Heath's Gate?

[skiguy]

Sorry for any repeatativeness in the initiation of this thread as I know there has been some discussion on this matter rather recently. Does anyone know what the condition of the approach to the Weeks from the South is like. I know that "Heath's Gate" was closed a one point because of some sort of landowner dispute but I have heard some grumblings that it might be open now.Does anyone know the current status of that trailhead at the moment.Thanx!

 

[David Metsky]

The Mt Cabot trail from Heath's Gate is officially closed. The landowner in question is not the one at the trailhead, who has no problems with hikers, but is further up the trail. The WMNF asks hikers to not use this trail.

There are approaches from the Fish Hatchery and Mill Road in Stark.

-dave-

 

[skiguy]

Thanx Dave Thought that might still be the case..thankyou for your quick response!

 

[skiguy]

Thanx arm..I have been sitting here and copiling milage stats for doing the Weeks via York Pond and a couple of miles road walking is having me looking at going in over Star King and Waumbek...a bit farther but I am not a big fan of Road Walks..Thanx again for the Head's Up!

 

[Jim lombard]

I've always wondered why hikers are sometimes stopped on the Mount Cabot trail but not boyscouts. I talked to one of their leaders who said he's gone up and down it many times without any trouble. Guess he doesn't have a problem with Boyscouts.

Both my trips over Kilkenny ridge have been in via York pond, I don't go hiking to confront angry landowners.

 

[David Metsky]

Here's the notice on the bridge near the hatchery. (PDF) It's an extra 2 miles each way. The alternative is Mill Brook Road to the north.

-dave-

 

[dug]

skiguy:

The walk will be a pleasant walk through hardwoods on a dirt road. It will seem closer to the Wilderness Trail than a real road, just an FYI.

As for the landowner dispute, I think it's a case where he doesn't sit there all day with his shotgun waiting for hikers. If he catches you, he'll say something. If he doesn't, well then you made it by. I'm sure he does have a soft spot for boy scouts, though. Must be the kid thing.....

 

[peakbagger]

There is a cabin owned by the Jefferson Boy Scout Troop up the trail so they have the right to use the trail.

 

[David Metsky]

There is a cabin owned by the Jefferson Boy Scout Troop up the trail so they have the right to use the trail.

I thought the Cabot cabin isn't owned by them, they just maintain it in an agreement with the FS?

-dave-

 

[Nate]

If the Cabot Trail from from Heath's Gate is officially closed, is this considered an illegitimate route for reaching Mount Cabot, the Horn, and the Bulge, as far as the Four Thousand Foot and NEHH Committees are concerned? I ask too because both times I went this way (July '02 and November '04), there was a trail sign at the trail head, and there was no mention posted of how the trail ahead was closed. Finally, does anyone foresee when this land dispute might be resolved so that this section of the trail would be re-opened?

 

[Eric Savage]

From the Committee

If the Cabot Trail from from Heath's Gate is officially closed, is this considered an illegitimate route for reaching Mount Cabot, the Horn, and the Bulge, as far as the Four Thousand Foot and NEHH Committees are concerned? I ask too because both times I went this way (July '02 and November '04), there was a trail sign at the trail head, and there was no mention posted of how the trail ahead was closed.

In deference to the WMNF, and in the interest of not honking off the landowner any further, we also ask hikers not to use this route, but as it is not particularly damaging environmentally and starts from a very accessible road, we have no reason to disqualify someone who does use it. Basically, whatever trespassing you do (intentionally or not) while pursuing a list and any consequences are solely your responsibility.

 

[David Metsky]

Finally, does anyone foresee when this land dispute might be resolved so that this section of the trail would be re-opened?

Not any time soon, based on the current bad feelings.

-dave-

 

[skiguy]

In deference to the WMNF, and in the interest of not honking off the landowner any further, we also ask hikers not to use this route, but as it is not particularly damaging environmentally and starts from a very accessible road, we have no reason to disqualify someone who does use it. Basically, whatever trespassing you do (intentionally or not) while pursuing a list and any consequences are solely your responsibility.

Eric,I am so pleased that you took it so kindly to have clarified my upmost concerns regarding this matter.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

I believe that the Cabot Trail signs that appear from time to time at Heath's Gate have been posted by the people who own the house and wood shop just north of the trailhead to save people from knocking on their door with questions. But, my guess is that the disgruntled land owner (DLO) up the trail tears those signs down, just as disgruntled hikers tear down his "no entry" signs up the trail (i.e., it is a sign posting and tearing down stand off). Legally, the DLO is wrong, as his deed states that there is a legal right-of-way across his land, which anyone can pay to have copied at the Registry in Lancaster. But, do you want to argue with this guy at gun point? I met one of the DLO's neighbors who has no problem with hikers but has spent years battling the DLO over access, as the DLO loves to go to court, wasting everyone's time and money. The USFS probably does not want to deal with the DLO in court, so took the easy way out by closing the trail.

 

[skiguy]

I believe that the Cabot Trail signs that appear from time to time at Heath's Gate have been posted by the people who own the house and wood shop just north of the trailhead to save people from knocking on their door with questions. But, my guess is that the disgruntled land owner (DLO) up the trail tears those signs down, just as disgruntled hikers tear down his "no entry" signs up the trail (i.e., it is a sign posting and tearing down stand off). Legally, the DLO is wrong, as his deed states that there is a legal right-of-way across his land, which anyone can pay to have copied at the Registry in Lancaster. But, do you want to argue with this guy at gun point? I met one of the DLO's neighbors who has no problem with hikers but has spent years battling the DLO over access, as the DLO loves to go to court, wasting everyone's time and money. The USFS probably does not want to deal with the DLO in court, so took the easy way out by closing the trail.

And to you Mr. Dasypodidae "Thankyou So Much" for the clarification on this.

 

[RoySwkr]

The USFS probably does not want to deal with the DLO in court, so took the easy way out by closing the trail.

My sister says the Forest Service has a nationwide policy of not contesting adjacent landowners. She knows a lands officer who got demoted for such things as suggesting the FS should complain about a guy who built a cabin across a trail ROW.

 

[Nate]

In light of Dr. Dasypodidae's posting regarding the legal right of way, perhaps we should set up a dispenser at the trailhead with copies of the deed inside. The section regarding the right of way could be highlighted for easy reference. In a rational world that would resolve all further confusion regarding who can use the trail.

 

[DougPaul]

In light of Dr. Dasypodidae's posting regarding the legal right of way, perhaps we should set up a dispenser at the trailhead with copies of the deed inside. The section regarding the right of way could be highlighted for easy reference. In a rational world that would resolve all further confusion regarding who can use the trail.

But there is more to consider than just the rational world.

It might, for instance, be possible to force the issue and get a court order affirming right of passage. But this would set up a confrontational atmosphere which might make future agreements more difficult. It might also motivate other landowners to attempt to rescind current agreements.

My point is not the details of the above speculation or to agree or disagree with the current FS policy, just that these issues are much more complicated than just the written agreements.

Doug

 

[RoySwkr]

In light of Dr. Dasypodidae's posting regarding the legal right of way, perhaps we should set up a dispenser at the trailhead with copies of the deed inside.

I suggested that the person who had a copy of the deed should scan and post it here, but it never happened.

I talked to a neighbor of this particular landowner who needed his own lawsuit to confirm access to his property, and who said this guy had various legal issues with both governments and abuttors and probably would allege the deed is invalid. More important, he has apparently physically threatened hikers and many people might choose to avoid the confrontation regardless of legalities.

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

I think that DougPaul and Roy have it correct, that being legally correct does not do much good if you get shot in the process.