Welcome to the AppalachianTrailCafe.net!
Take a moment and register and then join the conversation

Limestone Spring Lean-to - Connecticut A.T.

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Limestone Spring Lean-to - Connecticut A.T.

      I just saw this posted over on TOS and wanted to repost:



      NOTICE! Limestone Springs shelter and camping area have been closed since June 4th due to hazard trees in both areas. With the death earlier this year at the Ed Garvey shelter due to a falling tree, the CT-AMC has been conducting a series of inspections at all of our camping and lean-to sites. With nine trees identified as hazards, the situation at Limestone was declared by the ATC/NPS/AMC as requiring immediate closure and the hiring of a professional arborist to make the area safe for visitors. A notice of the re-opening of the site will be posted here on Whiteblaze.net as well as other outlets.
      Jim Liptack
      CT-AMC Overseer of Trails
      Dogs are excellent judges of character, this fact goes a long way toward explaining why some people don't like being around them.

    • SarcasmTheElf wrote:

      I just saw this posted over on TOS and wanted to repost:



      NOTICE! Limestone Springs shelter and camping area have been closed since June 4th due to hazard trees in both areas. With the death earlier this year at the Ed Garvey shelter due to a falling tree, the CT-AMC has been conducting a series of inspections at all of our camping and lean-to sites. With nine trees identified as hazards, the situation at Limestone was declared by the ATC/NPS/AMC as requiring immediate closure and the hiring of a professional arborist to make the area safe for visitors. A notice of the re-opening of the site will be posted here on Whiteblaze.net as well as other outlets.
      Jim Liptack
      CT-AMC Overseer of Trails

      Don't mean to sound insensitive, but closing an area because a tree fell and killed someone is ridiculous...all woods have trees that fall, living is hazardous to your health.
      I may grow old but I'll never grow up.

    • Drybones wrote:

      SarcasmTheElf wrote:

      I just saw this posted over on TOS and wanted to repost:



      NOTICE! Limestone Springs shelter and camping area have been closed since June 4th due to hazard trees in both areas. With the death earlier this year at the Ed Garvey shelter due to a falling tree, the CT-AMC has been conducting a series of inspections at all of our camping and lean-to sites. With nine trees identified as hazards, the situation at Limestone was declared by the ATC/NPS/AMC as requiring immediate closure and the hiring of a professional arborist to make the area safe for visitors. A notice of the re-opening of the site will be posted here on Whiteblaze.net as well as other outlets.
      Jim Liptack
      CT-AMC Overseer of Trails

      Don't mean to sound insensitive, but closing an area because a tree fell and killed someone is ridiculous...all woods have trees that fall, living is hazardous to your health.
      My guess is that Liability laws are at least partially to blame.

      In addition to that, Connecticut's section only allows camping at designated sites due to the very narrow trail corridor and close proximity to private land. It does seem reasonable to me that if the authorities are telling hikers exactly what spots they are allowed to use for camping, then they should take action if there is a known hazard in that spot.

      But yeah, we should all be looking above us prior to setting up our tents...
      Dogs are excellent judges of character, this fact goes a long way toward explaining why some people don't like being around them.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Sarcasmtheelf ().

    • "Duty of care" is a phrase that compensation lawyers love.
      You can't blame the relevant bodies for covering their ass. If they see a tree that could fall and don't deal with it, and then someone gets hurt, they are down the gurgler.
      Resident Australian, proving being a grumpy old man is not just an American trait.

    • OzJacko wrote:

      "Duty of care" is a phrase that compensation lawyers love.
      You can't blame the relevant bodies for covering their ass. If they see a tree that could fall and don't deal with it, and then someone gets hurt, they are down the gurgler.
      Your forgetting "assumption of risk"

      The assumption of risk in the woods is that you could be hit by a tree.

      The assumption of risk on a golf course is that you could be hit by a ball.

      Suing in the US for something covered by assumption of risk is risky. You will have a countersuit against you for legal fees which you will probably loose. Your most likely outcome is you will owe money.
      Sometimes you will never know the value of a moment until it becomes a memory.
      Dr. Seuss Cof123

    • mmmm I don't think we have assumption of risk so strong here. I know duty of care is thrown around a lot. It's why our trails are closed for so long after fires. They drop all perceived "widow maker" threats.
      Resident Australian, proving being a grumpy old man is not just an American trait.

    • Isn't that the shelter that's so far off the AT that many hikers don't bother going down there?
      If it's the shelter I think it is, it is a beautiful area but most people don't ever see it because it's something like a .9 off the AT. Kathy and I went down there after dark, by headlamp, now there's something I don't recommend. Talk about assumption of risk!

    • LIhikers wrote:

      Isn't that the shelter that's so far off the AT that many hikers don't bother going down there?
      If it's the shelter I think it is, it is a beautiful area but most people don't ever see it because it's something like a .9 off the AT. Kathy and I went down there after dark, by headlamp, now there's something I don't recommend. Talk about assumption of risk!
      That's the one. I've been through that area many times but have never actually been to the shelter.

      Here is the explanation about the shelter's location that was posted by another member on TOS:

      "The trail that is now the blue-blazed side trail to the shelter (and 0.7 miles on to Sugar Hill Rd) used to be the AT. There was more road walking when traveling NOBO from Falls Village back in the day. Yes, I'm old enough to remember that, although the memory is somewhat vague. "
      Dogs are excellent judges of character, this fact goes a long way toward explaining why some people don't like being around them.

    • OzJacko wrote:

      "Duty of care" is a phrase that compensation lawyers love.
      You can't blame the relevant bodies for covering their ass. If they see a tree that could fall and don't deal with it, and then someone gets hurt, they are down the gurgler.
      Sgt. Shultz......"I see nothing", would be hard to prove they saw it.
      I may grow old but I'll never grow up.

    • Drybones wrote:

      OzJacko wrote:

      "Duty of care" is a phrase that compensation lawyers love.
      You can't blame the relevant bodies for covering their ass. If they see a tree that could fall and don't deal with it, and then someone gets hurt, they are down the gurgler.
      Sgt. Shultz......"I see nothing", would be hard to prove they saw it.
      Closing to clear trees also sets up the expectation that you are responsible to clear trees. What happens when the inevitable tree falls when the area is open?
      Sometimes you will never know the value of a moment until it becomes a memory.
      Dr. Seuss Cof123

    • if trail maintainers find an obvious hazard near a shelter or established campsite that clearly presents a danger to hikers, i would think its the responsible thing to remove the hazard.maintainers have an obligation to provide a relatively safe path through the woods.
      we're not talking about removing deadfall up and down the trail.
      its all good

    • LIhikers wrote:

      Isn't that the shelter that's so far off the AT that many hikers don't bother going down there?
      If it's the shelter I think it is, it is a beautiful area but most people don't ever see it because it's something like a .9 off the AT. Kathy and I went down there after dark, by headlamp, now there's something I don't recommend. Talk about assumption of risk!
      It is a nasty climb down, to boot!
      Cheesecake> Ramen :thumbsup:

    • Rasty wrote:

      Drybones wrote:

      OzJacko wrote:

      "Duty of care" is a phrase that compensation lawyers love.
      You can't blame the relevant bodies for covering their ass. If they see a tree that could fall and don't deal with it, and then someone gets hurt, they are down the gurgler.
      Sgt. Shultz......"I see nothing", would be hard to prove they saw it.
      Closing to clear trees also sets up the expectation that you are responsible to clear trees. What happens when the inevitable tree falls when the area is open?
      a few years ago at a car camping site administered by our equivalent of Forest Dept had a woman die when a large branch fell on her tent in an approved site.
      They are very cautious ever since.Coroner's report was scathing.
      Resident Australian, proving being a grumpy old man is not just an American trait.

    • CoachLou wrote:

      LIhikers wrote:

      Isn't that the shelter that's so far off the AT that many hikers don't bother going down there?
      If it's the shelter I think it is, it is a beautiful area but most people don't ever see it because it's something like a .9 off the AT. Kathy and I went down there after dark, by headlamp, now there's something I don't recommend. Talk about assumption of risk!
      It is a nasty climb down, to boot!
      Then is probably an even nastier climb back up! ;)
      The road to glory cannot be followed with much baggage.
      Richard Ewell, CSA General