Comments

One of the underlying assumptions of the study seems to be that there is a continued and growing demand for outdoor recreational opportunities. However, a recent Nature Conservancy study shows the opposite: that in the US and in other developed nations there is a shrinking demand. See this link: http://www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/minnesota/press/press3336.html

Good point — demand for different types of outdoor recreation is an important consideration. An article published in February 2008 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences makes the case that we are seeing a “fundamental and pervasive shift away from nature-based recreation.” The authors base their conclusion on an analysis of four types of recreation: (1) visits to public lands in the U.S. plus National Parks in the U.S., Japan, and Spain, (2) U.S. game licenses issued, (3) time spent camping, and (4) time spent backpacking and hiking. With the exception of backpacking and hiking (which showed an increasing trend), the other indicators examined in the study had declining trends. (For the complete article, visit http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/105/7/2295 .)

During that same time period, other studies have found increases in outdoor recreation in the U.S. (USDA National Survey on Recreation and the Environment) and ecotourism and nature-based tourism on a global scale (World Tourism Organization, Worldwatch Institute). How much of the decrease in visitation to U.S. public lands has been offset by other nature-based tourism destinations and activities? While some forms of outdoor recreation in the U.S. and other countries have become less popular during the past two decades, whether this conclusively means we’re seeing a “fundamental and pervasive shift away from nature-based recreation” is still up for debate. I expect we’ll soon see many more studies further examining this question. In any case, recreation on private woodlands may be an important factor in promoting nature-based recreation into the future.

How can you cite a Nature Conservancy study that shows decreasing needs for outdoor recreational demand when the very entity that conducted the study vehemently opposes most outdoor recreation to begin with??? Equestrian? Nope. Mountain biking? No again. ATV’s and OHV’s? Yeah, right. Snowmobiles? No. None of these uses should be allowable according to the TNC, yet here in NY we’re putting them in charge of our FP’s.

The link embedded near the top of this page is bad (“acess” is miss-spelled)

Thanks Bill. The link has been updated.

The Connecticut Lakes Headwaters Public Access and Recreation Management Plan has been adopted. This provides public access on private lands that are conserved through easement. http://nhstateparks.org/planning-development/connecticut-lakes-headwaters/recreation-management-plans.aspx

Their is very little private land access left in Northen VT, so I’m not sure how that will differ from the lands in the Southern regions of the State. Private Lands have been Posted for many reasons. Which has over crowded the lands that are left, and made some hunters quit the sport altogether. The State or Federal Gov. needs to purchase quality land tracks throughout the State, or find a way to make them available for public access, or they will continue to see a downward trend in License sales and hunting traditions will be left for familys or freinds of familys that have land availible to them.

It would be nice to have a area of the state that had a lengthy network of trails that were non motorized. There are currently very few locations where you can bike, ski, dogsled, etc. for more than a few miles with out concern of meeting motor vehicles. With the increased speed of snowmobiles and a.t.v.s it becomes more and more dangerous for pedestrians to be be on the same trails. I feel we should be doing more to support these non motorized forms of recreation. The northern forest may well be the last place in the state where it could be possible for this to happen. Once that is gone it will be a uphill battle to try and reconnect new trail corridors in Vermont.

Just the other other day I was told that all landowners should pay a horrendous tax on land as it was worth so much. Keep taxing the landowner and he has to sell his land to a developer because he can not afford the taxes. Another alternative is to sell to someone who is not native and they will post the property. This is a problem. Land use is not the answer. Somebody must educate the public to help the landowner and not chastise him, for it is his property we are using for our recreation.

There seems to have been a failure to invite the outdoors sporting oommunity
(hunting/shooting, fishing and trapping) to participate in this forum.

If this is the case Vermont Fish & Wildlife and UVM have missed involving a vital element to participate.

The Vermont roundtable on May 8th was open to the public, and we tried to spread the word that anyone interested was welcome to participate. If you would like to be added to our email list for future communications, please send your contact information to me at Lisa.Chase@uvm.edu. This is an open conversation and we welcome input from all perspectives.

Thanks for putting all of this together.

One thing that I had hoped to get into the notes is a proposal to make release forms legally binding in Vermont.

Nearly all organized and/or paid outdoor programs use release forms as a daily part of our risk management programs. Guided programs, tours, youth activities, community recreation programs, outdoor educational programs and many more use release forms yet the forms are not legally binding in Vermont.

This applies to landowners because the term “landowners” can be incorporated into a release form under those entities that are protected. Landowners who charge a user fee are at most risk by doing so and would be protected under this proposal. Even landowners who do not charge for recreation would experience a higher level of protection.

I am building a list of supporters of this proposed legislation and intend to introduce the proposal at the beginning of the next session. If you or any organizations are interested in supporting this effort or if you have any questions, please contact me.

Feel free to pass this on and thanks for your time,

Gray,
VOGA,
800-425-8747,
info@voga.org

As I read the comments from Gray, I thought, anyone using another persons property for their pleasure has no grounds to hold the property owner liable, period. Why are release forms etc. necessary. If you cannot take resposibility for your own trespass don’t go there.

After reading the notes from the Wildflower Roundtable Discussion and a talk by Bill Snow last Wednesday at the Northern Forestry Center I had an opportunity to talk with several landowners. They are concerned about prospective changes in Current Use and many have stories to tell about “land users”. In reply to the Roundtable conclusion question, “What do landowners want? We have to hear from them” I am sending you these notes concerning landowner interests. Being a landowner, 200+acres ( family land for 106 years), birdwatcher, cross country skier, hunter, fisherman, gardener, participant in Current Use (20 years) and living (19 years) on our “non posted” family land , I can usually appreciate most arguments.

The big “I want” from most landowners is “to be left alone” but it is not a perfect world so then there is the underlying question in almost all conversations; “What’s in it for me?”

One might surmise this is a request for monetary compensation. However, most landowners are more concerned about “respect, courtesy and consideration” for the land, forest, and roads, than receiving money.

There are also concerns about the proliferation of various hunting seasons which cause some rural landowners to feel as though under siege. There is a change in demographics and the landowners don’t wave much anymore.

Most landowners declare they have insurance to cover liability.

Snowmobiles are more welcome than ATV’s because:

1. The clubs police the members

2. They usually stay on VAST trails

3. Snowmobiles don’t tear up roads, waterbars, forests or fields and they operate in winter when residential windows are most likely closed.

The issue of compensation for hunting on property under “Current Use” is pretty much at a stalemate and it is a good place to leave it.