Fine for clearing trees

[SIKSUKR]

Just saw this on WMUR's website. http://www.wmur.com/news/9482932/detail.html

[Lin]

The guy in VT that cut trees adjacent to VT waters was just fined $108,000.
http://www.reformer.com/region/ci_4007021
Several homeowners that abutted state property that I used to manage were caught cutting boundry trees, moving state bounds, building on state property. All were turned into the AG's office. Most were not fined but reprimanded and made to replant, replace and remove.

[Rayhunt]

Years ago we clear cut this area NO TREES ! Now when someone wants to improve thier property/view your made an example of.. Im not completely against regulation but 40K for some trees is insane:eek:

[ApS]

The guy could have avoided the fines if he had done what a savvy realtor did near me while building a new house:

1) Locate the well next to the lake (legal).
2) Cut a big swath through the trees to allow the well drilling operation. (legal).
3) Cut another big swath to allow space to build the house (legal).
4) Take three years to build the house (legal...I guess :confused: ).
5) In the three-year interim, cut down a bunch more big trees between the house and the lake (definitely not legal).
6) Cut still more big trees on the state's "high-water" turf. (legal? :confused: )
7) Put up one, two, and now a third concentric silt fence to "keep legal" each year during construction—as mud and silt wash into the lake (legal?)
8) Truck in fill that covers stumps (legal?)

While the "basal count" seems a well-intended DES requirement, a lakefront owner can still cut down every shorefront tree should he own the property long enough. (Or serial owners do "view-clearings" over a twenty year period).

It would make far more sense to require the retaining of say, twelve basal inches of trees for every 100' of shoreline owned. (Including re-planting if necessary.)

Depending on the expense of this guy's house, a $40,000 may just be "the cost of doing business" at Lake Winnipesaukee's lakeshore.

:rolleye2:

[LIforrelaxin]

Does any one have a link to some easily readable information on this subject....anything I have found has been wordy and I need to do some try work on my property........

[Rayhunt]

Ive been to many different homes and lots around the lake and I far prefer nicely pruned trees to sun baked lawn any day of the week.. Some grass is nice , a place to play sports etc. But trees create a unique panorama of the lake and hills.

[meteotrade]

Does any one have a link to some easily readable information on this subject....anything I have found has been wordy and I need to do some try work on my property........

Here ya go... http://www.des.state.nh.us/cspa/483b.HTM

Its a pretty sad testament to the world we live in that someone's living room view is paramount to the health of their surrounding ecosystem. Rayhunt and the proliferation of weekend warriors who find clever ways to circumvent the laws designed to protect the lakes will ultimately lead to the demise of the lakes. There are about 50 good reasons why you shouldn't clear cut to the water, plant grass or dump sand, all of which are dismissed by your average bone headed mcmansion owner.

[Paugus Bay Resident]

APS The guy could have avoided the fines if he had done what a savvy realtor did near me while building a new house:

Realtor is not a generic term. Are you sure this person is was a member of the NAR? If not, those of us who are would appreciate not using the term loosely.

[ApS]

The guy in VT that cut trees adjacent to VT waters was just fined $108,000.
http://www.reformer.com/region/ci_4007021
Several homeowners that abutted state property that I used to manage were caught cutting boundary trees, moving state bounds, building on state property.
How about a $500,000 fine?

A 9th District Federal Appeals Judge was fined that amount for cutting an acre of trees that obstructed his view though they were in a State-owned park (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002583851_danny26.html). It appears he had done the same thing 25 years ago, though he had received a permit to cut trees in the same public park. :confused:

While he's paid back a portion of the fine, he has taken his Homeowners Insurance to court because they won't pay the balance! :eek:

With the grand new view provided by the illegal cutting, his home's value increased more than the $500,000 fine. :rolleye2:

[Just Sold]

Does any one have a link to some easily readable information on this subject....anything I have found has been wordy and I need to do some try work on my property........

Here is a link to the section of the Shoreland Protection Act which should be of help.
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/L/483-B/483-B-9.htm

[JDeere]

Im not completely against regulation but 40K for some trees is insane:eek:

Well I have to agree with Rayhunt on this one! 40K is insane it should have been MUCH higher to send a clear message to the yahoos that scoff at the law that the pain will outwiegh the gain!!!

[MovieStar]

Were the trees this guy cut on his own property? If they weren't I can totally understand the fine, but if not that just doesn't seem right. Just curious. Thanks!

[Commodore]

Unfortunately some people believe that it is cheaper not to comply with rules and regulations. They believe that there is a slim chance that they will get caught. If they do, the fine is usually less costly than if they followed proper procedures. A $500,000 fine should get someones attention but that is not the norm.

Look at the safe boating education requirement. It is not a primary enforcement issue. They can not stop you just to check for a certificate. If you get caught without one it's a $50 fine the first time. For some it is well worth the gamble that they won't get caught. If they do get caught the fine is less than a tank of gas for their boat. Something is wrong with that kind of system.

How many lakefront landowners make changes without following the rules and get away with it? Too many.

[LIforrelaxin]

Well in my mind one of the issues here is that there are two many regulations to keep track of........I try my best to do what I can to obey the law.....but it seems everytime I feel like I have the right to do something I find some hidden law somewhere that says I can't or I have to have a permit.....Not that I think some regulation isn't warranted but If I want to take a tree or two down I shouldn't be scared to death to do it. Should someone be able to clear cut a lot no......but should your average homeowner have to think twice about taking a tree or two absolutly not......

[Cow Man]

This thread isn’t as active as I would have thought. My feeling is that tree pruning and or thinning that does not affect the shoreline on property you own and pay taxes on should be perfectly OK. In fact, nature has a way of dealing with wilderness pruning or thinning called forest fires.
Here on the lake and particularly on these huge hunks of granite ledge we call islands there is another problem for property owners, wind. Nature has blown over more (and bigger) trees than I have ever cut because of the shallow root system.
However, cutting down a perfectly good tree makes no sense and clear cutting to the lake, putting in lawns, etc., makes the view from the lake obscene – who wants to come to the lake and mow a lawn anyway?