Trespassing

[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

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is an incentive to pull land out of current use, and if that land is to be developed the 10% penalty on the value when withdrawn from current use will be significant.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.