Saving Castle in the Clouds

Lakegeezer · 07-20-2006, 08:38 AM

The Lakes Region Concervation Trust recently sent out a letter which solicits funds to restore the Castle in the Clouds. They figure they need $5 million to restore the Castle, and want to celebrate its 100'th anniversary in style, in 2014. Their immediate need is $600,000.

Is the project worth it, or is the Castle just another blemish on the Ossipee mountains? More importantly, can we trust the trust? These are the folks who solicited money from local snowmobile clubs to buy the land, then closed all but the main trail through the property.

dpg · 07-20-2006, 12:08 PM

Where are the owners of the "castle?"

ossipeeboater · 07-20-2006, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

The Lakes Region Concervation Trust recently sent out a letter which solicits funds to restore the Castle in the Clouds. They figure they need $5 million to restore the Castle, and want to celebrate its 100'th anniversary in style, in 2014. Their immediate need is $600,000.

Is the project worth it, or is the Castle just another blemish on the Ossipee mountains? More importantly, can we trust the trust? These are the folks who solicited money from local snowmobile clubs to buy the land, then closed all but the main trail through the property.

I wouldn't trust them further than I can throuw them. Another group of out of staters trying to protect the natives from themselves and taking away the traditional used of open land. That screwing of the snowmobile clubs was completely unacceptable.

WINNOCTURN · 07-20-2006, 12:56 PM

They are under new leadership this year. Mr. Curran is gone!

It seems they are having trouble keeping the "Excluded Trials" clreared of over growth. Apparently they never realized that it was the Snowmobile activity on ALL the Trails that keept them maintained. There was some talk that there might be some changes this season? Only time will tell.

WINNOCTURN

MAXUM · 07-20-2006, 04:54 PM

I have to agree they screwed over the snowmobile clubs.... darn shameful IMHO.

WeirsBeachBoater · 07-20-2006, 04:56 PM

Once bitten twice shy!

T.H.E. Binz · 07-20-2006, 06:27 PM

While personally I think there are better things to conserve in the Lakes Region for $5 million than the Castle, I am surprised to read all this LRCT-bashing. I think the Trust's stewardship of some of the region's most precious landmarks is nothing short of astounding. Frankly, when it comes to protecting natural resources, recreational activities, and the character of the Lakes Region, who cares where the money comes from?

Airwaves · 07-20-2006, 06:53 PM

I guess I would have to echo the question raised by dpg and ask who currently owns the property and (assuming it is not LRCT) where are they in this endeavor?

It's been years snce I've been to CITC and when I did go (as a 20 something) it was in need of work then.

As for "out of staters" coming in to tell Lakes Region folks what is best, I don't think that would be the case. Nearly everyone I know belly aches about the development of Winni of the past few decades.

If CITC is privately owned then they need to bail themselves out. If it's privately owned and they get LRCT money they need to deed the appropriate amount of equity in the property over to LRCT.

It doesn't appear to me to be a black and white issue. Teddy Roosevelt was a "frequent" quest there (at least according to the tour guides 20+ years ago), perhaps Federal National Park dollars would be available, but again, only if private owners gave up their rights.

Given the cost of RE in the Lakes Region these days, I don't see a privately owned company "giving it away".

Just the $.02 from an "Out of stater" who is a NATVTP "Not Allowed To Vote Tax Payer" in Gilford.

SAMIAM · 07-20-2006, 07:35 PM

I'll be glad to send a check.......after they open ALL of the trails to snowmobilers.

Lin · 07-20-2006, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airwaves

I guess I would have to echo the question raised by dpg and ask who currently owns the property and (assuming it is not LRCT) where are they in this endeavor?

It is now owned by the Lakes Region Conservation Trust. They did a campaign starting I believe in 2003 for the property. Check out http://www.castleintheclouds.org

So they'd be bailing theirselve out. Actually the mansion house is a beautiful house and should be preserved. Lot of controversy over the closing of the snowmobile trails. From what I understand at least one was reopened. There are also no more horses to rent there either. Does anyone know if they still allow horses on the trails? Or is it all strictly hiking activity now? thanks

jrc · 07-20-2006, 07:53 PM

I'm pretty sure the LRTC owns the CITC. If someone knows how to search the old forum, a thread about them raising money to buy it, should be in there.

My gripe with the LRTC is that they preach that there conserving the land for everyone, but in practice they have several places only the chosen elite of their company may visit. So basically they have a tax exempt private park that they and their friends can use, and they got a bunch of well-meaning people to give them the land or help them buy it. But since they are a private company, they have every right to do this.

Check out www.lrct.org

Airwaves · 07-20-2006, 08:40 PM

If what you folks are saying is true, that CITC is owned by LRCT and I am assuming that LRCT is a non-profit charitable organizaton, and that their stated intent is not being achieved (I would think conserving the land from development for all to use etc) and they are limiting access to members only, then perhaps a complaint to the IRS might be in order.

That is a major step.

I would think that if a group, perhaps the snowmobilers that I am reading are now prevented from using the property, would contact LRCT and notify them of their intent to question their tax exempt status with the IRS, then perhaps things might settle down somewhat?

Or it might infame the situation.

It does seem to me that if LRCT is a public or tax exempt organization, then the public should have access.

If they are looking for funds to help CITC then now would be a good time to raise these issues in a public forum.

Waterbaby · 07-20-2006, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lakegeezer

The Lakes Region Concervation Trust recently sent out a letter which solicits funds to restore the Castle in the Clouds. They figure they need $5 million to restore the Castle, and want to celebrate its 100'th anniversary in style, in 2014. Their immediate need is $600,000.

Is the project worth it, or is the Castle just another blemish on the Ossipee mountains? More importantly, can we trust the trust? These are the folks who solicited money from local snowmobile clubs to buy the land, then closed all but the main trail through the property.

Thanks for that info, LG. I wonder why it would cost $5M to restore the Castle? What is in need of restoration, and what needs to be done to "restore it"? And how much of it would be open to the public, i.e. those who fund the $5M restoration? And how much are the proposed contractors overcharging on their estimates since this is a presumed icon of NH history (my own words/assumption)? I know these aren't questions you can answer, I'm just kind of thinking out loud here....... It just seems to me that since the LRCT took over it's money, money, money needed for this and that. Just like here in the town I live in, the Conservation Committee always has warrant articles on the ballot to raise money to preserve and maintain the land which we already spent on to purchase, and another article to purchase more land which we will have to spend more money on to preserve and maintain......

Airwaves · 07-20-2006, 09:27 PM

I looked at the link provided by Lin. It talks about hiking trails, but not about horseback or anything else.

I guess I need to know this; The folks who determine the use of CITC, are they a public group or not?

The last time I was at CITC the tour guides bragged about the hundreds of acres of horse trails that Mr.Plant set up. So if those horse trails are no longer available to horse (or snowmobile) then how closely are those folks keeping the historic image alive?

As I said before, hit them where it hurts and threaten to question their IRS tax exempt status.

If they are truely a nonprofit charitable the will not be able to sell to a developer?

Woodsy · 07-21-2006, 07:59 AM

When they reopen the snowmobile trails, then they MIGHT get a few bucks from me.....

They were very decietful last go around...

Woodsy

snowbird · 07-21-2006, 08:28 AM

I gave up on LRCT several years ago, having been a believer and contributor before that. I became convinced LRCT had exceeded its original purpose with questionable purchases of land only marginally related to conservation, while using taxpayers' generous donations to remove properties from the tax rolls. IMO, that is.

tis · 07-21-2006, 09:16 AM

I agree with you all. I don't like what they are doing at all.

ApS · 07-21-2006, 10:19 AM

I've sought out two other conservation groups to protect the Winnipesaukee Basin with conservation easements.

One had purchased Stamp Act Island several years ago. When reminded of their purchase they stated, "We would not buy like that today. We are not interested in 'those kinds' of properties".

It appears that LRCT stands alone in protecting the watershed areas that make clear lakes possible. (Like Lake Winnipesaukee is—at present).

Some places don't care about their own watershed areas

.

Dave R · 07-21-2006, 02:23 PM

I bet 100 years from now, someone'll be trying to collect donations to preserve the Bahre estate.

Misty Blue · 07-21-2006, 02:55 PM

Over the years we have given a lot, and I mean a lot, to the LRCT. That all ended with the purchase of the CITC. In their presentations soliciting donations their future plans for ues of the land was decietful. I heard a lot of talk about saving the land from development and keeping it free "for the public". As good people reached into their pockets and shelled out their hard earned cash they were unaware that the plan was to change the the ues of the land restricting people who had been using it for years and limiting it's use to people who met their eco-social standards.

I don't know what they expected but what they got was a backlash. It hurt them in the press and it hurt them in the wallet. Maybe they have learned a lesson. Maybe we have an opportunity here to mend fences, shake hands, bury the hatchet. You know, kiss and make up.

It will be up to the trust to convince potential donners that they are merely stewards of this land. And that ALL people are welcome to respectfully use and enjoy it. A good start would be to call the local skimobile clubs and ask them to sharpen their saws and get busy clearing the ski paths for opening next winter.

A year of good cooperation would pry open my pocket.

Misty Blue.

jeffk · 07-21-2006, 04:11 PM

Before I'd help out the LRCT again I'd want the snowmobile trails reopened with a long term agreement in writing just there was no "confusion" about expectations after they have my $$$. LRCT has been deceptive and unnecessarily difficult, just barely tolerating snowmobile access on "their" land after specifically coming to the snowmobiling community for financial support.

fatlazyless · 07-21-2006, 09:10 PM

Has there been enough snow in the last two winters for snowmobilng. Do not think so. No one knows about next winter.

Thomas Plante, the first owner and creator of the Castle property made his money as a Boston shoe manufactorer. He passed away as a penniless pauper in poor health working as a dish washer at the Castle. His mistake was to invest all his savings in the Czar Nicholas' Russian war bonds which became worthless when the communists took over in the 1917 revolution. Not being able to pay Moultonboro his property taxes, he lost his castle and 5000 acres.

At least the 5000 acres are still intact and the snowmobile trails coud return if the LRCT changes its mind and the snow returns. If it had been subdivided and developed, there would be no way.

Just look what's happened with the Castle Springs water and beer property. That neighborhood has really changed what with the daily tanker-truck traffic.

secondcurve · 07-21-2006, 10:10 PM

I guess we are almost all in agreement regarding the LRCT. I'd rather have wall to wall condos up there as oppossed to having the area controlled by a bunch of liars. If only these folks could figure out that by broading the use of the land they would increase their base of support, everyone would be much better off. Unfortunately, they feel they know what is best for the public, when in fact they don't have a clue.

Lin · 07-22-2006, 10:31 AM

Well I wouldn't want to see wall to wall condos there or much of any other type of development. I appreciate the LRCT purchasing or working with owners to restrict development on over 16,000 acres of land in the lakes region including some of the islands on the lake as they are getting fewer and far between as far as public access. I do like the idea of the protection of the land for the wildlife, flora, watershed and view protection. But like some other big "conservation" groups in the country for which I will not name, I think that more thought should have been made for access for all groups that had been approached or that contributed. Not just hikers. As it stands now there is limited recreation compared to how the land was used previously. It's almost a preservation thing. Conservation to me means more useages while preservation is like back country wilderness use where there are huge restrictions on what can and cannot be persued.

As far as taking the lands out of the public taxroles, without getting into a major dispute on this one, I did a thesis in forestry school on the purchase of perpetual development rights of farmland vs outright selling for development and the onslaught of services a town then incurs to provide the new homeowners and the spirialing costs that constantly increase the taxes, ie schools, fire, police, highway etc. In fact this theory was just fought in our town this year when the residents overwhelmingly purchased for 5 mil over 130 acres of farmland rights vs a possible chapter 40b project that could have been sited on it. The argument was pay 5 million for the rights or millions more for probably a new school and added town services, besides the fact that we would lose another of our precious agricultural farms.

chocophile · 07-22-2006, 10:34 AM

I'd like to hear the LRCT side of the story -- from them. Some of the posts in this thread contain inaccurate information, and I think it's important to hear both sides of the story.

For example, there are many local people involved in LRCT, and in preserving the Castle.

I suspect that some constructive engagement with LRCT regarding the snowmobile trail issue would be helpful. That kind of engagement would probably reveal that there's more in common on the issue of access than it first appears.

I am glad that there aren't condo developments in those mountains, and in the long-term perhaps the snowmobile issue will be resolved to the satisfaction of all.

WINNOCTURN · 07-22-2006, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chocophile

I'd like to hear the LRCT side of the story -- from them. Some of the posts in this thread contain inaccurate information, and I think it's important to hear both sides of the story.

For example, there are many local people involved in LRCT, and in preserving the Castle.

I suspect that some constructive engagement with LRCT regarding the snowmobile trail issue would be helpful. That kind of engagement would probably reveal that there's more in common on the issue of access than it first appears.

I am glad that there aren't condo developments in those mountains, and in the long-term perhaps the snowmobile issue will be resolved to the satisfaction of all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

here is a copy of a reply i wrote in the middle of all the contaversy.
02-02-2005, 09:55 PM #29

WINNOCTURN
Member

Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Moultonboro
Posts: 45 Do not be so forgiving! Geezer

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

they got every thing they deserved. the word i have is there was to be a very negitive article in tomorows union leader. so negitve that it forced them to finally make the necessary agrrements with the state. as of earlier to day both the castle trail (corridor 15) and read hill are open. red hill is being groomed as i right this.

the article coming out tomorow will not be what was originaly planned according to my sources.

i dont mean to say they need to be taught a lesson, i dont think they should be let off the hook so lightly. i truely feel that the public should be made aware of what they have been doing for the last 3 months.

as i said the insurance thing was a sham on their part!

winnocturn

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

this started in October of 2004 and was not resolved till February of 2005 with half of the season gone by. the problem was more mr. curran not as much as others involved with the trust. if you go back to the original posts and follow the story through you will understand why people are
leery of the trust even now.
now that curren is no longer leading the trust i am hopeful that the relationship with the trust will continue improve. since all of this has happened our club, through our "trailmaster", has completed several large trail projects with complete cooperation of the trust.
back then there was no bigger detractor of the trust. as i said in an earlier post a am willing to see where things may go now that the trust has a new leader.

WINNOCTURN

WINNOCTURN · 07-22-2006, 07:20 PM

chocophle,

just what are you saying is inaccurate? please expand on this comment.

as i was one of or the most vocal in this saga i can probable respond to your assertions.

i was not only questioning the LRCT on mr. Curran’s actions but also those of the trails bureau, ohrv,nhsa and dred.

i think the four or five news interviews i did got some results.

WINNOCTURN

upthesaukee · 07-22-2006, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chocophile

I'd like to hear the LRCT side of the story -- from them. Some of the posts in this thread contain inaccurate information, and I think it's important to hear both sides of the story.

For example, there are many local people involved in LRCT, and in preserving the Castle.

I suspect that some constructive engagement with LRCT regarding the snowmobile trail issue would be helpful. That kind of engagement would probably reveal that there's more in common on the issue of access than it first appears.

I am glad that there aren't condo developments in those mountains, and in the long-term perhaps the snowmobile issue will be resolved to the satisfaction of all.

Here's their website: http://www.lrct.org/

If memory serves me, LRCT said (paraphrased) that they would not get into a discussion on a website, and that they stood behind what was on their website and in the appropriate press release. Bottom line, don't look for a response from them here.

secondcurve · 07-23-2006, 09:58 AM

Upthesaukee:

I fear you are correct. The Trust has gotten what it wants so why respond. These people like to operate under the cover of darkness. It is a shame since snowmobiling has such a low impact on the environment. If the Trust had any vision, they would be courting the snowmobilers since they too have a huge interest in maintaining open space, and as stated earlier, they do little or no damage to the environment, especially with the switch to 4-stroke engines.

Rayhunt · 07-23-2006, 11:12 AM

LRCT lost all credibility when they closed the trails to snowmobiles..Not to mention income.. Did they know that local clubs recieve federal funds to maintain trails, part of which comes from registrations. I say let the castle crumble back into the ground from which it came, that way the property will be preserved in as natural way as possible with no more funding necessary.

nj2nh · 07-24-2006, 08:30 PM

I did a quick Yahoo search on the LRCT and this is what I found.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/inde...orgid/4860.htm

It only has one star (out of four or five, I think) in its peer rating. Not so good. But it confirms that it owns the Castle.

Jersey Girl

whtmtn · 07-28-2006, 09:47 AM

Snowmobilers aren't perfect.
The clubs though with their dedicated members are excellent stewards of the trails and the surrounding areas they take responsibilty for.
Landowners that wish to have trail access to their land 12 months of the year can have a snowmobile club maintain their trails for free for those 12 months. This includes bridges, waterbars, brushing, gates etc. The clubs wish to use the trails for maybe 12 WEEKS a year. This past season in Carroll County there was basically 2 weeks of riding. Think about that for a minute. Snowmobilers and the Clubs love their sport so much that they are willing to work the landowners trails for 12 months a year for usage that MAYBE will last for 12 weeks!
I hope the working relationship that the Moultonboro SMC and the NH Trails Bureau once had with the Castle property can once again be reestablished for the betterment of the area as a whole.
I think if this is done with a new open attitude of the LRCT they could expect much more local enthusiasim for their projects.
My own 2 cents,
Mark from the other side of the mountain and member of the OVSC.

Grant · 07-28-2006, 10:16 AM

Article detailing the fundraising and the restoration needed at the Castle:

http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...194/-1/CITIZEN

onthebay · 07-28-2006, 01:17 PM

Do they still charge an entrance fee? Then it is a tourist trap...

rander7823 · 08-01-2006, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onthebay

Do they still charge an entrance fee? Then it is a tourist trap...

I would like to jump in about the tourist trap thing. I brought my wife and 3 girls to the Castle a few weeks ago. They did charge and entrance fee and it was well worth it. We spent the better part of the afternoon there walking around. We snapped some great family pictures over looking the lake and had and nice lunch. The girls thought the place was beautiful and learned a lesson about being rich and then not being rich. If those memories and pictures are the product of a tourist trap then there should be a lot more of them around.

As far as the restoration goes this was the first time I had been back since the 70's when my parents took myself and my brother there. While my girls thought the place was beautiful as careful eye saw a lot of sadness. Broken tiles, peeling wallpaper and paint.

I spoke with a couple of the "guides" while I was there and they indicated that it had become too expensive to keep the horses. And as far as the snowmobiles go I didn't ask but I am not a big fan even though I use to ride.

Last thought though would be, You don't know what you have until it is gone.

07-20-2006, 08:38 AM	#1
Lakegeezer Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Moultonboro, NH Posts: 1,679 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 354 Thanked 640 Times in 291 Posts	Saving Castle in the Clouds The Lakes Region Concervation Trust recently sent out a letter which solicits funds to restore the Castle in the Clouds. They figure they need $5 million to restore the Castle, and want to celebrate its 100'th anniversary in style, in 2014. Their immediate need is $600,000. Is the project worth it, or is the Castle just another blemish on the Ossipee mountains? More importantly, can we trust the trust? These are the folks who solicited money from local snowmobile clubs to buy the land, then closed all but the main trail through the property. __________________ -lg

07-20-2006, 12:56 PM	#4
WINNOCTURN Deceased Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Moultonboro Posts: 849 Thanks: 350 Thanked 351 Times in 193 Posts	Do not be too quick to condem the LRCT? They are under new leadership this year. Mr. Curran is gone! It seems they are having trouble keeping the "Excluded Trials" clreared of over growth. Apparently they never realized that it was the Snowmobile activity on ALL the Trails that keept them maintained. There was some talk that there might be some changes this season? Only time will tell. WINNOCTURN Last edited by WINNOCTURN; 07-23-2006 at 08:14 AM.

07-20-2006, 04:56 PM	#6
WeirsBeachBoater Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 709 Blog Entries: 9 Thanks: 39 Thanked 148 Times in 65 Posts	Not a Dime Once bitten twice shy!

07-20-2006, 06:27 PM	#7
T.H.E. Binz Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Meredith & Chadds Ford, PA Posts: 112 Thanks: 0 Thanked 11 Times in 8 Posts	In Defense of the LRCT . . . While personally I think there are better things to conserve in the Lakes Region for $5 million than the Castle, I am surprised to read all this LRCT-bashing. I think the Trust's stewardship of some of the region's most precious landmarks is nothing short of astounding. Frankly, when it comes to protecting natural resources, recreational activities, and the character of the Lakes Region, who cares where the money comes from?

07-21-2006, 07:59 AM	#15
Woodsy Senior Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Weirs Beach Posts: 1,967 Thanks: 80 Thanked 980 Times in 440 Posts	When they reopen the snowmobile trails, then they MIGHT get a few bucks from me..... They were very decietful last go around... Woodsy __________________ The only way to eliminate ignorant behavior is through education. You can't fix stupid.

07-20-2006, 12:08 PM	#2
dpg Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 2,597 Thanks: 153 Thanked 229 Times in 166 Posts	Where are the owners of the "castle?"

07-20-2006, 04:54 PM	#5
MAXUM Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Kuna ID Posts: 2,755 Thanks: 246 Thanked 1,942 Times in 802 Posts	I have to agree they screwed over the snowmobile clubs.... darn shameful IMHO.

07-20-2006, 06:53 PM	#8
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	I guess I would have to echo the question raised by dpg and ask who currently owns the property and (assuming it is not LRCT) where are they in this endeavor? It's been years snce I've been to CITC and when I did go (as a 20 something) it was in need of work then. As for "out of staters" coming in to tell Lakes Region folks what is best, I don't think that would be the case. Nearly everyone I know belly aches about the development of Winni of the past few decades. If CITC is privately owned then they need to bail themselves out. If it's privately owned and they get LRCT money they need to deed the appropriate amount of equity in the property over to LRCT. It doesn't appear to me to be a black and white issue. Teddy Roosevelt was a "frequent" quest there (at least according to the tour guides 20+ years ago), perhaps Federal National Park dollars would be available, but again, only if private owners gave up their rights. Given the cost of RE in the Lakes Region these days, I don't see a privately owned company "giving it away". Just the $.02 from an "Out of stater" who is a NATVTP "Not Allowed To Vote Tax Payer" in Gilford.

07-20-2006, 07:35 PM	#9
SAMIAM Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Moultonborough Posts: 2,912 Thanks: 338 Thanked 1,689 Times in 594 Posts	I'll be glad to send a check.......after they open ALL of the trails to snowmobilers.

07-20-2006, 07:53 PM	#11
jrc Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NH Posts: 2,689 Thanks: 33 Thanked 439 Times in 249 Posts	I'm pretty sure the LRTC owns the CITC. If someone knows how to search the old forum, a thread about them raising money to buy it, should be in there. My gripe with the LRTC is that they preach that there conserving the land for everyone, but in practice they have several places only the chosen elite of their company may visit. So basically they have a tax exempt private park that they and their friends can use, and they got a bunch of well-meaning people to give them the land or help them buy it. But since they are a private company, they have every right to do this. Check out www.lrct.org

07-20-2006, 08:40 PM	#12
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	If what you folks are saying is true, that CITC is owned by LRCT and I am assuming that LRCT is a non-profit charitable organizaton, and that their stated intent is not being achieved (I would think conserving the land from development for all to use etc) and they are limiting access to members only, then perhaps a complaint to the IRS might be in order. That is a major step. I would think that if a group, perhaps the snowmobilers that I am reading are now prevented from using the property, would contact LRCT and notify them of their intent to question their tax exempt status with the IRS, then perhaps things might settle down somewhat? Or it might infame the situation. It does seem to me that if LRCT is a public or tax exempt organization, then the public should have access. If they are looking for funds to help CITC then now would be a good time to raise these issues in a public forum.

07-20-2006, 09:27 PM	#14
Airwaves Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: I'm right here! Posts: 1,153 Thanks: 9 Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts	I looked at the link provided by Lin. It talks about hiking trails, but not about horseback or anything else. I guess I need to know this; The folks who determine the use of CITC, are they a public group or not? The last time I was at CITC the tour guides bragged about the hundreds of acres of horse trails that Mr.Plant set up. So if those horse trails are no longer available to horse (or snowmobile) then how closely are those folks keeping the historic image alive? As I said before, hit them where it hurts and threaten to question their IRS tax exempt status. If they are truely a nonprofit charitable the will not be able to sell to a developer?

07-21-2006, 08:28 AM	#16
snowbird Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Gilford Islander Posts: 55 Thanks: 0 Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post	Lrct I gave up on LRCT several years ago, having been a believer and contributor before that. I became convinced LRCT had exceeded its original purpose with questionable purchases of land only marginally related to conservation, while using taxpayers' generous donations to remove properties from the tax rolls. IMO, that is.

07-21-2006, 09:16 AM	#17
tis Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,770 Thanks: 755 Thanked 1,462 Times in 1,018 Posts	I agree with you all. I don't like what they are doing at all.

07-21-2006, 10:19 AM	#18
ApS Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Florida (Sebring & Keys), Wolfeboro Posts: 5,946 Thanks: 2,222 Thanked 779 Times in 555 Posts	Alternatives? I've sought out two other conservation groups to protect the Winnipesaukee Basin with conservation easements. One had purchased Stamp Act Island several years ago. When reminded of their purchase they stated, "We would not buy like that today. We are not interested in 'those kinds' of properties". It appears that LRCT stands alone in protecting the watershed areas that make clear lakes possible. (Like Lake Winnipesaukee is—at present). *Some* places don't care about their own watershed areas . Attached Images __________________ Is it "Common Sense" isn't.

07-21-2006, 02:23 PM	#19
Dave R Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 2,985 Thanks: 246 Thanked 744 Times in 444 Posts	I bet 100 years from now, someone'll be trying to collect donations to preserve the Bahre estate.

07-21-2006, 02:55 PM	#20
Misty Blue Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 658 Thanks: 121 Thanked 283 Times in 98 Posts	A cloudy issue. Over the years we have given a lot, and I mean a lot, to the LRCT. That all ended with the purchase of the CITC. In their presentations soliciting donations their future plans for ues of the land was decietful. I heard a lot of talk about saving the land from development and keeping it free "for the public". As good people reached into their pockets and shelled out their hard earned cash they were unaware that the plan was to change the the ues of the land restricting people who had been using it for years and limiting it's use to people who met their eco-social standards. I don't know what they expected but what they got was a backlash. It hurt them in the press and it hurt them in the wallet. Maybe they have learned a lesson. Maybe we have an opportunity here to mend fences, shake hands, bury the hatchet. You know, kiss and make up. It will be up to the trust to convince potential donners that they are merely stewards of this land. And that ALL people are welcome to respectfully use and enjoy it. A good start would be to call the local skimobile clubs and ask them to sharpen their saws and get busy clearing the ski paths for opening next winter. A year of good cooperation would pry open my pocket. Misty Blue.

07-21-2006, 04:11 PM	#21
jeffk Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Center Harbor Posts: 1,173 Thanks: 207 Thanked 437 Times in 253 Posts	Get it in writing Before I'd help out the LRCT again I'd want the snowmobile trails reopened with a long term agreement in writing just there was no "confusion" about expectations after they have my $$$. LRCT has been deceptive and unnecessarily difficult, just barely tolerating snowmobile access on "their" land after specifically coming to the snowmobiling community for financial support.

07-21-2006, 09:10 PM	#22
fatlazyless Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 8,793 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 301 Thanked 1,024 Times in 745 Posts	...some thoughts Has there been enough snow in the last two winters for snowmobilng. Do not think so. No one knows about next winter. Thomas Plante, the first owner and creator of the Castle property made his money as a Boston shoe manufactorer. He passed away as a penniless pauper in poor health working as a dish washer at the Castle. His mistake was to invest all his savings in the Czar Nicholas' Russian war bonds which became worthless when the communists took over in the 1917 revolution. Not being able to pay Moultonboro his property taxes, he lost his castle and 5000 acres. At least the 5000 acres are still intact and the snowmobile trails coud return if the LRCT changes its mind and the snow returns. If it had been subdivided and developed, there would be no way. Just look what's happened with the Castle Springs water and beer property. That neighborhood has really changed what with the daily tanker-truck traffic.

07-21-2006, 10:10 PM	#23
secondcurve Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,118 Thanks: 1,331 Thanked 559 Times in 288 Posts	I guess we are almost all in agreement regarding the LRCT. I'd rather have wall to wall condos up there as oppossed to having the area controlled by a bunch of liars. If only these folks could figure out that by broading the use of the land they would increase their base of support, everyone would be much better off. Unfortunately, they feel they know what is best for the public, when in fact they don't have a clue.

07-22-2006, 10:31 AM	#24
Lin Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Massachusetts & Moultonborough Posts: 673 Thanks: 41 Thanked 15 Times in 11 Posts	Well I wouldn't want to see wall to wall condos there or much of any other type of development. I appreciate the LRCT purchasing or working with owners to restrict development on over 16,000 acres of land in the lakes region including some of the islands on the lake as they are getting fewer and far between as far as public access. I do like the idea of the protection of the land for the wildlife, flora, watershed and view protection. But like some other big "conservation" groups in the country for which I will not name, I think that more thought should have been made for access for all groups that had been approached or that contributed. Not just hikers. As it stands now there is limited recreation compared to how the land was used previously. It's almost a preservation thing. Conservation to me means more useages while preservation is like back country wilderness use where there are huge restrictions on what can and cannot be persued. As far as taking the lands out of the public taxroles, without getting into a major dispute on this one, I did a thesis in forestry school on the purchase of perpetual development rights of farmland vs outright selling for development and the onslaught of services a town then incurs to provide the new homeowners and the spirialing costs that constantly increase the taxes, ie schools, fire, police, highway etc. In fact this theory was just fought in our town this year when the residents overwhelmingly purchased for 5 mil over 130 acres of farmland rights vs a possible chapter 40b project that could have been sited on it. The argument was pay 5 million for the rights or millions more for probably a new school and added town services, besides the fact that we would lose another of our precious agricultural farms. __________________ Lin

07-22-2006, 10:34 AM	#25
chocophile Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: 19-Mile Bay Posts: 111 Thanks: 15 Thanked 30 Times in 13 Posts	Need to Hear LRCT Side of Story I'd like to hear the LRCT side of the story -- from them. Some of the posts in this thread contain inaccurate information, and I think it's important to hear both sides of the story. For example, there are many local people involved in LRCT, and in preserving the Castle. I suspect that some constructive engagement with LRCT regarding the snowmobile trail issue would be helpful. That kind of engagement would probably reveal that there's more in common on the issue of access than it first appears. I am glad that there aren't condo developments in those mountains, and in the long-term perhaps the snowmobile issue will be resolved to the satisfaction of all.

07-22-2006, 07:20 PM	#27
WINNOCTURN Deceased Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Moultonboro Posts: 849 Thanks: 350 Thanked 351 Times in 193 Posts	inaccurate information?????????? chocophle, just what are you saying is inaccurate? please expand on this comment. as i was one of or the most vocal in this saga i can probable respond to your assertions. i was not only questioning the LRCT on mr. Curran’s actions but also those of the trails bureau, ohrv,nhsa and dred. i think the four or five news interviews i did got some results. WINNOCTURN

07-23-2006, 09:58 AM	#29
secondcurve Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,118 Thanks: 1,331 Thanked 559 Times in 288 Posts	Upthesaukee: I fear you are correct. The Trust has gotten what it wants so why respond. These people like to operate under the cover of darkness. It is a shame since snowmobiling has such a low impact on the environment. If the Trust had any vision, they would be courting the snowmobilers since they too have a huge interest in maintaining open space, and as stated earlier, they do little or no damage to the environment, especially with the switch to 4-stroke engines.

07-23-2006, 11:12 AM	#30
Rayhunt Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Gilford NH Posts: 112 Thanks: 0 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Not a nickel LRCT lost all credibility when they closed the trails to snowmobiles..Not to mention income.. Did they know that local clubs recieve federal funds to maintain trails, part of which comes from registrations. I say let the castle crumble back into the ground from which it came, that way the property will be preserved in as natural way as possible with no more funding necessary.

07-24-2006, 08:30 PM	#31
nj2nh Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: NJ Posts: 529 Thanks: 80 Thanked 47 Times in 27 Posts	Found Charitable Giving info on LRCT I did a quick Yahoo search on the LRCT and this is what I found. http://www.charitynavigator.org/inde...orgid/4860.htm It only has one star (out of four or five, I think) in its peer rating. Not so good. But it confirms that it owns the Castle. Jersey Girl

07-28-2006, 09:47 AM	#32
whtmtn Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 3 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Snowmobilers aren't perfect. The clubs though with their dedicated members are excellent stewards of the trails and the surrounding areas they take responsibilty for. Landowners that wish to have trail access to their land 12 months of the year can have a snowmobile club maintain their trails for free for those 12 months. This includes bridges, waterbars, brushing, gates etc. The clubs wish to use the trails for maybe 12 WEEKS a year. This past season in Carroll County there was basically 2 weeks of riding. Think about that for a minute. Snowmobilers and the Clubs love their sport so much that they are willing to work the landowners trails for 12 months a year for usage that MAYBE will last for 12 weeks! I hope the working relationship that the Moultonboro SMC and the NH Trails Bureau once had with the Castle property can once again be reestablished for the betterment of the area as a whole. I think if this is done with a new open attitude of the LRCT they could expect much more local enthusiasim for their projects. My own 2 cents, Mark from the other side of the mountain and member of the OVSC.

07-28-2006, 10:16 AM	#33
Grant Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Pennsyltuckey, Tuftonboro, Moultonborough Posts: 1,501 Thanks: 377 Thanked 231 Times in 125 Posts	Article in Today's Citizen Article detailing the fundraising and the restoration needed at the Castle: http://www.citizen.com/apps/pbcs.dll...194/-1/CITIZEN __________________ "When I die, please don't let my wife sell my dive gear for what I told her I paid for it."

07-28-2006, 01:17 PM	#34
onthebay Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 114 Thanks: 0 Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts	Tourist Trap Do they still charge an entrance fee? Then it is a tourist trap...