JayZR2 wrote:Ryan,
The NEA is not a club. It is an association of clubs. We (The NEA's BOD ) have no control over what Mikey does on a site we are not moderators of.
Mikey holds no official position with NEA either. He is not a delegate, alternate officer etc. Just a dues paying member of a couple NEA clubs.
As you asked us not to judge all of ENH by the handful of guys that trespassed on our property and brag about the illegal wheeling they do at the Mason/Brookline power lines also known as The Steps, or Sheet Metal, don't judge all of the NEA by Mikey's actions.
BTW were those guys permanently banned for that?
supazuk wrote:just a note exploring NH from what i have seen condones rrenagade wheeling, mikey for the most part has been denoucing that kind of behavour there .. if thats what you mean by causing trouble this my not be where you want to bring your problems
exploringnh wrote:supazuk wrote:just a note exploring NH from what i have seen condones rrenagade wheeling, mikey for the most part has been denoucing that kind of behavour there .. if thats what you mean by causing trouble this my not be where you want to bring your problems
Thats not what I mean. I am talking about the PMing of members, several duplicate IDs, trolling, and general bad behaviour on the site.
ENH does not condone illegal wheeling, and I encourage you to find one instance of it on the site. Again, this discussion might be best suited for another thread.
mrfreakinwhite wrote:exploringnh wrote:supazuk wrote:just a note exploring NH from what i have seen condones rrenagade wheeling, mikey for the most part has been denoucing that kind of behavour there .. if thats what you mean by causing trouble this my not be where you want to bring your problems
Thats not what I mean. I am talking about the PMing of members, several duplicate IDs, trolling, and general bad behaviour on the site.
ENH does not condone illegal wheeling, and I encourage you to find one instance of it on the site. Again, this discussion might be best suited for another thread.
IMO, there's some value to what you are saying, more people like Foxtrot are needed. But seriously, dude - look at your own sig line on this forum. It is antagonistic at best and is not going to get you the results you want in this thread.
This whole thing is very disappointing to me, because I could see how excited Scott was when he began working with your forum users on the map 6 program.
mrfreakinwhite wrote:IMO, there's some value to what you are saying, more people like Foxtrot are needed. But seriously, dude - look at your own sig line on this forum. It is antagonistic at best and is not going to get you the results you want in this thread.
This whole thing is very disappointing to me, because I could see how excited Scott was when he began working with your forum users on the map 6 program.
As far as what I am trying to accomplish - what do you think that is?
mrfreakinwhite wrote:It seems like you are suggesting Mikey is a problem (er, it sounds like, too) but on the other hand Foxtrot sets a great example of how to win people over.
I think your own posts are pretty well constructed, but your sig line kind of undoes the good in your posts.
Just a suggestion. If you want to help the situation and want cooperation from the NEA to help reign in the inappropriate behavior, you might be better served to get rid of the antagonistic sig line. Be like Foxtrot.
I'm really interested in liberal hippiesm, spread the love and the peace and be a good example and teach 'renegades' better trail use etiquette, too. One of my very best friends is one of my very least favorite renegades, but I just keep showing him the right way to the best of my ability.
Hehehe, sorry for the long post, I'll summarize:
I might go visit your forum and try to say the right thing to help your cause, but your sig line makes me think, "Why bother?"
I'm only trying to help you, not trying to be a d***.
thanks for reading.
Scott Hatch wrote:Ryan if you have the time I will gladly take you out on a tour and show you the property and trails. I can assure you that a tour of the property will satisfy your need for proof.
exploringnh wrote:Sig line removed, although I dont expect anyone to visit the site and spread the word of the NEA and I would actually advise against doing that. I think Jay would agree with me here .
exploringnh wrote:Scott Hatch wrote:Ryan if you have the time I will gladly take you out on a tour and show you the property and trails. I can assure you that a tour of the property will satisfy your need for proof.
After thinking about and having both you and Jay say that a tour of the property would help, it is probably a good idea. I dont know the area, as is apparent, and I think that seeing it in person will help get things straightened out. I have both of your phone numbers and Ill try to work out a time to come visit. I live in southern NH, so its a bit of a drive.
mikesmaxx wrote:There is like 3 "southern" New Hampshire's.
Seacoast,93 and RT 3 area and Keene...
Mikey wrote:Actually - this isn't the way to fix this, as now I'm rather upset of the situation.
You should have asked on NEOW about this as they have about the same relation to me as the NEA does, actually NEOW has gotten more of my money from donations than the NEA does from the clubs I'm a member of.
exploringnh wrote:Jay - I know Scott has been working on trying to get photos of the area. He has provided me with trail maps and a tax map of the area. Both very useful, but only go on Scott's word that the users were actually in the area he says they were. Now, I believe that they were, and I trust Scott fully, but I need proof. You can show me the area all day, but that wont help me prove that they were there. It also needs to be cleared up that the land they were on was clearly marked no trespassing or private property or anything determining that it wasnt a public area. Photos of those signs would really help, but not entirely necessary. When I get called out on it, I want to make sure i have all the material, and not just parrot back what people have told me.
wally wrote:
frankly, you might want to read up on the RSA's governing access in the state of nh. otherwise, from your statement, a neutral observer would be lead to believe that you (and, by implication, your club) are ignorant about a nh landowner's responsibility to post his/her land. to that end, it isn't necessary for nh landowner's to post their property against motorized - wheeled vehicles. the law prohibits it unless you have written permission from said landowner. so, the absence of a sign does not give you, or your club, carte-blanche to explore nh.
do it right. and if you don't do it right, don't complain when someone (mikey) takes you to task over your illegal behavior (or the illegal behavior of yahoos that are members of your organization). i'd do the same, especially since you wanted information about the MapSix project. Scott spearheads that project AND he's a member of NEWJO - a club that i'm a member of, too. he has done a tremendous amount of work for the benefit of four-wheeling in new england, a benefit that extends to non-nea clubs and non-club members equally.
the nea doesn't have to prove itself to you - especially on THIS site. rather, you and your club have to prove yourselves to the NEA.
wally
exploringnh wrote:1. "to that end, it isn't necessary for nh landowner's to post their property against motorized - wheeled vehicles."
I was under the impression that the land they were on was reverted or closed class 6 roads when I wrote that. In which case, it is up to the landowner to properly and clearly mark the road. Like I said before, I am not familiar with the property they were on, and that will be cleared up once I take a ride with Scott/Jay.
wally wrote:you are mistaken. no landowner in nh has any responsibility to delineate property lines with respect to town roads. if the road is abandoned, meaning it is no longer a public (town) road, the public no longer has a right to travel it. and in such cases, the landowners are NOT required to post/sign it stating such.
if the road was a closed class vi (your words) then the yahoos that posted photos/video on the enh site were violating that particular regulation, too. (a seasonal closure of town roads for mud season).
really, though. it's obvious that you aren't interested in the correct course of action. perhaps you'll notice that the only venue in which i've discussed this is HERE, on the nea site. the only person whining is you, on the NEA site. and on this site, you do have to prove yourself to the NEA. i doubt you understand the distinction, though. prove me wrong.
In situations where the discontinuance of a road is in
question, the burden of proof that it has been discontinued
resides with those who wish to show it as discontinued.
In other words, public rights of way are
presumed to exist until proven otherwise.
exploringnh wrote:wally wrote:you are mistaken. no landowner in nh has any responsibility to delineate property lines with respect to town roads. if the road is abandoned, meaning it is no longer a public (town) road, the public no longer has a right to travel it. and in such cases, the landowners are NOT required to post/sign it stating such.
if the road was a closed class vi (your words) then the yahoos that posted photos/video on the enh site were violating that particular regulation, too. (a seasonal closure of town roads for mud season).
really, though. it's obvious that you aren't interested in the correct course of action. perhaps you'll notice that the only venue in which i've discussed this is HERE, on the nea site. the only person whining is you, on the NEA site. and on this site, you do have to prove yourself to the NEA. i doubt you understand the distinction, though. prove me wrong.In situations where the discontinuance of a road is in
question, the burden of proof that it has been discontinued
resides with those who wish to show it as discontinued.
In other words, public rights of way are
presumed to exist until proven otherwise.
Taken from "Fact Sheet: Class 6 Roads" put out by Nicholas Alexander, Transportation Planner, Central NH Regional Planning Commission.
Full sheet can be found: http://www.nh.gov/oep/resourcelibrary/r ... tsheet.pdf
wally wrote:
you clearly misunderstand. that has zero to do with posting the property. all one has to do is investigate town archive's to locate the recording of the public meeting where the road was discontinued/abandoned, and finding the recording constitutes proof of closure.
it says absolutely nothing about posting signs along the road, property, or anything else.
if the record of such a closure exists, the recording IS the proof.
From: Mikey
To: KJP98TJ
Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:07 pm
Subject: .
I haven't been causing any trouble over there - why don't you leave me the fawk alone
Return to Off Topic-General Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests