ATTN: NH Foresters and Loggers

[red oaks lumber]

dam tom, that was very moving!!

[John Mc]

Refreshing to be on a forum where we can have a civilized discussion about such issues, reflecting varied opinions without it degenerating into flame wars or personal attacks. I've bailed out of enough forums because I got tired of reading that crap. My thanks to the moderators and users of this forum.

John Mc

[mrnero]

The forestry management may or may not need more regulations and or laws in your area, but here in NH, the new stream crossing rules does apply to us. Some of us are abutting land owners to previously sloppy logging operations and has suffered losses and damage from abutting properties being harvesting for timber during logging operations. I think some of you has to be a victim in order for you to understand what this new regulation is all about. True, this sloppy logging operation should not have occured to my parents land in Ossippi, NH,  but it did. This new stream crossing regulation should prevent this from happen again to another abutting land owner and other victims in NH. Sorry, that I dont agree with most of you forestry management people on this forum, but I guess thats the way it is.

[chevytaHOE5674]

This new stream crossing regulation should prevent this from happen again to another abutting land owner and other victims in NH. Sorry, that I dont agree with most of you forestry management people on this forum, but I guess thats the way it is.

If the logger who did the "sloppy" job was violating law and rule the first time......... what makes you think he will not violate the new law? Criminals will always be criminals no matter how strict the rules are....

[John Mc]

If the logger who did the "sloppy" job was violating law and rule the first time......... what makes you think he will not violate the new law? Criminals will always be criminals no matter how strict the rules are....

I agree. You can't legislate honesty. There are already laws and regulations against what apparently happened to mrnero's parents. A knee jerk reaction to it by making more laws isn't going to solve the problem. Better enforcement, and stiffer fines for repeat offenders would probably have more of an impact.

[cilley]

Hi everyone..........this is a great topic.....both sides have made their point.......i agree that new laws and regs will not solve the problem.......a person who does not adhere to the rules to begin with ........will not do it no matter how many permits he has to have.......to the people out there who abide by the rules..........keep up the good work!!!!!!       AJC

[mrnero]

[quote author=chevytaHOE5674 link=topic=40096.msg578042#msg

If the logger who did the "sloppy" job was violating law and rule the first time......... what makes you think he will not violate the new law? Criminals will always be criminals no matter how strict the rules are....

[/quote] Again, I think most of you are missing the point. (1st); NH does not have any harvesting/logging laws or regulations that " protects the abutting land owners" from logging theft or logging trespassing to the abutting property owners(edited; prior to 1999) . Its up to victims to bring the logging com to small claims court to recoup damages. (2ed); This new stream law will protect the abutting property owners and down stream land owners more than the previous vague logging regulations pretaining to environmental damages to other landowners. NH can't enforce regulations that we don't have. Therefore, this new stream law regulation can now be enforced against sloppy logging operations that creates enviromental damages to streams that flows onto other land owners property. (3ed); We also need another regulations that protects the abutting landowners from logging theft and logging trespassing on adjacent landowner. If enviromental damage occured on your property from harvesting logs from adjacent property, you would speek in favor for this new stream / wet land regulation. P.S. 

[chevytaHOE5674]

NH does not have any harvesting/logging laws or regulations that...

Are you sure NH doesn't have laws about wetlands and logging? A quick google search turned up a few. At a quick glance I saw “no person shall excavate, remove, fill, dredge, or construct a structure in surface water, bank, or a wetland without a permit from the Department of Environmental Services.”

That would mean you could have reported the damage to the watercourse to the DES.....

http://extension.unh.edu/resources/files/Resource000253_Rep274.pdf

..you would speek in favor for this new stream / wet land regulation. P.S. 

And if you were anyone who relied on the forest products industry (logger, forester, gas station owner, mill worker, trucker, grocery store owner, etc...) you would realize what a $5000 permit fee would do to the economy.

[John Mc]

mrnero - While I've not searched, I assume NH has laws against theft. Most of these would require the victim to lodge a complaint of some sort. Why is there a need for a separate law for logging theft?

the other thing you seem to be glossing over is the difference between a permit fee and a fine. As others have mentioned, a $5000 permit fee would kill an industry that is suffering mightily as it is. Why do you feel the need to punish the good operators out there? Why punish the landowner who has carefully managed his property for years? Unless your intent is to kill/curtail the industry as a whole, forget the exorbitant permit fee. Hit the violators of existing laws with a stiff fine, and repeat violators with an even stiffer one.

What you are supporting seems akin to adding a hefty fee to all driver's license applications (enough to discourage the majority of us from driving) because some people drive while drunk.

John Mc

[bull]

Thankyou Tom for your words of wisdom you may need a sludge hammer to drive you point into some brains...
Oh so young @24!!! Mrnero, needs to stick around for a while and learn a few things, it appears he has been blind sided by someones personal under educated opinion of our industry, one bad apple can spoil a hole bunch but good stewards will sort out the bad..... We have adaquate laws and regulation, they need to be enforced as written and as they were intended... We are not in need of new laws or regulations or fees, the judges have to do their jobs and use the full extent of the law when needed.......
NH has timber tresspass laws and theft laws, and numerous wetlands regulations as well as do all other New England states...

Mrnero,Read What Tom wrote and keep reading it until you understand what he wrote, it really means alot, if you don't agree your SOL

[bull]

NH timber tresspass law : RSA 227-J8 & RSA 227 J8a  NH laws regarding timber tresspass etc.
use the internet and search for the laws, they do exist !!!!!!

[mrnero]

NH timber tresspass law : RSA 227-J8 & RSA 227 J8a  NH laws regarding timber tresspass etc.
use the internet and search for the laws, they do exist !!!!!!

These statues that you are referring to only applies if negligently or recklessly timber harvesting that ocurs on your property without your permission. Negligence is defined as " the failure to us reasonable care" and recklessly is defined as "in a reckless manner. The way I read this statue is, a logger can cut trees on abutting property providing its performed in a reasonable manner and use reasonable care.  The market value of any logs taken is a percentage of the current stumpage value.
Yes, we have timber theft laws, but its has to be proven that the logs was taken by negligent and or recklessness. Thats going to be hard to prove in court.

[chevytaHOE5674]

The way I read this statue is, a logger can cut trees on abutting property providing its performed in a reasonable manner and use reasonable care.

I. No person shall negligently cut, fell destroy, injure, or carry away any tree, timber, log, wood pole, underwood, or bark which is on the land of another, or aid in such actions without the permission of that person or the person’s agent.

Yes, we have timber theft laws, but its has to be proven that the logs was taken by negligent and or recklessness. Thats going to be hard to prove in court.

If the timber cut was not on the harvesting landowners property (ie. neighbors land) then that shows negligence and reckless by the logger in itself. With a well setup timber sale (boundaries marked, trees marked/prescription, good contract)  then showing negligence or recklessness isn't too hard. 

[submarinesailor]

About 4 years ago I had the Black Walnut taken off my land in Syria, VA.  My 50% was just over $4K.  We (my wife and I) used it to pay some of the college bills – three girls in state colleges that the same time.  If Virginia had a $5,000 permit fee in place, we would not have been able to do this and pay some of those college bills.

I agree that the streams, rivers and bays need protection, but these laws/rules need to be applied with some common sense.  I think it would be much better to go after the guy who puts way too much fertilizer down on his yard or doesn’t clean up the dog poop.  How about the large cooperate chicken grower that spreads their waste on the fields, which in-turn runs into the Shenandoah River and killing 80% of the fish.  Wouldn’t it be better to go after the big boys (bad big boys) and leave the likes of me alone?

Bruce

[John Mc]

My recollection of the law here in Vermont is that if I've got my property lines appropriately marked, and someone poaches a few trees while logging on an abutting parcel, they owe treble damages. If I don't have my boarders marked, they owe just the value of the trees taken. Basically, they're saying if you crossed and appropriately marked boarder, you were negligent. I may be remembering this incorrectly, since I've never been through that particular experience myself. But there are penalties, and the incentive as a landowner is to keep your boundaries clearly marked.

Does NH have anything similar?

John

[woodmills1]

yes we have treble damage

and no law is going to stop the bad eggs

if the new crossing law passes most small timber removals that involve water will not be bid on by good eggs

[mrnero]

My recollection of the law here in Vermont is that if I've got my property lines appropriately marked, and someone poaches a few trees while logging on an abutting parcel, they owe treble damages. If I don't have my boarders marked, they owe just the value of the trees taken. Basically, they're saying if you crossed and appropriately marked boarder, you were negligent. I may be remembering this incorrectly, since I've never been through that particular experience myself. But there are penalties, and the incentive as a landowner is to keep your boundaries clearly marked. Does NH have anything similar? John

Hi John MC;  The NH timber harvesting statue RSA 227-J:8 , Commonwealth MA timber harvesting and Vt are all simular. The key word is "negligently"; defined as " The doing of something which a reasonable prudent person would not do...". The way a 24 + year old  interprets these statue's, If a logger (Knowingly and or Admits) that he knew where the (marked or unmarked) bountry lot line was, and he then  knowingly cross the bountry and knowingly went on another persons property to harvest the trees to retreave the logs, These statue's do apply. But, If the logger states that he was unaware and or that he mistakenly crossed the boundry line to commenced timber harvesting on another persons property or states that he didn't know (before the fact) that he mistakenly crossed the boundry line..and etc.  These statues dont apply nor does the treble damages apply, because there was no negligent on behalf of the logger that he physically or mentally knew that he crossed the bountry lines. Therefore, the only amount of damages that you maybe entitled to, is a portion of the stumpage /market value that the loggers took. The botton line is, the abutting land owner gets screwed again unless you can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the logger knowingly and willingly crossed the boundry line with the intent to harvested logs on other peoples property "without permission".

[chevytaHOE5674]

If the logger doesn't know where the boundary is that is negligence in most cases. This is why you should always keep your boundaries marked...

[beenthere]

"Gee, officer. I just didn't know that the speed limit was 25, because I NEVER would have been driving at 65 mph through this village. I am just not negligent a bit "

And he says "tell it to a judge". 

[mrnero]

If the logger doesn't know where the boundary is that is negligence in most cases. This is why you should always keep your boundaries marked...

Maybe you should   the definition negligent again. "Doesn't know..." is not negligent. Negligent is a logger, or any person and or even a forester knowing where the bountry line is and knowingly cross the bountry line , that is considered as negilgent (e.g. something knowingly a normal person would not do).
Usually, most lot corner boundry lines are marked. But I think if a logging or timber harvesting operation is going to commence, I think the local forester should mark out the whole property lot lines of the land being harvested, to protect the abutting properties from future timber theft.   What U think !   or maybe all homeowners should mark their lot lines every 50 or so feet and post security guards to prevent any future timber harvesting theft on your private property.