I would hope and assume that Tim Kemple Sr. or an attorney well versed in landowner liability associated with recreational use by the public is involved in dialogue with the landowner. This since Tim was instrumental in getting NH HB 1551 enacted. Personally I think it was unnecessary since R.S.A. 508:14 was joyfully concise and thus widely encompassing regarding the limitation of liability on landowners who permitted recreational use of their property. Unfortunately the waters were a bit muddied by the possibility of someone broadly and inappropriately interpreting R.S.A. 212:34 which is probably why Tim made the effort to get HB 1551 enacted.
My extremely humble opinion is that the landowner is getting less than optimal counsel from their lawyer or insurance company who has advocated restricting use of the property. Not sure what actions the landowner had taken to restrict climbing on the property since I have not been on the property in a number of years. I believe that by either posting the property in some manner of directly communicating a restriction they are opening themselves up to significant liability in the event of an injury related to rock climbing on their property. Such a restriction is to me is a per se acknowledgement of a hazard on their property and an acceptance of responsibility for it. If an injury were to occur and the landowner was found not to have adequately posted the property and not adequately enforced the restriction they could very likely be held liable for any injuries incurred on their property.
To me it is clear the landowner is in a much safer position to allow recreational use of their property as opposed to attempting to restrict it. I would hope that this clear message is being presented to them. Actually thinking about it, I as a climber may be in a more advantageous legal liability position if I were to be hurt climbing at B and M now then before whatever restrictions have been put into place by the landowner.