What incentives do NH land owners have?

[WideOpenOrNothin 13]

Is there a tax credit for landowners who allow their land for Ohrv use?

REVISION

The topic I was trying to raise is:

if land owners have no incentive to allow ohrv on their property than they have no problem shutting down trails. No loss no gain so just shut it down. 

So what incentive do they have to allow trails on their property? That’s what I meant. 
 

If a person has an incentive for something than they’d be willing to listen to rule changes to increase popularity of the sport in our state. 

Edited November 4, 2019 by WideOpenOrNothin
Clarification

[rivercat 119]

There is NOT currently any benefit for landowners to keep land open from a tax standpoint.  That having been said any landowner  that has 10 acres or more not including the lot his residence is on is eligible for a "current use assessment"

Depending on the location and the use certain tracts have very inexpensive taxation in current use. My family has a piece that does not boarder a rd, is landlocked and the taxes for 20 acres is a few hundred dollars annually.  Keep in mind just because a landowner puts his land in current use does NOT mean he is required to allow snowmobiling or atv use,  he is also not required to have it open for hunting, I do not have all the info but I can say that it is tailored to promote "open space" 

[John Mercier 36]

You can get Current Use for less than 10 acres. It has to active agriculture with a certain gross income per acre.

Current Use II is the one that has recreational access for hunting, fishing, and scouting *hiking*.

Some landowners do lease their land to the BoT... but that is income and not tax credits/abatement.

 

[WideOpenOrNothin 13]

7 hours ago, rivercat said:

 

 

5 hours ago, John Mercier said:

 

I’m tracking the Current Use law, my dear friend in Boscawen( Hi brother), his mother owns large property in Andover and she operates under Current Use tax exemption. 

NH also has a veterans property tax credit up to $500, So why not a tax credit to incentivize land owners opening up their property.
 

But what do I always here, it’s the land owners who don’t want the higher speed limit, it’s land owners that hate long tracks.
No, it has nothing to do with the state is all I hear on SledNH- all just those grumpy land owners. Don’t Buy It. 

[jhwentworth 307]

NH does offer a 20% tax reduction to landowners who allow public access to land held under current use, but public OHRV/sled use isn't a required activity to get the discount.

20% Recreational Adjustment.
If a landowner decides not to post, and opens the property to public use without an entrance fee for 12 months a year, the land is entitled to a 20% reduction in the current use assessment of the acres opened to public recreational use. To receive the 20% recreation adjustment, the landowner must allow all of the following activities: Hunting Skiing Fishing Snowshoeing Hiking Nature Observation
If any of these activities are detrimental to a specific agricultural or forest crop, that activity may be prohibited. If the 20% recreational adjustment has been granted, posting to prohibit any activity listed above requires approval of the local assessing officials. See Cub 305.03 for further explanation.
The landowner may prohibit trespass upon his property for all other activities, including use of mechanized and off-highway vehicles (such as snowmobiles and three-wheelers), camping, cutting down trees, etc. Posting land to prohibit these activities will not affect the 20% recreation adjustment.

Here's the current use rules: https://www.revenue.nh.gov/current-use/documents/2019-booklet.pdf

Valuation of current use land is set by classification: farmland, forest land, unproductive land, and wetland.

From the NH Business Review: 

Farmland is currently assessed between $25 and $425 per acre. White pine forest with documented stewardship is assessed between $66 and $99 per acre and without stewardship between $110 and $165 per acre. Hardwood forest with stewardship is assessed between $28 and $43 per acre and without between $47 and $71 per acre. Unproductive and wetlands are assessed at $20 per acre. If land in current use is not posted but open to recreation — hunting, fishing, hiking, skiing, snowshoeing and nature observation — it qualifies for an additional 20 percent reduction in assessed value. 

There is no buyout provision in the program. When land in current use is sold or transferred, it remains enrolled. But if the land is either developed or put to a disqualifying use, a land use change tax equal to 10 percent of its “full and fair value” is charged.

Today, 3,008,456 acres — more than half the land area of the state — is enrolled in current use, and virtually half of it qualifies for the recreational discount. Forest land, with and without stewardship, covers 2,623,405 acres, or 87 percent, of the land in current use. The 204,353 acres of farmland account for 7 percent of the total, while 180,698 acres of unproductive land and wetland make up the balance.

[WideOpenOrNothin 13]

8 minutes ago, jhwentworth said:

NH does offer a 20% tax reduction to landowners who allow public access to land held under current use, but public OHRV/sled use isn't a required activity to get the discount.

20% Recreational Adjustment.
If a landowner decides not to post, and opens the property to public use without an entrance fee for 12 months a year, the land is entitled to a 20% reduction in the current use assessment of the acres opened to public recreational use. To receive the 20% recreation adjustment, the landowner must allow all of the following activities: Hunting Skiing Fishing Snowshoeing Hiking Nature Observation
If any of these activities are detrimental to a specific agricultural or forest crop, that activity may be prohibited. If the 20% recreational adjustment has been granted, posting to prohibit any activity listed above requires approval of the local assessing officials. See Cub 305.03 for further explanation.
The landowner may prohibit trespass upon his property for all other activities, including use of mechanized and off-highway vehicles (such as snowmobiles and three-wheelers), camping, cutting down trees, etc. Posting land to prohibit these activities will not affect the 20% recreation adjustment.

Here's the current use rules: https://www.revenue.nh.gov/current-use/documents/2019-booklet.pdf

Valuation of current use land is set by classification: farmland, forest land, unproductive land, and wetland.

From the NH Business Review: 

Farmland is currently assessed between $25 and $425 per acre. White pine forest with documented stewardship is assessed between $66 and $99 per acre and without stewardship between $110 and $165 per acre. Hardwood forest with stewardship is assessed between $28 and $43 per acre and without between $47 and $71 per acre. Unproductive and wetlands are assessed at $20 per acre. If land in current use is not posted but open to recreation — hunting, fishing, hiking, skiing, snowshoeing and nature observation — it qualifies for an additional 20 percent reduction in assessed value. 

There is no buyout provision in the program. When land in current use is sold or transferred, it remains enrolled. But if the land is either developed or put to a disqualifying use, a land use change tax equal to 10 percent of its “full and fair value” is charged.

Today, 3,008,456 acres — more than half the land area of the state — is enrolled in current use, and virtually half of it qualifies for the recreational discount. Forest land, with and without stewardship, covers 2,623,405 acres, or 87 percent, of the land in current use. The 204,353 acres of farmland account for 7 percent of the total, while 180,698 acres of unproductive land and wetland make up the balance.

I don’t read any incentive that is specific to ohrv use. 
What about the property owner whos parcel is too small to fall under current use?

what if a trail came through my acre and a half, I can’t apply for Current Use

[WideOpenOrNothin 13]

14 minutes ago, jhwentworth said:

NH does offer a 20% tax reduction to landowners who allow public access to land held under current use, but public OHRV/sled use isn't a required activity to get the discount.

 

Let’s not get off my point though, From John’s experiences he always states the land owners don’t want a faster speed limit, the land owners hate long tracks.
So how could we get them on board if law changes were being proposed.

How about registration vouchers each year for their toys, if they don’t ride they are transferable to anyone they desire ?

theres an idea

[jhwentworth 307]

1 minute ago, WideOpenOrNothin said:

Let’s not get off my point though, From John’s experiences he always states the land owners don’t want a faster speed limit, the land owners hate long tracks.
So how could we get them on board if law changes were being proposed.

How about registration vouchers each year for their toys, if they don’t ride they are transferable to anyone they desire ?

theres an idea

Your original question: "is there a tax credit for landowners who allow their land for Ohrv use?"

I believe my post directly addresses your question. 

 

I'd suggest you read the NH Business Review story in the link provided. It gives a good bit of history on the current use law. The story points out that our state constitution had to be amended to allow the current use law. 

If public OHRV access was required to get the current use discount It would be interesting to see how much property would be removed from current use.

[WideOpenOrNothin 13]

8 minutes ago, jhwentworth said:

Your original question: "is there a tax credit for landowners who allow their land for Ohrv use?"

I believe my post directly addresses your question. 

 

I'd suggest you read the NH Business Review story in the link provided. It gives a good bit of history on the current use law. The story points out that our state constitution had to be amended to allow the current use law. 

If public OHRV access was required to get the current use discount It would be interesting to see how much property would be removed from current use.

John you’re correct, I got my threads combined. Sorry and thank you. 
I started the thread without enough context. 

The topic I was trying to raise is:

if land owners have no incentive to allow ohrv on their property than they have no problem shutting down trails. No loss no gain so just shut it down. 

So what incentive do they have to allow trails on their property? That’s what I meant. 
 

If a person has an incentive for something than they’d be willing to listen to rule changes to increase popularity of the sport in our state. 
 

 

[John Mercier 36]

We don't have an incentive... that is unless we are leasing the property to the BoT. 

A fair amount of the property that you are contending is public. The one million plus residents that don't use motorized trail recreation have little to no incentive to increase it. And when we start discussing federal - owned or contracted land... the ratio between the numbers of citizens as compared to users becomes even greater.

If you wanted an incentive on your acre and a half... you would need to increase registrations to lease the land... and even then, it would be done under the BoT and be subject to legislation. Once it reaches a legislative point... the balance would then shift to the ratios of invested under the above sentence.

When the legislation and regulations are developed... the landowners, large and small, are usually pretty heavily represented in the outcome. 

 

 

[WideOpenOrNothin 13]

1 hour ago, John Mercier said:

We don't have an incentive... that is unless we are leasing the property to the BoT. 

A fair amount of the property that you are contending is public. The one million plus residents that don't use motorized trail recreation have little to no incentive to increase it. And when we start discussing federal - owned or contracted land... the ratio between the numbers of citizens as compared to users becomes even greater.

If you wanted an incentive on your acre and a half... you would need to increase registrations to lease the land... and even then, it would be done under the BoT and be subject to legislation. Once it reaches a legislative point... the balance would then shift to the ratios of invested under the above sentence.

When the legislation and regulations are developed... the landowners, large and small, are usually pretty heavily represented in the outcome. 

 

 

So if the large amount of property of public, tell me why it’s so hard to increase speed limit or get rid of all together ?

[John Mercier 36]

38 minutes ago, WideOpenOrNothin said:

So if the large amount of property of public, tell me why it’s so hard to increase speed limit or get rid of all together ?

Most of the public do not use the property in a motorized manner.

Think of it this way... for the first time ever in NH history... a trail group purchased land from its funding to create Jericho Mountain State Park.

That group was the last to be asked what they would like to see on the property... and have a 25 mph restriction.

I'm not suggesting they would have requested it to be faster than the 45 mph of State corridor trails, or even the 35 mph of connector trails... but even when they are the primary user, and funded the purchase, they had no control over the speed limit.

 

 

[WideOpenOrNothin 13]

19 minutes ago, John Mercier said:

Most of the public do not use the property in a motorized manner.

Think of it this way... for the first time ever in NH history... a trail group purchased land from its funding to create Jericho Mountain State Park.

That group was the last to be asked what they would like to see on the property... and have a 25 mph restriction.

I'm not suggesting they would have requested it to be faster than the 45 mph of State corridor trails, or even the 35 mph of connector trails... but even when they are the primary user, and funded the purchase, they had no control over the speed limit.

 

 

So you’re saying and I should just concede that NH will never change it’s snowmobile laws/ways. 
NH will forever hate off trail and mountains sleds
NH will always have an out dated speed limit no matter how good our equipment gets

Forever increasing registration fees to try to recoup lost revenue from exodus of younger riders

and our housing market will forever suck.(not that-that matter too much, but a small factor for people who want a hone base to play out of. 
 

Is that what is officially the stance and if so and this will be my last question/comment if so. 
 

If so, what then, will NH have to offer Over Maine to attract riders or combat the attraction of Maine?

[John Mercier 36]

If anything... except the speed limits to tighten as the number of non-motorized users increases. 

Off trail is completely a landowner decision... NH has no say in the consideration except on public land that is state-owned. I wouldn't expect that usage to be allowed... since it isn't condoned for any activity including hiking.

Registration fees... completely based on NHSA and local club maintenance costs. When they expanded the trail system from 6000 mile to 7800 miles(?); it should be presumed that the more mileage would result in higher total maintenance costs rather than lower.

Our housing market isn't likely to see a drop with the number of retirees. People simply didn't save enough to keep their income level at where it was when they were working... to do so requires you to save about 10-15 times your income. Most retirees tend to save two to three times their income... so they sell the house and move to the cheapest that they can find in the region... because employment is no longer the issue.

Personally, long term... I don't think they will. Riders will always seek a cost effective solution, or simply leave the format... and nothing in the numbers suggests that younger households are saving nearly enough for income replacement as they age. Not even taking into account that they have less SS coming and Medicare will probably not be as generous. 

But it won't be just snowmobiling. We may see a smarter younger generation opt for the lower cost new equipment... without all the power and capabilities... or older used equipment... and keep the difference for registration, camp, and accessories. Hard to guess. Money tends to move in and out of recreational formats in long cycles.

 

[rivercat 119]

1 hour ago, WideOpenOrNothin said:

So you’re saying and I should just concede that NH will never change it’s snowmobile laws/ways. NH  HAS LAW CHANGES OFTEN . IF THE REGISTRATION COST OR PROCESS CHANGES BY A PENNY IT INVOLVES A LAW CHANGE, THE SPEEDING, NO REGISTRATION, AND OFF TRAIL FINES INVOLVED A LAW CHANGE,  I HOPE YOUR ACTIVE WITH A CLUB OR TWO AND IF SO LEARN MORE AND GET INVOLVED WITH THE PROCESS, MUCH OF WHAT YOUR NOT LIKING IS THE EFFORT OF FELLOW SNOWMOBILERS. 
NH will forever hate off trail and mountains sleds (NH DOESNT HATE MOUNTAIN SLEDS} , FIRST THE TRAIL SYSTEM IS BROUGHT TO YOU BY OVER 4000 PRIVATE LANDOWNERS AND THEY OFTEN ARE WILLING TO LET A TRAIL PASS THRU BUT JUST BECAUSE THERE IS MORE PROPERTY DOESNT MEAN IT ALL "OPEN" FOR SLED/ATV USE ALSO BE MINDFUL THAT THE 2 MILLION DOLLER LIABILITY INSURANCE THAT IS PAID FOR BY THE STATE BOT COVERS RIDERS THAT ARE ON THE STATE TRAIL SYSTEM, AND IF THEY ARE OFF TRAIL THE INSURANCE IS NOT EFFECTIVE ESPECIALLY IF THE OFF TRAIL RIDERS GO ONTO LAND THAT IS NOT INSURED EACH CLUB MUST PROVIDE A LIST OF ALL LANDOWNERS ANNUALLY TO THE NH BOT TO INSURE  
NH will always have an out dated speed limit no matter how good our equipment gets IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THE SPEED LIMIT DOES INDEED REDUCE THE FATALITY RATE. POSSIBLY IF PEOPLE DIDNT DRIVE AROUND BLIND CORNERS AT THE POSTED LIMIT IT WOULD HELP YOUR CAUSE BUT IF THE SPEED LIMIT IS BUMMED UP TO 65 HOW MANY RIDERS WILL CLAIM ITS STILL TOO SLOW? HOW MANY WILL FEEL THAT OTHER RIDERS ARE DRIVING TOO SLOW?  THINK A MOMENT A 300 MILE DAY IS A HECK OF A RIDE, I NEVER FELT THE NEED TO GO OUT AFTER SUPPER AFTER THIS TYPE OF DAY,   if you do 300 miles in 8 hours it means your average speed was 37 MPH

Forever increasing registration fees to try to recoup lost revenue from exodus of younger riders THE ASSUMED EXODUS OF YOUNGER RIDERS IS NOT THE ISSUE AT ALL RATHER IN A LOW SNOW SEASON AS MANY AS 25,000 SLEDS DO NOT GET REGISTERED, THE MINDSET IS WHY REGISTER IF THERE IS LIMITED OR LOW SNOW COVERAGE. BETWEEN THE 11,000 CLUB MEMBERSHIPS THAT GO AWAY ON A LOW SNOW YEAR, COUPLED TO THE 25,000 REGISTRATIONS THEN ADD IN THE GAS TAX REVENUE THAT IS TIED TO EACH REGISTERED SLED AND YOU EASILY SURPASS $2,500,000 IN REVENUE LOSS  IN ONE BAD YEAR , FACT IS WE HAVE HAD SEVERAL LOW SNOW WINTERS IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS.  NOT ALL RIDERS SUPPORT SNOWMOBILING EACH WINTER

and our housing market will forever suck.(not that-that matter too much, but a small factor for people who want a hone base to play out of.  I HAVE BEEN SEEING HOUSES GO UP FOR SALE AND BE UNDER AGREEMENT IN DAYS,  THE HIGHER HOMES SELL FOR THE BETTER THE ARGUEMENT THE TOWN HAS TO INCREASE ASSESSMENT AND EVERYONES TAXES!
 

Is that what is officially the stance and if so and this will be my last question/comment if so. 
 

If so, what then, will NH have to offer Over Maine to attract riders or combat the attraction of Maine? WHEN NH IS BLESSED WITH A GOOD SNOW YEAR STATEWIDE THEN RIDERS  RIDE LOCALLY MORESO.  WHEN ITS A POOR SNOW YEAR RIDERS TRAILER IF THEY WANT TO RIDE

 

Edited November 5, 2019 by rivercat

[WideOpenOrNothin 13]

19 minutes ago, rivercat said:

NH  HAS LAW CHANGES OFTEN . IF THE REGISTRATION COST OR PROCESS CHANGES BY A PENNY IT INVOLVES A LAW CHANGE, THE SPEEDING, NO REGISTRATION, AND OFF TRAIL FINES INVOLVED A LAW CHANGE,  I HOPE YOUR ACTIVE WITH A CLUB OR TWO AND IF SO LEARN MORE AND GET INVOLVED WITH THE PROCESS, MUCH OF WHAT YOUR NOT LIKING IS THE EFFORT OF FELLOW SNOWMOBILERS.
 I pay my dues every year, does that count? I’m more involved in coaching my sons sports(That is where my volunteer team goes during these years) I’ve been known to do some trail work, nothing to write about at this time. 
 (NH DOESNT HATE MOUNTAIN SLEDS} , FIRST THE TRAIL SYSTEM IS BROUGHT TO YOU BY OVER 4000 PRIVATE LANDOWNERS AND THEY OFTEN ARE WILLING TO LET A TRAIL PASS THRU BUT JUST BECAUSE THERE IS MORE PROPERTY DOESNT MEAN IT ALL "OPEN" FOR SLED/ATV USE ALSO BE MINDFUL THAT THE 2 MILLION DOLLER LIABILITY INSURANCE THAT IS PAID FOR BY THE STATE BOT COVERS RIDERS THAT ARE ON THE STATE TRAIL SYSTEM, AND IF THEY ARE OFF TRAIL THE INSURANCE IS NOT EFFECTIVE ESPECIALLY IF THE OFF TRAIL RIDERS GO ONTO LAND THAT IS NOT INSURED EACH CLUB MUST PROVIDE A LIST OF ALL LANDOWNERS ANNUALLY TO THE NH BOT TO INSURE  
NH Absolutely hates mountain sleds! We could go on and on with threads on here showing it. They’ve been vilified and cast out, yes cast out. How do all these other states get away with great off trail capabilities? There are town in Maine where the vast majority of their sled population is mountain sleds, rangley, eustis are thriving off it.   IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THE SPEED LIMIT DOES INDEED REDUCE THE FATALITY RATE. POSSIBLY IF PEOPLE DIDNT DRIVE AROUND BLIND CORNERS AT THE POSTED LIMIT IT WOULD HELP YOUR CAUSE BUT IF THE SPEED LIMIT IS BUMMED UP TO 65 HOW MANY RIDERS WILL CLAIM ITS STILL TOO SLOW? HOW MANY WILL FEEL THAT OTHER RIDERS ARE DRIVING TOO SLOW?  THINK A MOMENT A 300 MILE DAY IS A HECK OF A RIDE, I NEVER FELT THE NEED TO GO OUT AFTER SUPPER AFTER THIS TYPE OF DAY,   if you do 300 miles in 8 hours it means your average speed was 37 MPH

Of course speed limits save lives, let’s drop it to 25 and I’m sure it’ll save a couple more lives. Doesn’t mean increasing it will cause more deaths either, it can  help keep flow of traffic moving better and today’s sleds are more powerful but easier to turn, move, stop and go. No wonder you can’t go out for supper after 8 hours at 37mph. Who the hells back can take that, doesn’t sound fun to me  THE ASSUMED EXODUS OF YOUNGER RIDERS IS NOT THE ISSUE AT ALL RATHER IN A LOW SNOW SEASON AS MANY AS 25,000 SLEDS DO NOT GET REGISTERED, THE MINDSET IS WHY REGISTER IF THERE IS LIMITED OR LOW SNOW COVERAGE. BETWEEN THE 11,000 CLUB MEMBERSHIPS THAT GO AWAY ON A LOW SNOW YEAR, COUPLED TO THE 25,000 REGISTRATIONS THEN ADD IN THE GAS TAX REVENUE THAT IS TIED TO EACH REGISTERED SLED AND YOU EASILY SURPASS $2,500,000 IN REVENUE LOSS  IN ONE BAD YEAR , FACT IS WE HAVE HAD SEVERAL LOW SNOW WINTERS IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS.  NOT ALL RIDERS SUPPORT SNOWMOBILING EACH WINTER

coos county has been getting Plenty of snow over passed few years, even Twin is starting to get decent snow again. The mass exodus is NH staleness 
 

There’s been no exodus of the sport by younger people, there’s been an exodus of NH, the sport has Never been more popular, More exposure than Ever, ever  

LOOK AT THE GRASS DRAGS!! Never have they been more popular, thousands and thousands of young adults pack it more and more very year. Snowmobiles for dirt cheap All Over FaceBook and other social media sites. Sleds sell like crazy, there’s so many out there. I don’t ever here anyone who rides in the state next store not registering because of lack of snow. 

I HAVE BEEN SEEING HOUSES GO UP FOR SALE AND BE UNDER AGREEMENT IN DAYS,  THE HIGHER HOMES SELL FOR THE BETTER THE ARGUEMENT THE TOWN HAS TO INCREASE ASSESSMENT AND EVERYONES TAXES!
The point of the housing is it’s another incentive to go across the boarder, the ability for people to have an affordable home base  

WHEN NH IS BLESSED WITH A GOOD SNOW YEAR STATEWIDE THEN RIDERS  RIDE LOCALLY MORESO.  WHEN ITS A POOR SNOW YEAR RIDERS TRAILER IF THEY WANT TO RIDE.

So your playing the long game and standing pat while riders move east  

that’s a bold move Cotton

 

[WideOpenOrNothin 13]

39 minutes ago, rivercat said:

 

What a great point I just thought of. You can’t even get into the grass drags without standing in a mile long line. IT IS INSANE and if you go you know how true that is. 

snowmobiling is no longer Just about going weeeeee down the trail at a snails pace(37mph). It’s a fast moving sport, it’s become an extreme sport with the capabilities of our machines and cool stuff we can do. HELLO DOUBLE BACKFLIP ON SLED- come on. 

But River Cat and everyone else who has built the sport up in NH can’t see the writing on the wall. 

while you’re going to bed after riding. The younger generation- is working their bodies and sleds our in the deep stuff 10 Times harder than you on the trail. Really putting in work/fun and then they’re going to the local spot and having a great  night. Work hard- play hard, that’s what’s happening, but sure isn’t in NH. 

[John Mercier 36]

11 hours ago, WideOpenOrNothin said:

What a great point I just thought of. You can’t even get into the grass drags without standing in a mile long line. IT IS INSANE and if you go you know how true that is. 

snowmobiling is no longer Just about going weeeeee down the trail at a snails pace(37mph). It’s a fast moving sport, it’s become an extreme sport with the capabilities of our machines and cool stuff we can do. HELLO DOUBLE BACKFLIP ON SLED- come on. 

But River Cat and everyone else who has built the sport up in NH can’t see the writing on the wall. 

while you’re going to bed after riding. The younger generation- is working their bodies and sleds our in the deep stuff 10 Times harder than you on the trail. Really putting in work/fun and then they’re going to the local spot and having a great  night. Work hard- play hard, that’s what’s happening, but sure isn’t in NH. 

I think his point is they may want to work a lot harder... save their money and buy land.

 

[ljgomes 77]

One of the largest landowners in the State is the federal government with ownership of the White Mt. National Forest.  Right now there are only 200 miles of designated snowmobile trails in an area the size of the state of RI.  I suggest that when the forest management plan gets reopened, that you lead the charge to try and get some of the hundreds of miles of logging roads and trails in the National Forest to be opened up to off-trail riding.  After all, it is public land and it should be available for public use in the winter.

[John Mercier 36]

1 hour ago, ljgomes said:

One of the largest landowners in the State is the federal government with ownership of the White Mt. National Forest.  Right now there are only 200 miles of designated snowmobile trails in an area the size of the state of RI.  I suggest that when the forest management plan gets reopened, that you lead the charge to try and get some of the hundreds of miles of logging roads and trails in the National Forest to be opened up to off-trail riding.  After all, it is public land and it should be available for public use in the winter.

You know that it is a waste of time. The AMC and several national groups are going to oppose off-trail riding. 

They have much greater numbers than the 43k snowmobile registrants in NH.

Finding a private landowner... or even starting a club that does not widen and groom their trails is more likely to create the effect.

But most of these riders don't really want to go through any of the effort that is being optioned. It takes a lot of work.

 

[PolarisCobra 131]

13 hours ago, WideOpenOrNothin said:

What a great point I just thought of. You can’t even get into the grass drags without standing in a mile long line. IT IS INSANE and if you go you know how true that is. 

snowmobiling is no longer Just about going weeeeee down the trail at a snails pace(37mph). It’s a fast moving sport, it’s become an extreme sport with the capabilities of our machines and cool stuff we can do. HELLO DOUBLE BACKFLIP ON SLED- come on. 

But River Cat and everyone else who has built the sport up in NH can’t see the writing on the wall. 

while you’re going to bed after riding. The younger generation- is working their bodies and sleds our in the deep stuff 10 Times harder than you on the trail. Really putting in work/fun and then they’re going to the local spot and having a great  night. Work hard- play hard, that’s what’s happening, but sure isn’t in NH. 

Its probably a good thing that the sport is dying... Otherwise you would need to wait in line without standing in a line two miles long. 

I don't think the sport is in as tough shape as you think it is. I do agree there are challenges. 

There are many reasons why off trail works better in Maine than in NH, space is one, landowners are another, evolution of regulations in each state play a part. 

I like riding in NH for the infrastructure, relative closeness of things, and I think better views/vistas compared to the places I have ridden in Maine. I have ridden in the Forks area, and Millinocket areas on Maine for reference.I like the tighter, twisty trails in NH more for the most part, I am not a fan of running at 60 plus MPH for long distances. I often ride two-up with my wife, that makes a difference for me for sure. My sled has rarely (not never) gone faster than 55, but I know it can do 90. 

We each have different desires for our riding style, and it may not be reasonable to expect that all styles can be accommodated in a given area. 

The houses you posted are surely affordable. But - I am not sure that those examples have direct trail access (this would be a deal breaker for me), or enough space to park multiple trucks and trailers. If those areas were really desirable, my guess is that the properties would be more expensive. They are offered at the price they are because no one will pay more for them. 

$50 per sled per yea would not entice me to drive, an extra 75+ miles each way every weekend to get to a vacation home, that's just bad economics. A lower price for a home may make that a better move. 

Either way, you have woken this place up, and generated some lively discussion - thanks for that. I hope you find a place that suits your needs, wherever it may be. 

 

[TTA89 5]

5 hours ago, PolarisCobra said:

 

The houses you posted are surely affordable. But - I am not sure that those examples have direct trail access (this would be a deal breaker for me), or enough space to park multiple trucks and trailers. If those areas were really desirable, my guess is that the properties would be more expensive. They are offered at the price they are because no one will pay more for them. 

$50 per sled per yea would not entice me to drive, an extra 75+ miles each way every weekend to get to a vacation home, that's just bad economics. A lower price for a home may make that a better move. 

I didn't reply to the other thread but I had similar thoughts.  Are those "cheaper" places on the trails or even close to where you actually want to ride?  How far away is the off trail riding you want to do?  Surely not out the back door in Mexico? I get the attraction to mountain/off trail riding but this isn't the Rockies with vast expanses of open areas to play around. 

I do agree the speed limits are dumb.  It's always wrapped up in the guise of "safety" which is a joke.  I've never gotten a ticket, I ride to my ability level and surroundings which is typically above the speed limits.  I don't do 90-100 down the straights as I'm always worried a deer is going to jump out in front of me and this is where the fish cops are always shooting radar.  You could make the same case about 70mph on 93 as being too slow.  It's about revenue generation, not safety. 

"WideOpen" seems to be strictly concerned about the costs. You gotta pay to play or sit in the car for hours.... I'm willing to spend the money for more riding time and less travel time, the few hundred here or there isn't an issue for me.  I want to go where it's great when it's great which is why I have VT, NH, and Maine stickers on my sled.  NH isn't perfect, I wish they could adopt some of the VAST ideas but I realize the funding is totally different. 

[WideOpenOrNothin 13]

7 hours ago, PolarisCobra said:

 

 

 

1 hour ago, TTA89 said:

 

What’s funny is you guys think I off trail...I Dont

I'm a trail rider who’d like to be able to see what the off trail is about. Not crazy deep off trail(personally), I’d rather be on trail with my wife and kids but we’d like to be able to have fun some in the deep. Yes we have bigger sleds(144-146”) but that’s because we like the way they ride. 
 

to  Cobra- I literally said the sport has never been more popular, it’s NH that’s losing the young gen. 
 

to TT- I said I don’t care about paying more if I didn’t have to deal with the stupid, out of date laws where I have worry about expensive tickets. it’s funny how you keep saying things like; if I could do it again and I wish they didn’t have these dumb laws. Lol. Exactly why people are exiting the granite state sledding industry
 

im telling you why NH is losing younger riders...

 

[WideOpenOrNothin 13]

8 hours ago, John Mercier said:

You know that it is a waste of time. The AMC and several national groups are going to oppose off-trail riding. 

They have much greater numbers than the 43k snowmobile registrants in NH.

Finding a private landowner... or even starting a club that does not widen and groom their trails is more likely to create the effect.

But most of these riders don't really want to go through any of the effort that is being optioned. It takes a lot of work.

 

You know that it is a waste of time.

You said it John, this is the reason right here!! Excellent job saying what the truth is! Great job to all you old men who are on the end of their careers and believe snowmobiling should stay the way it’s been. Lol- what garbage. 
 

 

Edited November 5, 2019 by WideOpenOrNothin

[WideOpenOrNothin 13]

I just sold a freezer to a younger guy in his 30’s. I sold it in 12 hours on Facebook market place. 
he noticed my trailer and we got sled talking. 

He lives in Strafford county and rides around eustis and the southern portion of The County. ALL HIS FRIENDS RIDE DEEP SNOW. 

NONE OF THEM HAVE REGISTERED IN NH IN YEARS AND HE STATES NONE PF THEM WILL EVER AGAIN FOR THE SAME REASON IVE BEEN STATING. 

I mean how much more writing on the wall do you need. I felt sad and vindicated because of the ease all of this sale(This is how sleds sell like crazy to younger people-NOT CRAIGSLIST OR UNCLE HENRY’S) and then for him to say all that. 
 

NH IS FUCKED AND YOU CAN BLAME EVERY PERSON WHO OPPOSES THE TRANSFORMATION OF THIS GREAT SPORT(same as skiing-snowboarding)

So you guys got me, I’m done harping on what’s wrong with NH. 
 

YOU OBVIOUSLY DON’T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THE FUTURE OF NH SLEDDING AND NEITHER DOES THE STATE. 

SHIT ON MY LACK OF CONTRIBUTION OF “TRAIL WORK OR FIGHTING THE FIGHT IN CONCORD” 

FUCKIN BLAH BLAH BLAH. IT SHOULDN'T TAKE SOME NON BUREAUCRAT TO TELL YOU SNOWMOBILE BUREAUCRATS WHY OUR STATE SUCKS FOR SLEDDING LAWS- BUT THATS HOW IT ALWAYS WORKS BEFORE ITS TOO LATE  

ITS OBVIOUS To EVERYONE BUT YOU 

GREAT FUCKING JOB GUYS- you’ve won this one but NH is the ultimate loser. 
 

Edited November 6, 2019 by WideOpenOrNothin