Mount Cabot Trail

[Enapai]

It was rumoured to me that the Mt Cabot trail was acceptable to use. They cited VFTT as a source of this information. I searched some of the archives to see if there was some discussion on this topic but could not find any. Does anybody have info on this topic?

 

[dug]

Closed!!

There is a post in the trail conditions where someone stated, basically, that they parked at the end of the road -where there was no plowed parking area- and went ahead and hiked it. Some loggers didn't say anything. Apparently, in their minds this meant it was legal. There are no trailhead signs or anything.

Keep in mind a common misconception is the landowner right where Gates Rd. ends is the landowner with the problem. Actually, it is the landowner along the trailway that the trail crosses who has the dispute. You could get an answer from the landowner at the end of Gates Rd. that will be "OK", but they aren't the issue.

So,in fact, no, it is not open for hiking. Every time someone chooses to go this way, it doesn't sit too well with some other landowners who have land that border trails in and around the WMF who already feel threatened by our presence.

The suggested route is either via Bunnel Notch or via Unknown Pond. Thanks for checking.

 

[vegematic]

I don't know how to link to other threads but there are some on here discussing the Cabot Trail issue.

The short story is: The Forest Service has, at least for now, closed the trail. The off-limits portion has been rmoved from AMC maps and a note regarding its closure is in the most recent White Mountain Guide. However, some people still use it, including some AMC organised hikes. Most folks who use it seem not to run into any problems with the landowner but there have been reports of some angry confrontations.

There are other approaches to this summit: Bunnell Notch Trail, Unknown Pond Trail from the Berlin Fish Hatchery, and Unknown Pond Trail from Stark. I've hiked the first two and they are quite nice, but longer. They can be combined as a lovely loop hike. I am unfamiliar with the Stark route.

-vegematic

 

[NewHampshire]

This question seems to be asked quite often.

Here is the short gist of it all:

YES it is closed. YES, the Forest Service suggest you not use it. YES, people do regardless. YES, most people have no problems, but some have and do.

The only time I have been up Cabot was via that way. Having seen pictures of the other approaches, however, I suggest you do yourself a favor and just forget about the Mt. Cabot Trail. IMHO, it is for getting up and down quick, not necessarily for its attractiveness.

Brian

 

[Enapai]

Confirmation

Thanks for the notice, it had been my understanding all along that this route was closed and not to be used, I just figured I would double check to see if I was out of the loop. Thanks.

 

[Oldmanwinter]

Mt. Cabot Trail Still Closed

This is a post I copied from the trail conditions section.

Trail: Mt. Cabot Trail Still Closed
Date Hiked: 02/06/07
Conditions: All information to the contrary is incorrect.
Submitted by:local

 

[RoySwkr]

It was rumoured to me that the Mt Cabot trail was acceptable to use. They cited VFTT as a source of this information. I searched some of the archives to see if there was some discussion on this topic but could not find any. Does anybody have info on this topic?

Different members of VFTT have differing opinions, there is no definitive answer in spite of what certain dogmatic people claim

Here is my search result
http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=10160

So,in fact, no, it is not open for hiking. Every time someone chooses to go this way, it doesn't sit too well with some other landowners who have land that border trails in and around the WMF who already feel threatened by our presence.

There is a deeded right-of-way across one property that the landowner wishes wasn't there. He tried to keep off somebody with property higher up and lost in court. He has also lost 2 court decisions to the town. Instead of going to court to ban hikers, he prefers to intimidate them.

Conservation groups have spent millions of dollars on land easements that later owners would prefer didn't exist. If this guy on Mt Cabot goes unchallenged, owners of parcels where hiking is definitely allowed may close theirs next

This is a post I copied from the trail conditions section.

Trail: Mt. Cabot Trail Still Closed
Date Hiked: 02/06/07
Conditions: All information to the contrary is incorrect.
Submitted by:local

Note that this post is unsigned with no contact info so there is no particular reason to believe it

 

[dug]

Yawn...

This will go round and round, it always does. The USFS deemed it closed. Draw your own conclusions.

 

[NewHampshire]

This will go round and round, it always does.

Quite true, this is an issue that always seems to end with two sides still certain they are in the right. Who is correct? Who knows. The Forest Service deems it closed. Perhaps it would be better if the Forest Service actually termed it "Hike at own risk." While I may say I have the right to be there due to deeded rights, I am not about to argue with a man armed with a shotgun

Brian

 

[forestgnome]

Has a rerouting of the trail, to bypass this land, been considered? Perhaps that is just another president that should not be set. It's a complicated and murky issue. I understand the distaste for letting the landowner get away with having his easement but not honoring it, but in this case I think the best thing is to let it go for now. I think we can do great harm to our access to other areas by pushing for what really is our right in this case. It may be an injustice, but staying off the trail would be pragmatic, IMO. Choose your battles.

Is Cabot Trail really that important, or is it just the shortest route to a list peak? If it was not the shortest route to a list peak, how many people would push the issue?

If AMC is really doing group hikes on the trail, that is very irresponsible, considering the possible conflicts. That's not my idea of guidance.

Bunnel Notch Trail is wonderful. I first hiked it about ten years ago, and it was almost bushwacking. The was moose sign everywhere and I startled a couple moose about half-way up. The area has lots of cherry, and when I hiked it they were in full blossom. It was gorgeous. It's a special place. I'm sure it's much easier to follow now. I highly recommend this trail during cherry blossom time, whenever that is, maybe early May. I'm thinking of hiking this trail up, then bushwacking down through the West Branch drainage area.

Happy Trails

 

[David Metsky]

If AMC is really doing group hikes on the trail, that is very irresponsible, considering the possible conflicts. That's not my idea of guidance.

Just to reiterate the point from previous threads; the AMC is not a single monolithic organizations. AMC corporate (Joy St) has very little day-to-day control over the 1000's of chapter volunteers and their trips. There is no single organizational structure which polices trips. Good or bad, that is the state of things today and for the foreseeable future.

-dave-

 

[forestgnome]

Good point; good to note that.

Anyone acting as a guide should not be taking anyone who is seeking guidance up that trail. It would be a disservice to those being guided, possibly leading them into conflict, and it would show disrespect for the USFS. What is the point of having a guide?

The spirit on this trail must be horrible, anyway. Wouldn't a hiker be wondering all day if conflict awaits near the end of the hike? Yuk...

Happy Trails

 

[dug]

Has a rerouting of the trail, to bypass this land, been considered? Perhaps that is just another president that should not be set. It's a complicated and murky issue. I understand the distaste for letting the landowner get away with having his easement but not honoring it, but in this case I think the best thing is to let it go for now. I think we can do great harm to our access to other areas by pushing for what really is our right in this case. It may be an injustice, but staying off the trail would be pragmatic, IMO. Choose your battles.

Is Cabot Trail really that important, or is it just the shortest route to a list peak? If it was not the shortest route to a list peak, how many people would push the issue?

If AMC is really doing group hikes on the trail, that is very irresponsible, considering the possible conflicts. That's not my idea of guidance.

Bunnel Notch Trail is wonderful. I first hiked it about ten years ago, and it was almost bushwacking. The was moose sign everywhere and I startled a couple moose about half-way up. The area has lots of cherry, and when I hiked it they were in full blossom. It was gorgeous. It's a special place. I'm sure it's much easier to follow now. I highly recommend this trail during cherry blossom time, whenever that is, maybe early May. I'm thinking of hiking this trail up, then bushwacking down through the West Branch drainage area.

Happy Trails

That's the key. There are two different routes to take already, why push this issue? Just avoid the trail until all parties come to an agreement. Not saying anyone has the legal right to do so, but why even consider pushing the issue? To save a couple of miles?

 

[Stan]

Anyone acting as a guide should not be taking anyone who is seeking guidance up that trail. ... What is the point of having a guide?
... Happy Trails

If a guide is taking hikers on this trail it should be by arrangement with owner(s), particularly any which have been at the heart of the heat involved with this trail closing. That sort of service is a reason to hire a guide. Same applies to AMC trip leaders.

I think USFS is acting responsibly in it's trail closing absent a better relationship with neighbors, or snowmobilers. As for us innocent bystanders, "... this land is your land, this land is my land ..."

 

[vegematic]

Just to reiterate the point from previous threads; the AMC is not a single monolithic organizations. AMC corporate (Joy St) has very little day-to-day control over the 1000's of chapter volunteers and their trips. There is no single organizational structure which polices trips. Good or bad, that is the state of things today and for the foreseeable future.

-dave-

Thank you for clarifying that, Dave. I was a bit worried when I mentioned AMC in my post that it would re-ignite that little fire.

A thought: Since this question/issue keeps coming up might it make sense to post a sticky in New England Q&A with the most basic facts of the situation and perhaps links to some of the discussion threads?

-vegematic

 

[TroutBumNH]

part of the problem: old books!

I have found that a lot of 'less avid than most board member' hikers tend to have older WMG's or other guidebooks w/o the most recent info.

I'm not giving anyone a pass for not being up to date on trail info... but I can imagine that many arrive at the trailhead/parking area and just go for it. When I went up last year, I'm pretty confident two women I met were just completely clueless rather than aware of having taken a side in a land-use issue...

 

[dug]

Good points, but my 1999(?) edition mentions it's closed. There is no trail sign. How would even know they were at the right spot?

 

[RoySwkr]

This will go round and round, it always does.

The fact is that nobody knows whether the trail is legally closed and nobody will until a court rules on it.

Telling people that if they use this trail they may be accosted by an angry landowner who wishes the trail was closed is useful information. Telling people that the trail is legally closed is potentially incorrect and I will continue to react to this statement every time you persist in making it. Why not just post a pointer to the previous discussion and save us both time?

I'm not sure why you are so hot on this issue but in my case I hate to see intimidation succeed. There are non-violent methods of settling this matter. If this guy can prove to a court that he has the legal right to prevent passage, I will be the first to encourage others to stay off.

Has a rerouting of the trail, to bypass this land, been considered?

Is Cabot Trail really that important, or is it just the shortest route to a list peak? If it was not the shortest route to a list peak, how many people would push the issue?

I believe a local group looked for a bypass but couldn't find an easy one. If you want a long bypass, there are 2 other trails

I have hiked all 3 trails up Cabot (plus some bushwhacks) and believe the Mt Cabot Trail is the most suitable for non-peakbaggers. The N approach is unplowed in winter hence too long, the E approach is an hour longer drive each way for most people particularly Lancaster residents. And if everybody went that way, it would lose the very characteristics that FG appreaciates. It is probably locals more than peakbaggers that want this trail usable.

I think USFS is acting responsibly in it's trail closing absent a better relationship with neighbors, or snowmobilers.

The problem is that the USFS has a national policy not to push for access rights, in Colorado somebody built a house in the middle of a trail and the FS did nothing. This only encourages spurious claims. Near Bethel ME, a property owner got tired of maintaining his driveway and insisted he had the right to instead use a USFS gated road including ATVs in mud season, and he got them to agree, although this road is deemed too fragile to allow anybody else to use it. What is the sense of having public lands if they are given away to any lowlife who wants them?

There is no trail sign. How would even know they were at the right spot?

The person whose land the sign is on apparently wants the trail open because Trail Closed signs there vanish immediately while the trailhead sign comes & goes

Some people have maps, and can read them

 

[Double Bow]

Look, it's like this:

The USFS says that this trail is closed. They have chosen to close the portion of the trail that they in the past have maintained. Regardless of their reason for this, the fact remains that the trail is closed. Period.

If someone wants to know whether the trail is open or closed, the answer it that it is closed. All the crying about it on a BBS isn't going to reopen this trail. If you want to change the status of the trail, appeal directly to the USFS. If you don't care about the USFS regulations, then hike the trail at your own risk and stop whining about its current status. It like "Hotel California", an old song that's overplayed.

 

[dug]

Roy,

Nothing personal here. I am just saying that I do know a few landowners whose property borders the WMNF. They've had their driveways parked in front of, preventing access from their homes. They've had people camping on their property. Some are curious to see if hikers will continue to thwart the efforts of this individual -right or wrong- and may want to pursue matters themselves. As a hiking community, we all lose.

I don't see where I, at least, used the term legally closed. But, from the USFS perspective, which is all that really matters, the consider it closed.

The AMC maps, by the way, don't show the trail access to the road

Again, nothing personal, just reporting the news.