for the posters above, if some trespasser sues you, your insurance carrier provides defense costs. No charge to you.

If you've gone to the expense of trail cams, there's an opportunity for some fun here. It shouldn't take much to add a speaker/microphone so that you can talk to the trespassers on camera from your cell phone. Scare their pants off. Double it and make your signal cannon remote controlled. You only get one shot, but still fun.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Descant

I know this is troubling to the OP, but I can't help wondering about some things. For example, is it a driveway, or as is not uncommon, a class VI road where it is illegal to block? Do the trespassers have permission from a previous owner? Is adverse possession for lake access possible, etc.
It would seem to me that the chain going up and down is an obvious indicator that nobody is home.

To the OP: Where's "your guy"? Most people have a "guy" who watches the place when it is vacant to be sure it doesn't freeze up, or a tree fall into the living room, or shovel the roof, etc. while nobody is there, etc. Maybe the guy who plows? You do keep the access open so fire apparatus can get in, right? (if not, does your insurance co know?) BTW, for the posters above, if some trespasser sues you, your insurance carrier provides defense costs. No charge to you.

If you've gone to the expense of trail cams, there's an opportunity for some fun here. It shouldn't take much to add a speaker/microphone so that you can talk to the trespassers on camera from your cell phone. Scare their pants off. Double it and make your signal cannon remote controlled. You only get one shot, but still fun.

Vacant lot.

[Descant]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Vacant lot.

I wish post #20 had been post #2.

[54fighting]

Originally Posted by Descant

I know this is troubling to the OP, but I can't help wondering about some things. For example, is it a driveway, or as is not uncommon, a class VI road where it is illegal to block? Do the trespassers have permission from a previous owner? Is adverse possession for lake access possible, etc.
It would seem to me that the chain going up and down is an obvious indicator that nobody is home.

To the OP: Where's "your guy"? Most people have a "guy" who watches the place when it is vacant to be sure it doesn't freeze up, or a tree fall into the living room, or shovel the roof, etc. while nobody is there, etc. Maybe the guy who plows? You do keep the access open so fire apparatus can get in, right? (if not, does your insurance co know?) BTW, for the posters above, if some trespasser sues you, your insurance carrier provides defense costs. No charge to you.

If you've gone to the expense of trail cams, there's an opportunity for some fun here. It shouldn't take much to add a speaker/microphone so that you can talk to the trespassers on camera from your cell phone. Scare their pants off. Double it and make your signal cannon remote controlled. You only get one shot, but still fun.

None of this is applicable.

If anyone is interested:

Landowner Liability Law (RSA 508:14) and Duty of Care Law (RSA 212:34).

From NH Fish & Game

“If someone uses your land for outdoor recreational activities and they get hurt on your property, you assume no responsibility or incur no liability. You are protected whether or not you give permission to use the land, and whether or not you sign your land as “No Trespassing”.

There are a few situations where you are not protected. These include charging a fee for entering the property to recreate, maliciously failing to warn against a dangerous condition, and intentionally hurting the recreational user.”

These are among the strongest landowner protection laws I have seen.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Descant

I wish post #20 had been post #2.

I got the information from post #1.

[longislander]

These are among the strongest landowner protection laws I have seen.

I'm not attorney, but they are based on the landowner "allowing" the use of the propery, for recreational use or otherwise. Does not seem to be the crux of this thread...

Another great NH statute to protect landowners is RSA 79-A:1 (Current Use) that also provides property tax benefits, that some of us enjoy. (note, 10 acres etc.). It really makes a difference to my taxes in MoBo.

https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa...9-A/79-A-1.htm

[54fighting]

Originally Posted by longislander

I'm not attorney, but they are based on the landowner "allowing" the use of the propery, for recreational use or otherwise. Does not seem to be the crux of this thread...

Another great NH statute to protect landowners is RSA 79-A:1 (Current Use) that also provides property tax benefits, that some of us enjoy. (note, 10 acres etc.). It really makes a difference to my taxes in MoBo.

https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa...9-A/79-A-1.htm

The statutes specifically reference trespassing and the possibility of dangerous conditions. The potential for liability was mentioned a few times, so the cite seemed relevant. FWIW, if you take your property out of current use you are required to make a one time payment of 10% of the current value of the property.

[longislander]

The statutes specifically reference trespassing ...

Landowner Liability Law (RSA 508:14) and Duty of Care Law (RSA 212:34).

Where?

https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa...508/508-14.htm

https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa...212/212-34.htm

Lawyers:
"Under New Hampshire Law RSA 635:2, someone has committed criminal trespass if they know they are not licensed or privileged to be in a place, or if they remain in a place after being told to leave. A first offense is a misdemeanor."

https://www.tennandtenn.com/criminal...%20misdemeanor.

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

FWIW, if you take your property out of current use you are required to make a one time payment of 10% of the current value of the property.

Was, and am fully aware of the info, and do believe it is worth your commenting: "... land must be 10 or more acres, and must be a forest, farm, or unproductive land."

https://www.revenue.nh.gov/current-use/booklets.htm

When I bought my 34 acres in 2017 the tax bill was $24. Subsequently took 2 acres out of current use for the house build and driveway. Yes, I did pay the 10% ... no problem! Still enjoying the other 32 acrres at current use and also enjoy the land value appreciation. I've subsequently subdivided the 34 acres into two lots: 13 acres and 21 acres. The 13 acres is in trust to my son, and the 21 acres are still enjoying "current use" (except fot the two acres for the house and driveway).

I should change my forum name to MoBONecker!

[54fighting]

Originally Posted by longislander

The statutes specifically reference trespassing ...

Where?

https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa...508/508-14.htm

https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa...212/212-34.htm

Lawyers:
"Under New Hampshire Law RSA 635:2, someone has committed criminal trespass if they know they are not licensed or privileged to be in a place, or if they remain in a place after being told to leave. A first offense is a misdemeanor."

https://www.tennandtenn.com/criminal...%20misdemeanor.

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

Was, and am fully aware of the info, and do believe it is worth your commenting: "... land must be 10 or more acres, and must be a forest, farm, or unproductive land."

https://www.revenue.nh.gov/current-use/booklets.htm

When I bought my 34 acres in 2017 the tax bill was $24. Subsequently took 2 acres out of current use for the house build and driveway. Yes, I did pay the 10% ... no problem! Still enjoying the other 32 acrres at current use and also enjoy the land value appreciation. I've subsequently subdivided the 34 acres into two lots: 13 acres and 21 acres. The 13 acres is in trust to my son, and the 21 acres are still enjoying "current use" (except fot the two acres for the house and driveway).

I should change my forum name to MoBONecker!

I’m wrong. There is no specific reference to trespassing in the statute. This is the interpretation of NH Fish & Wildlife. Whether this is based on case law interpreting the statutes or common sense or both I do not know; it is difficult to imagine a scenario where, under the same circumstances, liability could exist to a trespasser where none exists to a permittee.

I didn’t mean to suggest that you were unaware of this aspect of the current use law. However, since you chose to highlight the advantage of the law (presumably with the intent of enlightening others less knowledgeable) it seemed appropriate to mention the potential disadvantage.

[John Mercier]

It doesn't make a difference. There have been attempts to circumvent it. But they failed in court.

A horseback rider trying to sue a landowner, and failing, led to Lyndeborough vs Boisvert.

The closest I have heard of was the chain across the access point that killed a snowmobiler. We now suggest adding a piece of 4" pvc pipe painted/draped in bright orange. With the trespass sign(s) legally posted to the trees/posts that the chain/cable runs across.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Without running this topic even more into the ditch, I sincerely hope that this can be resolved for you. It’s pathetic that some people seem to feel that it’s their right to use what isn’t theirs. Something like this can very easily turn confrontational, even violent. I hope that doesn’t happen here. Anyhow, good luck with it.

[54fighting]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

Without running this topic even more into the ditch, I sincerely hope that this can be resolved for you. It’s pathetic that some people seem to feel that it’s their right to use what isn’t theirs. Something like this can very easily turn confrontational, even violent. I hope that doesn’t happen here. Anyhow, good luck with it.

Thanks. I’m not sure how or why the thread swerved into a property tax discussion, but I’m sure the matter will be resolved peacefully.

[Susie Cougar]

I’m just wondering. Are you a new property owner? Has your land been used in the past? Could it be that they had permission to use it from someone before you? It just seems so odd.

[54fighting]

Originally Posted by Susie Cougar

I’m just wondering. Are you a new property owner? Has your land been used in the past? Could it be that they had permission to use it from someone before you? It just seems so odd.

Not a new owner, no prior permission and this is not one individual. Started seeing indications during the pandemic so I put up trail cams. I don’t think anyone would walk down the driveway of a vacant home or dock their boat and come ashore in that case. This is a different situation. It’s a vacant lot with visible and convenient access to the water, with what may have been perceived to be a low risk of detection. If you couple those circumstances with a certain mindset maybe it’s not so odd.

[TheProfessor]

Originally Posted by 54fighting

Will the police respond to trespassing on a posted vacant lot to access the water or do they view it as a civil matter (no breaking and entry, no damage)?

What specifically makes you believe that trespassing is going on?

[ITD]

Originally Posted by 54fighting

Not a new owner, no prior permission and this is not one individual. Started seeing indications during the pandemic so I put up trail cams. I don’t think anyone would walk down the driveway of a vacant home or dock their boat and come ashore in that case. This is a different situation. It’s a vacant lot with visible and convenient access to the water, with what may have been perceived to be a low risk of detection. If you couple those circumstances with a certain mindset maybe it’s not so odd.

Unfortunately that's what happens, one person discovers it, then brings a friend who brings a friend and so on. You are right to nip it in the bud.

[SAB1]

Here’s my take. If the land is not legally posted and there is just a sign hanging on a chain across the road I think alot of people perceive it as trying to stop illegal dumping and not an occasional walker passing thru. Not saying that’s right. I also think some people, including those that may live near, think it’s fine to pass thru and the sign is meant to keep the riff raff away.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by TheProfessor

What specifically makes you believe that trespassing is going on?

Gotta read the posts Professor

[54fighting]

Originally Posted by SAB1

Here’s my take. If the land is not legally posted and there is just a sign hanging on a chain across the road I think alot of people perceive it as trying to stop illegal dumping and not an occasional walker passing thru. Not saying that’s right. I also think some people, including those that may live near, think it’s fine to pass thru and the sign is meant to keep the riff raff away.

I appreciate the responses but it’s probably time to sunset this thread.

I’d like to be clear; although I object to what these people are doing I don’t consider them to be riff raff or somehow less than. I would not look at a private property, no trespassing sign and think, since this sign does not satisfy all of the statutory requirements for posting it is simply intended to discourage illegal dumping (when would a sign ever be sufficient for that purpose?) and does not apply to me as I am not riff raff. This is a pretty simple concept. Private property belongs to another, and confirm rather than assume that explicit signage does not apply to you.

[John Mercier]

Once it is legally posted (and the legal requirement is there to help enforcement), for someone to pass the sign onto the property legally requires written permission on that person specifically from the posted landowner.

[TheProfessor]

Originally Posted by ITD

Gotta read the posts Professor

Did.

Apparently. Either someone is going swimming or ice fishing.

Is there more to it than that?

[Susie Cougar]

Why does there need to be more than that? Many people are using his land to get to the water and that is just not right.

It is so frustrating when somebody uses your property without permission. If it were me, I would try to get up there and address the problem in person before it gets any worse.

Many, many years ago, we had a problem with people using a large piece of property for their own personal dump. We couldn’t figure out who was going there and they never left anything with a name on it so we could track them down. But, they got very brazen when they replaced all the carpeting in their home and threw the old onto our property. My father was livid. We drove around the area for days trying to figure out who might’ve had some work done on their house recently. We finally found them and walked right up to the door and confronted them. Probably not the best thing to do. but, they were extremely embarrassed and cleaned up their mess and we never had a problem again.

[thinkxingu]

I never understand some of the comments on these private property threads and how far some people will go to rationalize trespasser behavior.

We need a simple flowchart, like this one I just whipped up for y'all.

Sent from my SM-G990U1 using Tapatalk

[John Mercier]

Your flowchart under is it posted - yes - would need a ''Do you have written permission to be on it?''.

I can post my property and give written permission for access.
I even see hunters that have taken classes on this not realize that land post against hunting can be hunted with written landowner permission.

I know landowners that have property with a powerline easement that do not realize they can post against trespass on that... as only the power company has the right of way... no other users. Nor can, or will, the power company convey access to others.

Same goes for land in CU. I does not convey access. CU II conveys only access for hunting, fishing, and scouting (hiking) - no other uses - and can be restricted within confined boundaries.

[SAB1]

Flow chart is not correct. Is it posted ---No ---Stay off.

Not applicable. Unposted land is fine to roam for nonowners.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Your flowchart under is it posted - yes - would need a ''Do you have written permission to be on it?''.

I can post my property and give written permission for access.
I even see hunters that have taken classes on this not realize that land post against hunting can be hunted with written landowner permission.

I know landowners that have property with a powerline easement that do not realize they can post against trespass on that... as only the power company has the right of way... no other users. Nor can, or will, the power company convey access to others.

Same goes for land in CU. I does not convey access. CU II conveys only access for hunting, fishing, and scouting (hiking) - no other uses - and can be restricted within confined boundaries.

John, my man, I made that in 11 minutes at the end of a (long) school day. It's conceptual and summarizes the main point.

Sent from my SM-G990U1 using Tapatalk

[Susie Cougar]

Originally Posted by SAB1

Flow chart is not correct. Is it posted ---No ---Stay off.

Not applicable. Unposted land is fine to roam for nonowners.

Maybe you are the one that’s doing the trespassing. I don’t see any other explanation for why you would think it’s OK.

[SAB1]

No. If the land isn’t posted you can certainly go on it. People are always hiking, scouting, hunting, fishing, snowshoeing etc land in the woods.

[54fighting]

Originally Posted by Susie Cougar

Maybe you are the one that’s doing the trespassing. I don’t see any other explanation for why you would think it’s OK.

Since the thread refuses to die . . .

SAB1 is not wrong, although NH Fish & Wildlife states that common courtesy dictates that permission be requested where the land is not posted.

It’s an odd crossroads for a conservative leaning state like NH; respect for private property rights and a tradition of outdoor recreational activities. The law places the onus on the property owner. Some of the posting requirements seem odd (name and address of property owner) but the law seems to accept a good faith attempt to post or where it has been made clear to the individual that access is not allowed.

I may be wrong, but I don’t think the posting requirement is limited by property size or the nature of the property. If so and SAB1 has not posted their land, as SAB1 says you are free to roam over their property. Enjoy!

[John Mercier]

Not really.
Hunting and fishing were a means of sustenance at the time... and fish/game a common ownership.

Our other outdoor recreational activities are modern... and really not characteristic of a conservative-leaning populous.

Posting is not limited by the size of a property... but smaller properties use other means to denote the restriction. ''Secured premises'' being the most noted.
It is consider wrong, possibly criminal, to climb over closed fences and gates.

Your posting with the chain should be sufficient enough for anyone paying attention to realize that you do not wish them there. The name and address requirement is so that someone wishing to access the property, but respect your wishes, can write to you and request written permission that would be valid for law enforcement to determine that you have allowed them there.

[tis]

I just don't understand people. Why would you ever think it's ok to go on somebody else's land???

[ishoot308]

“Common law in New Hampshire gives the public the right of access to land that's not posted.”

With that being said, the intent here is more for larger parcels of land used for outdoor recreation such as hunting, hiking, snowshoeing, etc, etc. To walk down someone’s access road / driveway that has a chain and posted sign is not legal and disrespectful. Pretty simple….

Dan

[Major]

I am having flashbacks on our discussion in "Trespassers on Bear." It begins and ends with respect for another's property. Being legally or technically right does not make it right to enter on someone else's property without a legitimate purpose. I am not a hunter, so perhaps there are customs and courtesies with respect to hunting on another's property that I know nothing about. However, for nearly all other circumstances, respect and reasonableness should dictate whether the person has a right to be on someone else's property. As I said, having a legal right to do something doesn't necessarily mean it is the right thing to do.

[Descant]

Access, as pointed out above is an historical practice. Sustenance. The deer I'm tracking or the fish I'm catching don't belong to the landowner (unless you farm deer and it's fenced-there are exceptions, as always). So, the related laws are there without political philosophy, but because NH does what works. F&G is funded mostly by license fees, not taxes. At the same time, they maintain herds through seasonal timing, stock fish, etc so you will stay in camps and pay M&R taxes. Is that the "Circle of money" in NH?
From a different approach, if you own 10+ acres and take advantage of current use & recreational tax breaks, you are being subsidized by other taxpayers in that jurisdiction. Your neighbors are paying you to keep the land open/undeveloped. To many, being able to hike, hunt, fish, etc is a fair exchange for your reduced taxes. JMHO.

[54fighting]

Originally Posted by Descant

Access, as pointed out above is an historical practice. Sustenance. The deer I'm tracking or the fish I'm catching don't belong to the landowner (unless you farm deer and it's fenced-there are exceptions, as always). So, the related laws are there without political philosophy, but because NH does what works. F&G is funded mostly by license fees, not taxes. At the same time, they maintain herds through seasonal timing, stock fish, etc so you will stay in camps and pay M&R taxes. Is that the "Circle of money" in NH?
From a different approach, if you own 10+ acres and take advantage of current use & recreational tax breaks, you are being subsidized by other taxpayers in that jurisdiction. Your neighbors are paying you to keep the land open/undeveloped. To many, being able to hike, hunt, fish, etc is a fair exchange for your reduced taxes. JMHO.

The rational behind current use is not as implied. That rational applies to a subcategory of current use, recreational current use. And, of course, when you track that deer onto unposted private property you have no idea whether that property is in current use or not. Incidentally, I have read (it could be wrong) current use does not significantly reduce the tax base because the 10% penalty to take property out of current use generally outweighs any savings realized.

[John Mercier]

Though off the trespass subject.
CU does reduce the tax base, in that for the most part those entering land into CU intend to keep it there for several years/decades.

I once determined that it takes roughly seven years to break even, but that was several years ago.

CU II (Recreation) only lowers the result by 20%.
So if the CU taxes as an example are $30, CU II would only lower them $6.

Hunting is more promoted because farmers (timber or otherwise) use their services as a means of pest control. White tail can do a lot of damage. Even on smaller lots (CU actually will cover any size lot if the agricultural income requirement is met), bow hunters are sought out.

[54fighting]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Not really.
Hunting and fishing were a means of sustenance at the time... and fish/game a common ownership.

Our other outdoor recreational activities are modern... and really not characteristic of a conservative-leaning populous.

Posting is not limited by the size of a property... but smaller properties use other means to denote the restriction. ''Secured premises'' being the most noted.
It is consider wrong, possibly criminal, to climb over closed fences and gates.

Your posting with the chain should be sufficient enough for anyone paying attention to realize that you do not wish them there. The name and address requirement is so that someone wishing to access the property, but respect your wishes, can write to you and request written permission that would be valid for law enforcement to determine that you have allowed them there.

I agree that you’re going to lose if you go over a gate or under a chain, but the posting statute is pretty straightforward. Some states simply require that you mark your trees with purple paint, within a certain distance between the marked trees. Similar legislation was suggested in NH a few years ago and failed. Signs have to be replaced and can easily be removed. Posting your name and address can lead to harassment. But, really? If someone posts a sign saying that they don’t want people on their property should they really have to take the opportunity, perhaps multiple times, to say that they really meant what is written on the signs? Fish & Wildlife says it is common curtesy to request permission before entering unposted land. It’s possible to find out who owns property in NH, and F&W seems to be saying that this is a small effort to expend to go onto another’s property.

[54fighting]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Though off the trespass subject.
CU does reduce the tax base, in that for the most part those entering land into CU intend to keep it there for several years/decades.

I once determined that it takes roughly seven years to break even, but that was several years ago.

CU II (Recreation) only lowers the result by 20%.
So if the CU taxes as an example are $30, CU II would only lower them $6.

Hunting is more promoted because farmers (timber or otherwise) use their services as a means of pest control. White tail can do a lot of damage. Even on smaller lots (CU actually will cover any size lot if the agricultural income requirement is met), bow hunters are sought out.

I’m not convinced that any reduction is significant. In addition, the towns are receiving a benefit and that benefit is not that land in current use is available to the public. The State and the Towns aren’t promoting current use because they want to do people who own more than 10 acres a solid. I imagine the majority of land in current has a very low value and would make a very minor contribution to the tax base. Why would anyone leave valuable property in current use for decades? As values increase over time, there is an incentive to pull land out of current use, and if that land is to be developed the 10% penalty on the value when withdrawn from current use will be significant. But all this aside, I’m not buying the argument that the public at large has an interest in someone’s property because it is in current use.

[John Mercier]

The posting requirement is old.
About 20 years ago, we changed the requirement of motorized users to have permission - rather than be posted against.
I think a phone number would be more of an opening to harassment.

But I do have some experience on why it is required.
Several years ago, a property of mine was posted... but not by me. A neighbor did not want his grandchildren to see dead deer. The lack of a name and address allowed the LE involved to realize that it was an illegal posting.
Had I posted it, as I now have some property posted, those wishing to hunt have easy access to contact me. If they wanted to harass me, they could just as easily do so by finding out who owns the land in the method you prescribe.

The CU is not promoted by the town. It was enacted by the residents of NH to protect farming for the most part. The provision requires a certain dollar value of agricultural sale per acre... or ten plus acres in the case that not all crops - timber specifically - is not an annual. Of course, they pay timber taxes, but that is to the county... not town or State.

https://extension.unh.edu/sites/defa...76_Rep1099.pdf

I think that is the latest update. So you can see that a piece of prime farmland easily developed for residential use being valued in tens of thousands of dollars per acre would be assessed at less than five hundred per acre. When multiplied against the tax rate the savings to the landowner is significant.

What was considered ''low quality'' land is now purchased or donated to the municipality with a conservation easement on it. Generally accepted by the populous as measure of protecting their watershed.

[54fighting]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

The posting requirement is old.
About 20 years ago, we changed the requirement of motorized users to have permission - rather than be posted against.
I think a phone number would be more of an opening to harassment.

But I do have some experience on why it is required.
Several years ago, a property of mine was posted... but not by me. A neighbor did not want his grandchildren to see dead deer. The lack of a name and address allowed the LE involved to realize that it was an illegal posting.
Had I posted it, as I now have some property posted, those wishing to hunt have easy access to contact me. If they wanted to harass me, they could just as easily do so by finding out who owns the land in the method you prescribe.

The CU is not promoted by the town. It was enacted by the residents of NH to protect farming for the most part. The provision requires a certain dollar value of agricultural sale per acre... or ten plus acres in the case that not all crops - timber specifically - is not an annual. Of course, they pay timber taxes, but that is to the county... not town or State.

https://extension.unh.edu/sites/defa...76_Rep1099.pdf

I think that is the latest update. So you can see that a piece of prime farmland easily developed for residential use being valued in tens of thousands of dollars per acre would be assessed at less than five hundred per acre. When multiplied against the tax rate the savings to the landowner is significant.

What was considered ''low quality'' land is now purchased or donated to the municipality with a conservation easement on it. Generally accepted by the populous as measure of protecting their watershed.

I’m going to guess that your situation is unique; i.e., someone posting someone else’s land. And if that were suspected, as you say locating an address is not difficult to find and the incentive is there, as it was in your experience. Someone being pissed off in the moment going to the bother after the fact seems less likely. There seems to be something more behind the requirement to hand mark multiple signs or to incur the expense to have signs custom made (something which will need to be repeated because of their impermanence) when more durable purple paint seems to suffice in other states.

My mistake, I thought the towns had to enable current use. But the property being discussed is low value forest.

[Descant]

I generally agree with John Mercier's approach and appreciate his experience. Several decades ago, I was a Selectman and we approved "intent to cut" tax forms and hired a town forester to audit the cut to be sure we got proper revenue. Maybe that has changed? As one of the most heavily forested states in the country, I think there are many reasons to have (timber)land in current use. Tree Farming is certainly one, and as you drive around, I think you'll see as many Tree Farm parcels as you do no trespassing parcels. When Jeanne Shaheen was Governor, the state bought 1MM acres of forest land, put a conservation easement on it and resold it. As I recall, this was to protect our forest products industries, as well as to protect the land for open recreation. There are many conservation minded individuals in NH who join with others to put tracts of land into conservation and CU to preserve it for future generations. Some publicly owned land has a third party holding the conservation easement so that future voters can't go to Town Meeting and sell the property, or develop it. "Low value" land is more likely to be wetlands, which have separate set of protections.

[fatlazyless]

Public access to Lake Winnipesaukee for ice fishing; Gilford, Laconia, Meredith, and Center Harbor all have town docks that use ice-eater propellers for protection from ice damage. What is a public access dock for boating becomes unusable for ice fishing so ice fishermen will sometimes access the lake via someone's private property that's not posted with a no trespassing sign.

For example the Cattle Landing town dock and parking lot, way down the end of Meredith Neck, has a 60" opening in its blue fence where ice fishermen used to slide their bob house down the smooth grassy embankment onto the lake ice. Maybe ten years ago, the old concrete and timber dock was replaced with a floating concrete dock and ever since, it's had two ice-eaters that keep the ice away in a large semi-circle around the town dock and make it unusable for ice fishermen to access the lake ice, there, either by foot, by atv, snowmobile or with a bob house, passing through the 60" wide opening.

So, some ice fishermen will use nearby private property that isn't posted by foot to walk onto the frozen lake, and it all seems to work out okay, or something?

Out of the Laconia town docks at Weirs Beach, Meredith town docks, Love Joy Sands at Shep Brown's, Leavitt Beach in Meredith, and Center Harbor town docks, only Leavitt Beach has good winter access for ice fishermen with atv's, snowmobiles, and bob houses because it does not have a dock there for summer use, so it has no ice-eaters in the winter. What's there in the summer is a swim area rope line but no dock so there's no need for an ice-eater.

[John Mercier]

We still have Intent to Cut for timber.

I believe Champion was selling because the relative costs for pulp production in NH was too high compared to competitors.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by 54fighting

I’m going to guess that your situation is unique; i.e., someone posting someone else’s land. And if that were suspected, as you say locating an address is not difficult to find and the incentive is there, as it was in your experience. Someone being pissed off in the moment going to the bother after the fact seems less likely. There seems to be something more behind the requirement to hand mark multiple signs or to incur the expense to have signs custom made (something which will need to be repeated because of their impermanence) when more durable purple paint seems to suffice in other states.

My mistake, I thought the towns had to enable current use. But the property being discussed is low value forest.

Maybe suggest they re-enter the LSR with a change that only obvious access points would be posted with the sign requirements and the remainder of the property use the purple paint.

If there was a change... should be easy enough to pull down the signs and paint over the purple paint... much the same as I just pulled down the illegal signs.

[54fighting]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Maybe suggest they re-enter the LSR with a change that only obvious access points would be posted with the sign requirements and the remainder of the property use the purple paint.

If there was a change... should be easy enough to pull down the signs and paint over the purple paint... much the same as I just pulled down the illegal signs.

It’s two simple points, and reasonable people can differ.

First, I’m not debating the ramifications of or rationale for CU, which is relevant (questionably) here in only one very limited respect. The argument was made that some believe they should be able to access property in CU because their tax dollars subsidize CU. This argument fails on multiple grounds which I won’t repeat unless someone wants to hear them.

Second, the State imposes the onus on private property owners to mark their property private if the wish to dissuade trespassing. I understand the logic (in most instances); property lines are indistinguishable in the forest.

I don’t believe there is good rationale for the name and address requirement. If someone goes to the considerable effort of marking their property I don’t think they should have to enable others to request exemptions. Also, I don’t believe it is warranted because unauthorized posting is a significant issue (presumably not an issue so significant that it mandates a presumptive assumption). In either event, as was borne out by your experience, only a little extra effort is required to identify the owner to request an exemption or inquire about unauthorized posting.

[John Mercier]

Other taxpayers do subsidize CU... since the lower assessments transfer burden to other... just the local voters do not have a say like other exemptions and credits.

CU does not denote access by anyone... so really not relevant to the trespass issue.

The State placing the onus on private property owners is historical. I would find it odd that stating NH is a traditional conservative-leaning State, that one would think that it would readily change historical tradition dating back before the State existed.

To affect change, one must either make a compromise, or accept the status quo.

[SAB1]

Property lines while visually may not be posted, are readily available to anyone with an app like Hunstand or OnX. The information is pulled directly off town tax maps and you can literally track yourself anywhere on a property and see where you cross a line.

[John Mercier]

That doesn't really matter.
To change a statute, you have to convince members of the Legislature and, most of the time, the Governor.

My guess, from previous posts, was that the desired change was entered and refuted.

[54fighting]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Other taxpayers do subsidize CU... since the lower assessments transfer burden to other... just the local voters do not have a say like other exemptions and credits.

CU does not denote access by anyone... so really not relevant to the trespass issue.

The State placing the onus on private property owners is historical. I would find it odd that stating NH is a traditional conservative-leaning State, that one would think that it would readily change historical tradition dating back before the State existed.

To affect change, one must either make a compromise, or accept the status quo.

I wasn’t suggesting that there was no subsidy, only that the subsidy does not give rise to a right in others. Presumably, there is a public policy behind CU as there is behind everything subsidized by property taxes.

Agreed.

I wasn’t suggesting that the onus be changed. I was merely stating that one element of that requirement seemed odd (as I have yet to hear any compelling rationale for it). But perhaps the requirement to name the owner and provide the owner’s address also predates statehood and the justification is historical precedent.

[John Mercier]

It doesn't pre-date statehood... as we could not post at one time.

I find it easier to seek statutory changes by taking it slow.
So allowing a landowner not to have to put as many signs up as is currently required would be nice.