Mount Cabot Trail

[RoySwkr]

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.

The WMNF used to have what I consider a "Bad Neighbor" policy which consisted in part of gating roads right at the property boundary as shown by red blazes such that people visiting the Forest for any purpose were in effect required to turn around and park on the adjacent private property, leading to littering and other land damage. I made specific objection to this policy in my comments to the 1980s? Forest Plan and they might actually have listened as I notice that many gates are now being set back to minimize this effect. If this is the issue, maybe they should talk to the local district. In the past, hiking maps for NH have not included land ownership boundaries which were routine in other areas so visitors might legitimately not have known whose land it was, fortunately this is now on the WMG maps. Often landowners are happy to have you if you park where they suggest and avoid camping, hunting, etc. (This surprises me with the current fears of liability but maybe they are glad to see folks besides themselves see their land as special.) One interesting example is the former Mt Cabot situation where the owner actually signed a parking spot so people would park out of his way.

I agree with you that property owners have the right to keep others off their property, but threatening hikers with violence rather than arrest indicates to me that this individual doesn't care about the law but only his wishes. And if we let anybody who lives near the Forest prevent access whether or not they have the legal right to, we will lose a lot more of our public lands.

 

[RoySwkr]

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.

Do you have any actual evidence of this (say a link to a press release on the WMNF web page) or is it just wishful thinking on your part? The last time I climbed Cabot, I went up from the fish hatchery but went down the old trail to the stream crossing to see what shape it was in. There were no postings about the trail being closed and it was in better repair and more heavily used than the Bunnell Notch Trail that I came up.

If someone wants to know whether the trail is open or closed, the answer it that it is closed.

I would like to ask the moderators to ban from this group the next person who claims that the trail is closed (or open) without providing some sort of proof. The truth is that we don't know for sure. People who ask a question on this website deserve accurate answers, not personal fantasies. To paraphrase Mr. Bow "All the crying about it on a BBS isn't going to make it so."

I wish I knew why some people were so anxious to declare this trail closed. Nobody is forcing you to hike it if you don't want to (just as I haven't hiked the private section since the controversy arose), but you should allow others to make their own decisions based on accurate information rather than your personal biases.

If you don't care about the USFS regulations, then hike the trail at your own risk and stop whining about its current status.

Even the Owls Head Path which the FS has declared officially closed you are allowed to hike, just not to maintain.

If you can produce any scintilla of evidence that the WMNF has forbidden hiking on the part of the trail on NF land, I will stand corrected. And while the FS can remove from their trail inventory that part of the trail that is not on their land, they cannot legally close it any more than they can close the Wapack Trail.

 

[Snowflea]

I swore I'd never post on this topic again but I agree with Roy here and want to support his argument.

Also, I DO possess a copy of the Right-of-Way from the Lancaster town clerk's office...

 

[vegematic]

Also, I DO possess a copy of the Right-of-Way from the Lancaster town clerk's office...

Interesting. I wonder if there are different "degrees" of Rights of Way. Can you find anything in the wording of the copy you hold that either supports or contradicts what follows?

While Stinkyfeet was posting, I was on the phone to Andro. Asst. Ranger, Dave Neely, asking for the official word on the Mt. Cabot Trail situation. He said that the landowner contacted the WMNF some years ago saying that he had posted his land and asked them to remove trail signage and stop promoting the trail. The ranger I spoke with said that WMNF *DOES NOT* have a legal RoW or trail corridor accross the property in question, and that hikers that use that portion of trail are, by legal standards, trespassing.

Neely said that steps have not been taken by WMNF to brush in and revegetate the part of the trail crossing private property in hopes that access can be restored in the future. Neely said that the FS does not have anything to negotiate with or offer the landowner, so future access would require a change of position on the landowner's part (or, presumably, a change of land ownership).

I asked about efforts to reroute the trail around the property. Neely said that they examined the feasibility of a reroute in 2000-2001 and deemed it not feasible.

Dave Neely can be contacted at 603-466-2713 X224

-vegematic

 

[jjmcgo]

Roy Sweickler is right

Our federal tax money paid for this easement and the relevant federal organization, the USFS, lacks the resolve to enforce it.
The person I most disagree with on this thread is the one who said we should "respect" the USFS. Cowardice and or negligence is never deserving of respect.
As Roy has pointed out, the landowner has lost in every legal forum.
VFTT, an an entity, is not the proper group to challenge this matter but a loose group of individuals, behaving properly at all times, needs to use the trail constantly until there is a police-reportable confrontation (he's not going to shoot you).
After that, the confronted individuals need to file a police report and a lawsuit against the USFS.
Actually, the group needs better legal advice than that given here, perhaps something along the lines of what the ACLU gives out as the proper way to answer when stopped at a DUI roundup, every response an applicable legal response, oh, and tape-record it surreptitiously.
That man is getting exclusive use of land-in-common that we paid for! We must make the government exercise its responsibility.
The course of action recommended by others, don't push things, will only embolden more landowners to close land covered by similar easements.

 

[Double Bow]

Well Mr. Schweiker, it seems someone DOES know for sure whether the trail is open or closed. It's the USFS and they have shared that information in multiple ways through the years even though press releases aren't issued to state long standing facts, Roy. Now you have the name and phone number for a ranger who says that the WMNF doesn't have a right of way for the trail. If you think he's lying or making that up, you can feel free to take a minute from your postulating and give him a call. As I said in my earlier post:

If you want to change the status of the trail, appeal directly to the USFS.

You incorrectly assumed that I do not want this trail to be open. This simply is not true. I wish this situation was resolved. However, as a guide, I feel the need to obey USFS rules as much as I can and I won't go up that trail until it has been officially reopened.

Perhaps it is people who try to muddy the waters in an effort to justify their rulebreaking that are the ones who should be banned.

 

[arghman]

sigh. sometimes it's not enough to be right.

I support Roy on principle (you should see the land use errors & conflicts just in my town! some battles are worth fighting for) but I'm not going to hike the trail.

I do have a vague interest in looking at documentation on trail right-of-ways from the public road to the edge of the WMNF property -- so if someone can post a book & page # from the Coos Cty Registry of Deeds, then we can all look at it http://www.nhdeeds.com/coos/web/start.htm.

Or a link to a USFS policy statement saying the Mt Cabot Trail (whether over their right-of-way, if it exists, or over a private landowner's property) is considered closed by them & they strongly discourage use. (vegematic's post is enough for me to believe this is true with high confidence, say 99% -- enough not to hike it for the sake of recreation, but not enough to bet money on it; governments can be internally inconsistent sometimes...)

otherwise the arguments on both sides are kind of tiresome.

 

[Double Bow]

otherwise the arguments on both sides are kind of tiresome.

Like I said, Hotel California...

 

[Dr. Dasypodidae]

As Roy has pointed out, the landowner has lost in every legal forum.
VFTT, an an entity, is not the proper group to challenge this matter but a loose group of individuals, behaving properly at all times, needs to use the trail constantly until there is a police-reportable confrontation (he's not going to shoot you).
After that, the confronted individuals need to file a police report and a lawsuit against the USFS.
QUOTE]

The disgruntled landowner has pointed a gun at people, according to the neighbor above, who won his use of the right-away in court, although it cost him over $600 in legal fees (sorry, I forget the names of the two landowners). But, I am not sure I wish to confront the landowner and his gun to proove a legal point; moreover, there is no guarantee that he would not shoot you. I have seen Stinkyfeet's copy (now in Ventura, California (?), speaking of the old song California ) of the deeded right-away, although I am not sure that the USFS has seen it. Mats had to break out that section of trail this past Tuesday on his NH4s winter record attempt, to save the long drive around to the Berlin Fish Hatchery and back. This trail is such a mess of eroded and muddy gullies, I would not care to hike it again, except in the winter, to save driving extra miles and adding more CO2 to the atmosphere (see previous global warming thread ).

 

[dug]

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

Like I said....

 

[spongebob]

I'm just waiting for the present owner to put a cap in one of your as*es. Maybe I can put some brownies and beer on his land in the disputed land easement, so HarryK gets what he deserves.

When that dude goes to jail, he will have to sell the land to pay for legal fees. Then one of us can buy the land, and be done with this crap. Maybe open the house as a a bed and breakfast or a hotel, and name it Hotel California.

I don't consider this trail open or closed it is just lost. And should be on the White Mountains Lost Trails Project website. Since the trail doesn't exist, maybe it is considered an easy bushwack, or maybe the guy will whack you mob style. Either way don't posthole.

 

[forestgnome]

I'll heed the grown-ups on this issue, the USFS. They are knowledgable on these issues. Until I see current documentation of an easement, I'll assume that the USFS is not lying when they say that no right-of-way exists.

Happy Trails

 

[jjmcgo]

Perhaps Stinkyfeet

could scan a copy of that easement and post a link. Then we could send a copy to Mr. Neely for further assessment of the situation.
And another copy to a lawyer.
The first time I saw this discussion, about three years ago, the patient ones held sway then as now, but the situation was "play nice and things will get better."
Now, the trail is off the map.

 

[Stan]

Let's assume that the USFS has an easement, which is a bone of contention, but let's assume they do have one. The holder of an easement has certain rights with respect to that easment and it is a fair legal question as to what those rights are and to whom those rights are transferable and under what circumstances.

Now, let's further assume that USFS has legal rights for itself and its assigns etc. (that's us innocent bystanding taxpayers chomping at the bit to hike on that easement) and that it doesn't choose to share those rights at some point in time, which it is entitled to do, albeit at the risk of pissing off said assigns.

So why would someone with a legal right choose not to fully enjoy it and share it? It would strike me as a sound policy choice not to ram things down the throats of those who have granted easements. That could make the USFS much less welcome next time they knock on someone's door seeking to acquire an easement. There are times and places to ram things but maybe the USFS has decided this is not the time nor place.

Having an ugly battle over this easement might make procurement of new ones more difficult, say along the COHOS trail for example. We all need to be good neighbors and respect landowners.

 

[dug]

could scan a copy of that easement and post a link. Then we could send a copy to Mr. Neely for further assessment of the situation.
And another copy to a lawyer.
The first time I saw this discussion, about three years ago, the patient ones held sway then as now, but the situation was "play nice and things will get better."
Now, the trail is off the map.

Seems like an awful lot of work and expense to prove someone is right or wrong, when the trail isn't even needed.....

 

[bikehikeskifish]

If I understand this correctly, taxpayers (You and I) paid for an easement, which taxpayers (You and I) can no longer enjoy. The taxpayers (You and I) deserve some compensation ("We want our money back".)

If as a matter of policy the USFS does not chose to defend said easements (as I understand it), what is to stop every landowner from simply taking advantage of that and the taxpayers (You and I) losing ALL the easements we paid for?

It's not a matter of whether or not the trail is needed. It's a matter of getting what we rightfully paid for.

Tim

 

[David Metsky]

It's not a matter of whether or not the trail is needed. It's a matter of getting what we rightfully paid for.

But this entire discussion takes place in the context of the north country (and other areas of the US) where local acceptance of the USFS and its policies are often contentious. You could easily win the battle (get this easement enforced) and lose the war (no more easements ever, voluntary trail access revoked).

Having dealt with this in the 1980's around getting easements for the AT I can tell you that people have short fuses and long memories when it comes to land. While I'm in general supportive of enforcing easements that have been paid for, it's rarely that simple. Logic and law is important. Community opinions are also important. It's rarely so cut and dried as things first appear.

-dave-

 

[forestgnome]

Dittoes...

Plus, many here have assumed that an easement exists. I still haven't seen one. How hard is it to scan and post a document that exists for public record?

 

[RoySwkr]

so if someone can post a book & page # from the Coos Cty Registry of Deeds, then we can all look at it http://www.nhdeeds.com/coos/web/start.htm.

I had already done that, only the newer stuff is online

The Registry is in Lancaster, NH and if somebody would like to acquire a hard copy I'd get it scanned.

Ranger Neely says that the USFS has no r-o-w which is what I expected, I assume it to be a general amorphous r-o-w which is why there is no definitive answer as to whether it applies to hikers and not just to abutters.

Note however that Mr. Neely said that the FS has not closed the portion on FS land so at least one member of this group has definitively proved that he has no clue what he is talking about.

Of the 4 Lancaster residents I have talked to, all 4 believe the landowner is in the wrong. Does anybody else have any experience with Lancaster residents?

 

[Snowflea]

Sorry for the delay in responding. I was playin' in the woods x 4 days.

Vegematic & others, the deeds in question are readily available at the Lancaster Office of Records (or whatever they call it). Dr. D is correct that my copies now reside with me in Ventura, CA. I do not have scanning capability.

When I procured my copies 3-4 years ago, the gals at the Records Office agreed that the ROW was valid in their opinions but quickly and readily admitted that they "weren't lawyers or anything."

I have met the landowner in question. (No, he wasn't pointing a gun at me; it was during Cave Dog's '02 NH 4 speed record. CD received special permission from the landowner to access the trail.) "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all"... so I won't

I have no personal interest in the Mt. Cabot Trail at this point, never intending to hike it again (and agree w/Dr. D that the trail is a mess)! It's a matter of principle IMHO, and I merely wanted to support what Roy was saying.

Stinkyfeet

PS: FWIW, in regard to Dave's post, local acceptance of USFS policies is contentious in A LOT of areas across the country; this issue isn't confined to the Northeast.