Southern Vermont access alert

[CalG]

Though I have not been able to peg an online information source, I have it on good authority that the terrain accessible from the "Ridge Trail" between Haystack and Mt. Snow is approved for "selective thinning" and greater "hike to, and ski down" recreational activities.

I've looked at those treed slopes for years wanting some of that!

From what has been presented, It's part of the Catamount Trail system and recreational access.

Also, The defunct Hog Back ski area off Vt Route 9 is seeing selective cutting of recent growth on the previously cleared trails.
I was up there two weeks ago. It's looking SWEET! A small hike up, A good run down, then a hike back up again. We do it "after work" once the days get long in spring.

Sounds good to me!

 

[karlo]

So, who's volunteering to do some of the thinning - and selecting?

 

[MattSmith]

I have it on good authority

It's good to know people "in the know".

If you know this much, you probably know about the Vermont Backcountry Forum being held this Thursday.

I'm on the fence about driving up from Boston but may attend.

 

[Monster]

Though I have not been able to peg an online information source, I have it on good authority that the terrain accessible from the "Ridge Trail" between Haystack and Mt. Snow is approved for "selective thinning" and greater "hike to, and ski down" recreational activities.

I've looked at those treed slopes for years wanting some of that!

From what has been presented, It's part of the Catamount Trail system and recreational access.

Also, The defunct Hog Back ski area off Vt Route 9 is seeing selective cutting of recent growth on the previously cleared trails.
I was up there two weeks ago. It's looking SWEET! A small hike up, A good run down, then a hike back up again. We do it "after work" once the days get long in spring.

Sounds good to me!

Cool - I was an instructor at Haystack back in the day and skied often at Hogback too. Most often at night with headlamps on skinny skis down the lift line when the pow was good. Arnie White owned it still then. You didn't want him to catch you trespassing - he could be a crusty SOB But that was part of the fun. . .

 

[Primoz]

Completely off topic, and without any value for this thread, but just for my personal interest... Did I read this right, and you are allowed to hike or ski only places that are cleared and allowed as "trails"? Over here, it's everyone's right to hike/ski pretty much everything you want as long as you don't do damage. And of course, that doesn't apply to someone's front yard, but out there in nature, you don't need land owners permission to cross that land on foot or skis. For more then this basic crossing, it depends from country to country and in some this also applies for camping, cycling, kayaking and even picking forest fruits like berries or mushrooms. So I hope I'm just reading this wrong, and you guys are actually allowed to hike or ski wherever you want.

 

[Slim]

Completely off topic, and without any value for this thread, but just for my personal interest... Did I read this right, and you are allowed to hike or ski only places that are cleared and allowed as "trails"? Over here, it's everyone's right to hike/ski pretty much everything you want as long as you don't do damage...So I hope I'm just reading this wrong, and you guys are actually allowed to hike or ski wherever you want..

You are allowed to hike and ski on public land (the Northeast has a lot of privately owned land, so that’s not always easy). In general, in most states, you are not allowed on private land, although many large (corporate) private landowners (usually logging companies), do allow public acces in some form or another.

The legal part referred to “glading”: in other words cutting branches and some (smaller) trees, and removing bushes, so that the hillside is open enough to ski. The (second-growth) forest normally found in the east and Midwest of the US is to dense to ski through, and most of the mountains in the east do not rise much above treeline, so without active glading/clearing you could ski in only a handful of places (like avalanche paths.. )

In the past, people have unofficially done some glading to create skiable routes. In the last few years, there have (finally) been some official agreements between skier groups and land managers to allow legal, and ecologically sound, glading.

https://backcountrymagazine.com/sto...eshaping-access-to-vermonts-winter-landscape/

 

[Crank]

I know in New Hampshire land owners can pay lower property taxes if they allow public access to their land. I have a few friends there who are land owners with hiking, biking, snowmobile and xc ski trail systems crossing their land.

About a decade ago, a couple of guys illegally cutting a trail at Big Jay, a peak on public lands and most often accessed via a short skin from the summit of Jay Peak, were sentenced to 60 days jail time.

 

[Primoz]

Ok thanks for clarification. Honestly, I'm even happier now that I live over here... sorry guys Here, pretty much every European country has "every man's right" in constitution (obviously in exchange for missing gun section ), which gives everyone access to land, no matter if it's privately owned or state owned. Of course there's limitations, so that your front/back yard is not equaled to forest 10km from first house, but in general it gives us unlimited access to forest, fields and mountains. But as I wrote earlier, without causing damage. So cutting trees, or even "just" bushes to make trail is not allowed, unless you get permission from owner (for trees, you actually need more then just permission from owner, as even owner can't just go to forest and cut whatever he wants).

 

[MattSmith]

^^^
Yep, that's the facts here in the States. Private ownership and hoarding wealth are highly popular activities.

I suspect Vermont and Vermonters are better than most. We're lucky enough to have the Catamount trail running the length of the state from the Massachusetts border to the Canadian border (around 300 miles). Forming partnerships with key landowners along the way was instrumental in bringing the vision to reality. ...and it wasn't easy, even in Vermont.

Mentioned in the posts above is use of National Forest land for skiing and outdoor activities. The abomination occurring at Jay Peak was a catalyst (or wake up call) to the Forest Service. The "glading" behavior that lived in back country lore needed a strategy and a plan to manage it. The Forest Service manages public land. It makes sense to restrict behaviors here. An individual going in and removing timber or modifying public land presents the potential for harm to the greater good.

The result can be read in the article above. Partnerships between non-profit organizations and the Forest Service promote responsible use and utilization of public resources. Given the growing popularity of back country pursuits, I feel this was an absolute necessary step in continuing to grow.

 

[Wilhelmson]

Ok thanks for clarification. Honestly, I'm even happier now that I live over here... sorry guys Here, pretty much every European country has "every man's right" in constitution (obviously in exchange for missing gun section ), which gives everyone access to land, no matter if it's privately owned or state owned. Of course there's limitations, so that your front/back yard is not equaled to forest 10km from first house, but in general it gives us unlimited access to forest, fields and mountains. But as I wrote earlier, without causing damage. So cutting trees, or even "just" bushes to make trail is not allowed, unless you get permission from owner (for trees, you actually need more then just permission from owner, as even owner can't just go to forest and cut whatever he wants).

I had heard of that in the Nordic countries but didn't know it applied to most of Europe.

At least in the northeast a lot of it started in colonial times based on English law. When the northern lands were still "unclaimed" large tracts would be given to military officers for serving in the early wars. Some of the cases over waterfront rights can get pretty ugly, or at least expensive. But in practicality there are many friendly and philanthropic landowners.

 

[Slim]

Scotland and some Scandinavian countries are the only ones with right-to-roam style laws, other than that it is far more restrictive in most European countries, and like the US, also varies by state/canton/etc.

As an example, a MTB’er was brought to court in Austria for riding on a forest road, since the law states that biking is not allowed on forest roads, and hiking only on main forest roads. A far cry from free acces laws.

 

[CalG]

Vermont has a statute, that a land owner's responsibility, (think liability) to an unknown person on private lands, for the purpose of recreation, is the same as that to a trespasser.

That is, the land owner can not set hazards or traps, and expect to be free from endangerment suit, But neither can a recreational trespasser sue for injury in the normal traverse across private lands. Land owners may POST their lands against any and all use, but the requirements are strict.
This was an appeasement to the snow mobile activities and and effort to open up trails for the activity. In fact, the lion's share of all Vermont outdoor recreational monies go to the snow machine trails system. The motor bike / trail bike/ mountain bike activities have . in the past, received little to nothing.

Certainly skiing and back country access was less than a blip on the radar.
Times Change!

 

[Primoz]

Scotland and some Scandinavian countries are the only ones with right-to-roam style laws, other than that it is far more restrictive in most European countries, and like the US, also varies by state/canton/etc.
As an example, a MTB’er was brought to court in Austria for riding on a forest road, since the law states that biking is not allowed on forest roads, and hiking only on main forest roads. A far cry from free acces laws.

We have pretty much exactly same rights in constitution in Slovenia then they have in Finland or Sweden. Also Austria is not all that much different, even though it has some restrictions (like you are not allowed to pick fruits in private forest... over here, as well as Scandinavia, you are allowed). But thing with mtb is, that mountain bike is considered vehicle, and (stupid) restrictions apply in most of countries, except for most of Scandinavia, where bike is equal to hiking/walking. So for that Austria case, it has nothing much to do with free access, but with traffic laws violation. Some/most of forest roads has sign for no traffic allowed. As mtb is considered vehicle, that sign is valid also for mtb. You can still roam around those roads, and forests on foot or skis, but not with any sort of vehicle.
But yes, details are different from country to country, but general idea is more or less same everywhere.

 

[Wilhelmson]

Scotland and some Scandinavian countries are the only ones with right-to-roam style laws, other than that it is far more restrictive in most European countries, and like the US, also varies by state/canton/etc.

As an example, a MTB’er was brought to court in Austria for riding on a forest road, since the law states that biking is not allowed on forest roads, and hiking only on main forest roads. A far cry from free acces laws.

Taking a cue from the no-ebike crowd (with which I partially sympathize) the ban could also be seen as protecting inexperienced riders from potential injury. "In discussions about the topic, opponents repeatedly portray bikers as reckless, unfriendly, and only out to ruin the peace of the mountains."
https://www.tetongravity.com/story/bike/mountain-biking-in-austria

 

[sparty]

Vermont also leans strongly towards a "right to roam"; posting your land includes the requirement to renew signs annually (they must be dated) and to register with the local town clerk. I believe that some of this goes back to the Vermont constitution, which includes an enumerated right to hunt.

Maine isn't quite as liberal with the access to land—the posting requirements aren't as strict—but again, the law presumes legality of (pedestrian) access unless the landowner takes specific steps to prohibit it.

Other states vary quite a bit.

 

[CalG]

Update.

I had the opportunity to skin out about a mile along the ridge, then drop down.

To say the going was "thick" would be an understatement.
"Linking one turn together" ;-) was about it for most of the descent. But the snow was wonderful on that day, and the terrain holds great promise.

I'm eager to do it again on another line through conifers.

 

[CalG]

Additional info on the project.

The ridge trail is a very small part of the overall plan

But I can hardly wait!

Map #3, linked at the bottom of the list shows the scope. Some good skiing to be had.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=53706

 

[JonathanShefftz]

Yes, some good skiing to be had -- by Mount Snow resort skiers.
The map sure looks like taxpayer-funded resort sidecountry.
Text says the same thing too:
"Develop additional terrain for backcountry recreation and designate the area as a snowpark developed recreation site in close proximity to Mount Snow off the Deerfield Ridge trail."

 

[LegacyGT]

Still a little ways off but encouraging:
https://www.reformer.com/stories/new-recreational-trails-coming-soon-to-dover,585756

And here are some maps:
http://www.sovta.org/winter/