Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

dbqpdqbp t1_ixvqw9f wrote

Compared to western states, Vermont has a large percentage of private land.

However, what makes VT unique is the amount of public access to private lands. Forests in the north are comminly owned by large timber or maple companies but maintain public access easements for hiking, winter access, and permitted hunting. You'll have WMAs or state parks or town forests here and there, but only sporadically.

Similarly, most mountain biking networks traverse private lands with permission. VT has robust legislation to limit landowner liability, and we're lucky enough to have landowners excited to be a part of mountain bike networks.

The south has bug chunks of National Forest where there's tons of access. But that's a small minority of the state's area.

90

bignotion t1_ixwjemv wrote

Western states have far more public land than Vermont. It’s not even close

22

mycophdstudent t1_ixxkly6 wrote

I think 70% of Nevada is federal lands.

2

WildTroutz t1_ixxvmxl wrote

It’s more like 85%. We call it the “poor man’s Alaska”

6

mycophdstudent t1_ixz20fd wrote

Thought so. I was originally going to say 90% but tailed it back since I was drawing on faded memory.

1

YOurAreWr0ng t1_ixwouem wrote

Percentage per acre. Vermont is smaller than California. God people are dumb.

−24

bignotion t1_ixwqtqe wrote

“Less than 15 percent of Vermont held by the public, split between federal (7.3 percent), state (6.4 percent), and municipal (0.7 percent) ownership”

“Oregon has a sizable public land base, with approximately 53 percent of its 61 million acres in federal lands, most of it managed by the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service”

God people are dumb

28

yeahimsadsowut t1_ixw59s9 wrote

What if a new owner was less than excited about sharing his property with a hiking trail or path? Would he/she just have to put up with it?

3

trueg50 t1_ixw71ro wrote

It's their land, their choice what to do with it.

I maintain the ones on my property since I use it, some neighbors might, and I'm fine with the public using it. Someone started making their own bike trail through a sensative area, so I made those signs go away (the orange flags they put up) and they took the hint to use the established trail a short distance away. Other than that we put up "no littering" signs and people stopped tossing dog poop bags and trash so people are generally good.

24

dbqpdqbp t1_ixwfedk wrote

Not necessarily. For most recreational mountain bike trails I'm familiar with, access is at the landowner's discretion. Famously, a few years ago, landowners in East Burke revoked access on what had been some of the most popular trails in the state.

On the other hand, I know of some properties that the state sold to timber companies where public hiking access was a condition of the sale. Not sure what sort of legal process would need to happen to get that changed.

And then there are town highways and legal trails. These are public rights of way found on the town highway map that pass through private parcels. If a new landowner wanted to prevent access, they'd need to go through the town selectboard who would bring it to a vote. This seems to happen regularly.

21

vttale t1_ixwmgp9 wrote

They can post it, unless there's some other unusual easement or covenant that is at issue.

In addition to what others have said, it should be noted that organizations like the GMC (hiking), VAST (snow machines), and VMBA (mountain bikes) do work with landowners to be good stewards of the land.

9

JerryKook t1_iy05usq wrote

I know people that got fed up with needy hikers and kicked the Long Trail off of their property. It really messed up the LT.

The owners were so fed up with strangers asking for favors. Hikers were constantly knocking on their door.

2