|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
While Vermont property owners who permit recreational use of their land are legally protected, they receive no compensation or tax relief for their generosity.
by Compass Vermont
Vermont’s outdoor recreation economy—valued at $2.1 billion and representing 4.8% of the state’s entire GDP—rests on an unusual foundation: the unpaid generosity of thousands of private landowners who allow strangers to snowmobile, mountain bike, hike, and hunt across their property.
But as property taxes surge across Vermont, a critical question emerges: is there a breaking point where landowners, facing ever-higher tax bills without any compensation for providing public access, simply say no?
If that happens, the consequences would be swift and catastrophic.
The Permission Economy
Vermont’s recreational infrastructure operates on what analysts call a “permission economy”—a high-trust system built not on permanent public ownership, but on annual handshake agreements between nonprofit trail organizations and private property owners.
The numbers reveal the scale of this dependency. The Vermont Association of Snow Travelers (VAST) maintains approximately 4,700 miles of snowmobile trails, with 80% crossing private land owned by an estimated 9,000 to 9,500 individual property owners. The Vermont Mountain Bike Association (VMBA) oversees roughly 1,600 miles of mountain bike trails, with 75% on private property belonging to hundreds of landowners.
This arrangement exists because of simple geography: approximately 85% of Vermont is privately owned. Without private land access, a statewide recreational network is impossible.
A Vulnerability Spectrum
The degree of risk varies dramatically by activity:
The Green Mountain Club stands apart. After facing a crisis in 1986 when “handshake agreements were no longer enough” as land ownership changed, the organization launched a 30-year campaign to purchase land or permanent conservation easements. Today, only 6 miles of the 445-mile Long Trail remain unprotected, making it nearly immune to a mass revocation scenario.
The Compensation Question: Nothing
Here’s where property taxes enter the equation: Vermont landowners who allow public recreational access receive neither direct payment nor tax breaks for doing so.
In fact, accepting payment would be disastrous. Vermont’s landowner liability laws provide robust legal protection to property owners who allow free recreational use, shielding them from lawsuits unless they engage in “willful or wanton misconduct.” But this protection contains what analysts call a “tripwire”—if a landowner charges any fee, they instantly lose their liability shield and become vulnerable to negligence lawsuits.
Organizations like VAST and VMBA cannot pay landowners for access because doing so would expose those landowners to massive legal risk. The system depends entirely on unpaid generosity to keep the liability protections intact.
Similarly, Vermont’s “Current Use” tax reduction program lowers property taxes for landowners who manage their land for forestry or agriculture—not for providing recreational access. There is no provision in current law that reduces taxes specifically because a landowner allows public trail use.
The Dual Shield Keeping It Together
The permission economy functions only because of what researchers describe as a “dual shield” protecting landowners.
The first shield is statutory. Vermont’s general recreational use liability law treats recreational users as legal trespassers, dramatically limiting landowner liability. An even stronger protection exists for trails formally inducted into the “Vermont trails system”, where landowners face liability only if they “intentionally” inflict damage—a standard approaching absolute immunity.
The second shield is financial. VAST spends nearly $200,000 annually on trail liability insurance and contractually agrees to defend landowners or reimburse them for legal defense costs. VMBA provides similar protection, adding landowners as “additional insured” under its policies.
This dual shield makes participation rational for landowners. But if either part fails—whether through court decisions weakening liability protections, financial insolvency of trail organizations, or other factors—the incentive structure collapses.
The Breaking Point Scenario
Property taxes represent a potential catalyst. As Vermont grapples with property tax increases driven by education funding pressures and reappraisal crises, landowners face mounting annual costs. They receive no compensation for maintaining trails, no tax relief for providing access, and must renew permissions annually (in VAST’s case) while watching their tax bills climb.
The math becomes stark: thousands of dollars in annual property taxes, zero dollars in compensation, and the responsibility of allowing thousands of strangers onto their land each year.
Vermont’s outdoor recreation economy has effectively outsourced 4.8% of the state’s GDP to this unpaid arrangement.
Fractures in the System
The collapse scenario isn’t purely theoretical—it’s already happening in small-scale incidents.
In 2019-2020, three landowners at Kingdom Trails revoked permission due to frustration with overcrowding and user behavior. The loss of just 12 miles “effectively splits the Kingdom Trails system,” forcing trail closures and the cancellation of NEMBAfest 2020, a major economic event. Kingdom Trails, which generates $10.3 million in annual economic impact from 94,000 visitors, exists entirely on land owned by more than 100 private property owners.
In 2024, a VAST club reported that users forced open a gate on a trail the landowner had requested remain closed. The club warned the “rightfully upset” landowner “may CLOSE that trail permanently,” noting “that is a major trail for us with no way around it.”
Legal conflicts are also emerging. Landowners in Tunbridge sued their town over trail maintenance rights, resulting in years of expensive litigation that required legislative clarification.
The Economic Shockwave
A mass revocation would trigger immediate economic devastation because these trail networks derive value from connectivity, not total mileage. A single lost “connector” trail can render entire systems unusable.
The $220 million “snow activities” sector—the single largest contributor to Vermont’s outdoor recreation GDP—would face elimination. VAST alone claims over $500 million in annual economic impact.
Mountain biking destinations would vanish. World-renowned networks built on “critical community connectors” on private land would fragment into disconnected, unusable segments.
The cascading effect would cripple Vermont’s $4 billion tourism industry, which supports 31,053 jobs—9% of Vermont’s workforce. Tourism spending includes $1.4 billion for lodging, $830 million for food and beverages, and $658 million in retail.
The fiscal impact would be severe: the loss of $282.3 million in state and local tax revenue would equal a $1,048 tax increase for every household in Vermont.
For hunters, the impact would be cultural. The “open access” tradition would end, restricting access to 85% of Vermont’s land and disenfranchising the majority of the state’s 64,343 licensed hunters.
What Happens Next
Vermont faces what analysts describe as “two futures.”
The current path continues relying on the annual goodwill of 9,500+ individuals and the financial health of nonprofit organizations. This high-risk approach costs taxpayers relatively little in the short term but leaves 4.8% of the state’s GDP vulnerable to the triggers already manifesting in real-world incidents.
The alternative follows the Green Mountain Club’s model: systematically transitioning the most critical trail corridors from revocable permissions to permanent protection through conservation easements and land acquisition. This approach costs significantly more upfront but eliminates the systemic risk. As the GMC has noted, permanent protection is the only way to justify major capital investments needed to make trails resilient.
The question Vermont must answer: as property taxes rise and landowners face increasing financial pressure with zero compensation for providing recreational access, how long can a $2.1 billion economy built on unpaid generosity remain stable? And if policymakers believe the risk is real, what is the price of buying that risk off the books before it materializes into economic collapse?
The permission economy operates on trust, tradition, and the absence of better alternatives. Whether those forces can withstand the mounting pressures of Vermont’s property tax crisis may determine the future of the state’s outdoor identity and a substantial portion of its economic foundation.
Discover more from Vermont Daily Chronicle
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Just one of the problems of putting all of your eggs in one basket.
What happens when middle class Vermonters can no longer afford to pay their property taxes? Isn’t the answer rather obvious.
The State will confiscate the property and sell it in a ‘fire-sale’ market to pay the back taxes. The faster the State increases its education spending, the faster middle class property owners will be replaced by government operative’s and wealthy elite’s ownership, controlling Vermont as their private playground for pennies on the dollar.
Clearly, this is the plan. No other logic can explain the absurdity that has become Vermont’s governance. The perpetrators are just not that stupid.
The biggest driver of high property taxes is out-of-control public education spending. The personnel inflation is out of control. If you include all paid staff from superintendents down to bus drivers and custodians and all the special tutors, teachers’ aids etc etc, the ratio is something like 3 students for every staff…completely unsustainable. This scenario was brought about because the VTNEA teachers union reaps their power and money from all those excessive numbers of warm bodies with paychecks and OWNS the Vermont democrat party lock, stock and barrel. The “Green Mountain Club model” of purchasing the land under their trails only works because that doesn’t require large plots of land. Other trail networks for VAST and mountain biking cover much more land and if it ever came up for sale, would be cost prohibitive to purchase. The simple solution is for people to STOP VOTING FOR DEMOCRATS AND PROGRESSIVES.
The “current use ” program needs to be overhauled.
A program that was originally designed to help farmers has been highjacked by wealthy land owners.
If you have your land in “current use”–and us normal folk are assuming your tax burden, then there should be some stipulations such as the inability to post the land, access the land for hiking, VAST and such non destructive activity.
Why are we cutting rich people who buy large tracks of land a tax break?
You’re right, Rich. Vermont should take a hint from neighboring New Hampshire, where there is a tiered current use system. If you allow people on your land, you pay less. If you post it then you pay a premium tax. Theres already a blueprint in place!
“Why are we cutting rich people who buy large tracks of land a tax break?”
Because they are the ones that write the rules.
The Current Use tax break program needs to end.
Land hoarders taking advantage of the current use tax breaks should instead be paying the same rate per acre as owners of smaller lots. Most of us would see a reduction in property taxes as a result.
Dears. Dare you imagine that property tax itself is unconstitutional? The municipalities in taxing you to remain on your land have therein claimed superior title, you are not the OWNER, they are. When you are unceremoniously evicted from your land, no matter whether it is paid in full, been in your family for centuries, or for lack of coughing up however many shelkles the Corporation that calls itself your town demands, this equals you in tenancy, they in superior title or ownership. There is no private property. The municipalities claim all the property as their own, which you must rent forever, to use. A rose by any other name is still a rose. This of course contradicts our constitution in VT. It also means that every improvement you have made to your land needs to be reimbursed by the acting owners, your municipality. Take care and read your constitution. oh the bit about each person should pay their fair share? Article 9, let’s do look at that closely, what does it say? …. But no part of any person’s property can be justly taken or applied to public uses without the person’s own consent…….nor are the people bound by any law but such that they have in like manner assented to, for their common good…..and previous to any law being made to raise a tax, the purpose ought to be made evident to the legislature to be of more service to the community than the money would if not collected. ” Public schools: as a condition of public schooling children are subjected to a vaccination schedule of shots that have not been safety tested. This is a fact, not fiction that the industry, through its owned media, through its owned academics, through its owned politicians squirm and lie attempting to get around. The liability shield given to big pharma entirely unconstitutional, as is EVERY liability shield, since every American has the right to due process to claim harm in any suit at common law over $20. Since 86 with the liability shield the health of children has steadily declined and now, finally, the cdc has to correct its lie, it cannot prove that the shots do NOT cause autism. They also cause all sorts of health issues, the kind we see across our children today. Am I an anti vaxer? I am anti corruption, anti killing and maiming and experimentation on children, if that is what an anti vaxxer is, then you can call me a rose. Doubt ye, that the trans movement is about a new class of life time clients of big pharma? And you thought its all about tolerance? No, I will not tolerate the deliberate poisoning of our children and our skies and our soils, and the Lilly livered public servants who fall, failing their oath to uphold our right to life, to protect our property to the dictates of our own conscience. I do not consent to offering the Municipality superior title to my land because of the damning unconstitutional activities they never stand against. I will protect it from their seizure by creating my own HOA as the final lien holder, or put it in trust within a trust. And now, without checking its an easy guess that congress ‘removed’ the local communities right to refuse a mini cell tower on every telephone pole, with its life endangering and ending consequences, only, congress no matter what it approves, does not have the authority to do so. And the local municipalities, pip squeaks as they are, have no right to surrender OUR RIGHT To LIFE to any unconstititutional directive the corporate congress may make in the 10 square miles of DC. So, if you want to have you rights. USE THEM. Learn them. Start here: The Rule of Law, A Nation of Laws, not Men by Ron Bouchard jr.