I love all the doublespeak going on in this guys letter. Evil threatning snowmobilers pressuring them to open trails in sensitive areas. Notice the last sentance....we're private landowners (we can do as we please in other words).

Some very interesting revelations:

1) Their FIRST priority is conserving wildlife, second is letting people use the land. This means NO MOTORIZED VEHICLES, maybe no unmotorized ones either. Wonder if the guy that lowered the price on this land was told this.

2) They have been working on this plan for 3 years. Does that mean they have been planning to close this area for 3 years?

Here's something to ponder. Say there's 40 miles of trails 12+/- ft wide on this property. Thats about 60 acres of trails (if you total the square feet). This is a 5400 acre parcel of land, 60 acres is 1% of the property that was used for sledding. Its a big sandbox there's room for everyone! The habitat they are trying to protect has been used by snowmobilers for years. If it is still alive then its not affected by our riding so what is there to protect?

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that there are some areas that are more sensitive than others. So maybe small portions would need to be rerouted or closed but not all of it!

Be a man loose the doublespeak! "WE BOUGHT THE LAND, WE DECIDE WHO USES IT. NO SNOWMOBILES EXCEPT FOR CORRIDOR 15. THATS THE WAY IT IS". People will have more respect for you when all is said and done.

thats the way i see it.....

Whats realy disturbing is that they purchased the land partialy with snowmobilers money !!

Huh
 

Well whats up ? The snow is here ??

In the coming weeks, the Trust will complete and make public its management plan for the Castle property. Our first responsibility is to protect the wildlife habitat and clean water resources on the property. Our second is to provide balanced public access to the public in light of that first and unending responsibility. Undoubtedly, every member of the public will not "get" everything he or she would want out of this plan; undoubtedly there will be disagreement with some aspects of it, but it will be a balanced plan compiled in good faith and based upon the information we have gathered carefully during 3 years of study. I trust that fair-minded people will consider our work in that light.

Ok
 

The snow was here :(

More from the LRCT
 

Tom Curren was quoted in the Citizen. Liability issues are being brought up. A bit more clear about the process, but no news about the upcoming season (if it ever snows).

http://www4.citizen.com/December_200...h_1230_04a.asp

Cool Tom Curren wants to meet us.
 

He stated that nothing is better than a face to face discussion. When is he going to set up the meeting. He better book a big hall.

Timing is everything...
 

If you read the article, it clearly mentions Summer, as the appropriate meeting time.

Interestingly, the prior owner allowed snowmobiling in today’s litigious world.

Sounds like the Trust is not very trusting of Humans. Wonder how that makes the volunteers feel?!

Just my opinion; yours may differ. ;)

Ok
 

First of all if they would reply to people who have questions there would be less speculation .. I tried to get real answers in a completely civil manner several times and got nothing ..Not even a "we're working on it" ..
The only fact we have is that the trails are closed and the land is posted ! :rolleye2:

Moultonboro Snomo Club newsletter
 

CASTLE TRAILS:

As many of you know the Castle in the Clouds is under control of the Lakes Region Trust. Tom Curran has been talking with the director of Dept. of Economic Development of which the NH Bureau of Trails is part of. After the Trust’s bio survey and a study of uses by a LRT committee it has been determined that the Castle property will go the way of multiple use.

Trails will be separate for each user group. We are the losers. There are about 32 miles of trails that were groomed since the early 1970’s. Nine gates will be placed at various junctions to direct snowmobiles onto just ONE trail through the property. Corridor Trail #15 will be the only trail snowmobiles are allowed on. All other former loops will be off limits and only for hikers, snowshoers, and cross-country skiers. We can go to the top of Mt. Shaw only. Then we can proceed down the backside towards White Lake State Park. Our only other loop would be to go through White Lake to Wonalancet and eventually Sandwich Notch. The State of NH trails bureau is still working with the LRT on details. No lease has passed on, as the LRT does not accept funds from government agencies. An agreement is on hand that both parties need to sign.

The bottom line is that the Castle is no longer a destination for snowmobiliers, but simply a through trail to North Conway, Ossipee, and Sandwich Notch.

Update: Received confirmation on 12/16/04 from the Bureau of Trails that the Corridor trail #15 through the Castle is all set for this season. Gates are being put up today (12/17) on old trails we cannot use.

Hopefully this is not the end
 

There must be some legal or other resource to fix this. This is ridiculous. I will keep my thoughts to myself, so that Tom Curren doesn't get upset. Right Tom??? You are monitoring this right? Snowmobilers will prevail...

A letter to Tom
 

Tom Curren:

I consider myself an environmentalist and only in the past several years have I purchased sleds and enjoyed the Castle trails. I smiled when I learned that these trails would be protected forever by the Trust. Now to find that the trails will be greatly limited days before the season is set to open is quite disturbing.

To hear your double speak is even more disturbing. Insurance? I guess there is lower liability exposure on one trail as compared to multiple trails? Doubtful.

Supposedly the Trust has been working on the plans for 3 years and now days before the season is set to open it announces that only one Castle trail will be available for use? Why couldn't you and the Trust have announced that the trails would be open as usual this winter, but next winter things might change AFTER THOUGHTFUL, HONEST AND OPEN DISCUSSION OCCURRED IN THE OFFSEASON?

I have been against President Bush's plan to drill in Alaska, but after this debacle I am now having second thoughts. Tom, in the long run people like you retard conservation efforts by dictating what type of recreation the public should be allowed to enjoy, thus chasing away good, honest and like minded allies. In short, power plays turn people off and dilute the strength of conservation efforts. Finally, If you had had the integrety to inform people up front of what your vision for the Castle property was, I would have respected you much more. Tom your vision is clouded. Please reconsider your actions.

Mark Evitts

"Snowmobiling Isn't A Crime!"
 

As an outside observer, I can’t help but observe the overtly childish behavior many of you are exhibiting here. I choose the word “childish” carefully and intentionally because it tough not to draw the comparison to a four year-old throwing a temper tantrum in the grocery story because they’re not getting exactly what they want.

I think back to a time when skateboarders would use local strip malls to skate down the stairs, railings, benches, etc. The property owners, for whatever reason, decide to ban this activity from their property. Despite the many rational explanations (mostly having to do with liability issues), the kids all whine about it being their “right” to skateboard, and how “skateboarding isn't a crime”, and “we’ve been doing it for years”, etc.

Yes, many of you have been snowmobiling on Castle property for years, but that doesn’t make it your “right”. The only thing that would make it your “right” is if you were to own the Castle property.

So, where does that leave you? You could build a respectful and informed case to try to change the owner’s (or in this case the LRCT’s) mind, or you can bitch and whine about how those tree-hugging SOB’s will never get another red cent from you, blah, blah, blah… I commend the first group, and I’m positive that they’ll have a better chance of accomplishing something than the second. Hey, maybe the first group might even get a reasonable owner to offer some sort of a compromise to closing the property off to snowmobilers entirely (perhaps like allowing Route 15 to stay open?).

Listen, private owners don’t owe you, me, or anyone an explanation or "public discussion" as to what they decide to do with their land unless it adversely affects or harms other people. Any reasons they choose to give are given out of courtesy - not requirement. If the Castle property owners decided that they were going to ban only the blue snowmobiles this year, as ridiculous as it sounds, it would still be their right.

Oh, and if your argument is that the LRCT “tricked” you into giving them your money, just keep in mind that the supposed reason you gave them a donation in the first place was to support them in their efforts to conserve the land using their best judgment. So far, I've seen nothing that has led me to think that the LRCT is not doing what they believe is in the best interest of the land. If the reason you donated is to ensure you can snowmobile wherever you want, maybe you should check the receipt for that donation you made to see if it was to the right organization.

Well said Sox FAN..... enough whining.
 

I too snowmobile and I too have enjoyed the trails at Castle in the Clouds however..... protecting the land should come first above the rights of a few over the many. Yes we as snowmobile users are in the minority. As for the contributions you/we made to the protect/save the land? We got what we paid for. The main route through the property is open. As others have pointed out without the land having been purchased by the LCRT folks developement/houses would have surely been the result thus NO access would be occurring. I would be willing to venture that the snowmobilers got their percentage worth out of their contributions as well. I know the bulk of the money came from folks who certainly aren't running around on snowmobiles. (Go ahead rant and rave that I am stereo typing etc. however I would put money on this one) Stop being selfish. You get to use a small portion of the land.... its better than nothing AND your beloved lake will be protected by the conservation. That area is a major watershed area into the lake and snowmobiles certainly due far more damage to the area than the other users.... ie hikers/snow shoes/skiing. "Tree hugging" is good economics.... once our future Repulicans recognize the connection between a clean/desirable environment and CASH..... watch out!!! Tree hugging and conservation will become a "conservative" favorite theme in the coming years. Lets stop whining and realize the cup is half full. We saved the land and we can still use it some. Concentrate on cleaning up our sport (ie 2 strokes ) and perhaps in the near future more areas or trails will open up for usage. Now there's an idea........

Protected from what?????
 

What are we protecting the woods from? Riding a snowmobile over a foot of snow leaves no trace after the snow is gone. Global warming?? When I was younger CO2 gas was going to cause the next ice age, now it’s global warming which is it?? Hydrogen is the answer, only problem right now it takes more energy to produce hydrogen than we yield after using it. Where does this energy come from? Fossil fuels, nuclear power, or renewable sources (which are scarce and questionable as far as how environmentally friendly they are (hydro and wind) solar is too inefficient right now).

Tom Curren and the trust should be ashamed for not stating their intention of closing off the trails when they asked for money, I don't buy that they just decided to close them after careful study. Without maintenance and use these trails will close in quickly, then only the squirrels will have access.

“"Tree hugging" is good economics....” Kyoto would have hobbled America while third world countries (China being the largest) have no restrictions. Tree hugging without careful thoughtful study is extremism, worse for us than the so called "ills" they try to save us from.

Politics aside...
 

Though I generally agree with your post, I note that it is your first, and that you've raised "politics". My donations to the Sierra Club stopped when they adopted a similar party-bashing attitude. Audubon may be next, based on their most recent mailings.

Politicizing contributions is a self-fulfilling prophesy for failure. http://fool.exler.ru/sm/budo.gif

Recently the Forum has generally adopted a politics-free convention, so your single political reference is a little out-of-bounds.
Cloak your political reference in "knuckle-dragging troglodites" http://fool.exler.ru/sm/iq.giflanguage.

We'll know who you mean, and we'll continue to try -- together -- to save the Big Lake.

A Land Trust is different from private property
 

LRCT is a registered Charitable Trust in the state of NH. As a non-profit land trust, they have an obilgation to their donors in order to receive the benefits of being a non-profit and a land trust. This is not the same as a private property owner.

For more reading:
http://www.uvlt.org/html/NH_Liability.html Addresses the fact that LRCT would not be liable for people who injure themselves while snowmobiling on the Castle property.

http://www.lta.org/sp/revision.htm Some interesting reading on the responsibilities of Land Trusts.

And for what it is worth, Mr. Curren, I did contact LRCT via email and never got a response. My husband did contribute to save the Castle land for conservation and public access. I resent the put down on your website to the contrary.

My question is who elects the board of directors of LRCT? Where are the reports from which LRCT made the trail closing decisions? I believe the donors have a right to see those reports.

Calling Tom
 

You dont actualy think Tom Curren would lower himself to post on a public forum ..After all we are only the ones who would use the land ..
Hello Tom anyone home ??

With all the discussion on LRTC and the trails now the bottling plant wants to expand up there. http://www.citizen.com/January2005/0..._01.13.05a.asp

Wonder which side the LRTC will be on. One concern in the artilce is about the size of the road with increased semi-tractor trailer traffic from the bottling plant.

Sort of Ironic
 

They were worried about snomobiles damaging the fragile ecosystem ..
Well how about a nice convoy ..and perhaps a plastic bottle manufacturing plant.. Ive done work in many of this type facility..and reguardless of the effort to stop runoff, chemical spill and vapors its futile .. Makes a few snomobiles seem harmless :rolleye2:

Well said JG1222. The fact that most of the people here are so quick to attack anyone who opposes snowmobile trails, calling them "treehuggers" or extreemists, or whatnot, is very disheartening. I haven't seen anyone calling you rednecks or white trash.

Talking about how you "accept skiers and walkers" is an empty claim, since these activities are very low-impact, and affect your ride little, while your activity affects their enjoyment significantly.

The fact is that although the actual area of a snowmobile trail might be small, the area affected by the vehicles is much louder. Even the "quiet" snowmobiles are loud enough to scare away wildlife. Beyond how this affects the hikers and skiiers, the animals have the right to exist as well, and not be bombarded with loud machines whining by every few minutes.

Very interesting point...
 

Very interesting point, indeed.

However, perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten me as to what wonder of Mother Nature shared a doughnut on the trail with me, as I sat upon my snowmobile, if not a Canada Jay? :rolleye2:

It's interesting to note the issue of noise relating to wildlife.

I have snowshoed on the "D" trail here in Alton and moved off the trail no more than 20 Yards to sit on a bare rock to have a snack (lunch). While sitting there, a couple of deer appeared across the opening from us, and paid us little mind. What was really funny was the snow machines (3 or 4 groups of 2-4 machines) that went by while we were sitting there, and the deer did nothing but stand there looking at the trail and watch the machines go by. They are a lot smarter than we give them credit for being. They seem to sense that the snowmobile is not a problem for them while they are off the trail.

Similar scenario that has played out here at my home. I have a solitary turkey that has decided it likes the scattered sunflower seeds from my bird feeders. It is no more than 20-25 feet from the house and not more than 50-60 feet from the street. Cars going by have no real affect on it. What scares the heck out of it is me pulling in the driveway and hitting the garage door opener. Talk about a big bird getting up in the air immediately!!!!

Point is that wildlife adapt readily to us, and probably have in CITC as well.

I haven't snowmobiled there since the 1980's, but I have fond memories of the trails and views, and sincerely hope that perhaps next season some added trails will open.

I think it's interesting how people transfer their dislike of noise to animals "disliking" noise. While a loud, unexpected noise can scare, snowmobiles don't fall into that category. They can be heard as a quiet buzz before they are visible. The animals are well aware they are approaching. In 30 years of snowmobiling, except for a pheasant or two, I can't think of an animal that has shown much more than bored disinterest. some at a distance not even looking up.
When I went to Yellowstone the elk had free access to the areas around the trails. If they were bothered by our presence they could have kept a considerable distance away. However, a couple of times we had to wait for elk to get off the trail. This was a group of over 30 sleds. Were the elk scared of us? I don't think so.
Another thing to think about. Since most trials are in undeveloped areas and animals are also likely to be in those areas, it could be argued that there should be no snowmobile trails because it "bothers" the animals. Sorry, I just don't buy it. Snowmobiles are a lot quieter that they used to be and will continue to get better over time. That's a desirable goal. In the meantime I don't believe that the animals around the trails are being traumatized by the presence of todays machines.

I'm not sure what animals you guys are dealing with, but as far as I've known and experienced all througout my life, most animals are very much frightened of humans and human activities.

Skiers and animals could benefit from snowmobile trails
 

Without the winter grooming and trail maintenance from the Moultonboro snowmobile club, the wonderful trails up in the Ossipees could go to waste. Its a good hike (2+ miles uphill) to even get up to the best ones, so it would be only a select few that would go there without motors anyway. Then, in the winter, without grooming, deep snow (if we ever get it again) would be very difficult traveling. My view is that keeping the trails open in the winter makes it possible for more recreation by all (skiers, snowshoers, sledders), and its very possible that the animals also appreciate having a cleared and packed path to use. Closing the trails effectively eliminates access to all. We have seen a debate about speed limits on the lake bring out points on both sides of the issue and common sense prevailed. The conservation trust, funded in part by those like me with an interest in conservation, should open the issue to debate, not dictate.

Did I Just Year You Right?
 

No - you didn't just say that out loud, did you? :laugh:

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the animals were probably doing OK "navigating" through nature without our help.

Thanks for the chuckle so early in the morning. This made my day.

Am I Missing Something?
 

OK, I've read this a few times now... So, what exactly does this mean?

All cleared areas are an inducement for deer. They "appreciate" the forage that grows low down where they can reach it -- forage that gets the sunlight unavailable in "deep woods".

Powerline clearings and development clearings attract deer -- if that's a good thing.

I happen to like all of the Lake Region's critters, so I don't care one way or the other. :)

Whether fleeing or standing still, critters are still stressed by human encroachments -- and who could blame them?

They're just insulting terms to describe a specific demographic, like "treehugger." These types of terms are generally only used by people who are too insecure in their arguments to debate without such terms.

I do understand the terms. I guess my point is that you unfortunatly negate the argument above if you're just going to turn around and use the other terms in your next sentence. I'm sure it wasn't intentional, but it was seen by me as a little inflamatory.

The only reason for my bringing it up, is that it seems that lately, discussions in the forum tend to be not so much discussions, but rants, insults, and personal attacks that don't really have much to do with the actual topic of the thread.

I guess what I'm saying is that I wish people would think about how they can add something to the discussion (whether it be fact, fun, or general interest), and not just see how fast they can zing the other guy that just posted something they disagree with. It's a snowball effect that tumbles out of control, and before long, we end up with a thread like "Speed Limits".

My two cents.

Well, my point wasn't to call snowmobilers rednecks, I certainly don't think that they are, nor do I think that snowmobiling is wrong, I just think that those who choose to do it should respect that it is a relatively high-impact activity, and that other people have the right not to want snowmobiling allowed everywhere.

Modern society curse - stress
 

Sorry, this is exactly what I find amusing. :laugh: The image of a dear on a psychiatrists couch pops to mind. "Doctor, It's those snowmobiles ..." I don't accept that the meer presence of humans is a stess to animals. If the humans are chasing or hunting the animals, OK. But simply being there, even making some noise, I don't accept that. Deer are very skittish, for them to simply watch a snowmobile or go back to grazing after a minute shows me that they are not "stressed".

Almost all animals have evolved the ability to recoginze and fear humans, because humans are the most dangerous predators on earth. Yes, human presence does stress out deer.

High Anxiety
 

Yup. That's why in petting zoos and deer farms the animals all run the other way when people are around. :D Oh, my mistake. They tend to move toward the people or just stand around.
In several areas in New Hampshire, deer have become a problem because they are attracted to human areas. Granted that sometimes that is because food is available there but you can stop and take pictures of some of the deer and they don't react very much.
Animals react to unknown and threatening environments. People using trails that have been around for years are not unknown. People passing through are not threatening. The animals quickly adjust to the presence of the new "animals" in their habitat. Animals have to adapt to things all the time, food shortage, lots of snow, extreme cold, drought, real preditors (the kind that want to eat them). People passing by and looking at them might not be common but it's not high on the threat list.

Animals at petting zoos can't be considered wild animals. Not only are they always around humans, but these humans are always feeding them, of course their behavior will change. Similarly, deer are attracted to human areas because those areas tend to have a lot more available food, not because they just love people so much that they want to be near them.

You can argue with antecdotes all you like, but the fact is that wild animals fear humans, and will tend to stop what they're doing and flee at the sight of them. This does stress them out, and if repeated, will cause them to alter their behavioral patterns.

Ok, once again, please refer me to the study or the scientific basis from which you make the statement "relatively high-impact activity" as a certainty. I would have an easier time dealing with it if it began; in my humble opinion a "relatively high-impact activity".

And last time I was on my snowmobile, I was not allowed to use it "everywhere". In fact as evidenced by this thread, there are less places now for me to operate and I certainly can't run everywhere. I don't buy the Bambi's scared arguments.

I've requested some studies, I'll post them asap.

Be fair and share...
 

Don't forget to share your studies with the LRCT.

I'm sure the LRCT will act accordingly to protect Mother Nature's own by closing the Castle in the Clouds to all human activity, including the bottling of water, and not just Winter activities such as snowshoeing, cross-country skiing, and hiking.

After all, we would not desire to stress out the animals, especially the endangered ones - they might trample some of the endangered plant species as they attempt to flee humans intruding upon their territory.

We appreciate your impute and can only hope that Thomas Curren is as conscientious and concerned about the human impact upon Mother Nature's own as are you - after all, Thomas Curren has the power to protect plant and animal life from human intrusion upon the vast expanse of the Castle in the Clouds property. I only hope he is passionate about his cause and not full of beans - time will tell. :eek:

This is the attitude that bothers me. As if it's some radical, crazy concept to consider the well being of the other species.

Formal Studies
 

OK, since my and others direct observations are dismissed as anecdotal how about a few studies that essentially say the same thing. That the majority of animals around snowmobile activity show NO reaction to the snowmobiles and most of those that do quickly return to their previous activity. I would equate this a car driving by a house. Some people look up to see who it is, others ignore it. By the way, a formal study is often just a collection of anecdotes.

I did find an interesting study on glucocorticoid levels (stress hormone) in elk and wolves. This clearly shows increased levels of the hormone around snowmobiles. However, the study also concludes no observable impact of snowmobiles on the population because it is healthy and stable. When I put on a party for friends my stress hormones are probably elevated as I prep for the party. The presence of stress is not necessarily a problem. The studies express the same information that I previously stated, that there are other much more stressful events in the winter environment. I would like to have seen follow up on this information (2002) but I didn't find more recent research.

It is also noted that cross country skiers and back country snow shoers cause more stess than snowmobilers. I would speculate, as I mentioned previously, that snowmobilers travel a obvious route with clearly defined "tracks" and "scent" and are noisy enough that they don't sneak up on the animals. If the animals are concerned about snowmobile riders as preditors they are probably amused about how bad we are at it.

The bison study actually seems to be worried that because snowmobile trails make it easier to travel, more bison may survive the stresses of winter and the population is growing. The growing population is staying off of National Forest lands and being killed by ranchers. They use helicopters to chase (no stess there :rolleye1: ) the straying bison back onto the forest preserve.

I don't think it's a crazy idea to be concerned about other species. On the other hand I don't accept that the presence of humans in the wild is automatically a bad thing for animals or the environment. The arguements about animals being "stressed" without any proof and flying in the face of my personal observations is a bit hard to accept. I look forward to any further studies that others may find.


Groomed trails' effects on bison not proven
http://www.billingsgazette.com/index...l/65-bison.inc

MSU study: Snowmobiles can stress wildlife - May 29, 2002
http://www.montana.edu/commserv/csne...hp?article=352

Snowmobile Activity and Glucocorticoid Stress Responses in Wolves and Elk
http://www.montana.edu/wwwbi/staff/creel/snomoGC.pdf

Final Rule Snowmobiles NPS - 20 November 2002
http://www.propertyrightsresearch.or...obiles_nps.htm
ISMA information

The Argument to Keep Yellowstone Open
The Truth About Snowmobiling
http://www.snowmobile.org/pr_argumentsopen.asp