Mt.Cabot Trail

[David Metsky]

The individuals to contact are the "Excursions Chairperson" in each Chapter. These are the individuals charged with reviewing each of the hikes submitted by individual AMC trip leaders from their respective chapter.

As far as I know, there is no one who does that for the Boston chapter. I'm the Ski Com chair and I have the last word on what gets listed on our website and what gets submitted to the MUD and Outdoors. The editors of the MUD and Outdoors generally run our listings without any editorial review. No one has ever questioned a listing.

There may be someone or some role assigned to this task, but in reality this review doesn't take place. The chapter committees are pretty much autonomous with regards to volunteer run trips, with a few caveats. As long as it isn't blatantly illegal I doubt anyone would object. I'll ask at the next Boston Chapter exec meeting.

As to the VftT, there isn't any official position on this or any hiking matter. I personally have asked people to follow the USFS guidelines, but I speak as myself, not in any official VftT capacity.

-dave-

 

[Kevin Rooney]

As far as I know, there is no one who does that for the Boston chapter. I'm the Ski Com chair and I have the last word on what gets listed on our website and what gets submitted to the MUD and Outdoors. The editors of the MUD and Outdoors generally run our listings without any editorial review. No one has ever questioned a listing. -dave-

That's interesting, Dave. Since I know some of the Chapters have an Excursions Chair, I assumed all of them did.

So - how does the Boston Chapter know whether the person listing a hike is even a trip leader? Or more importantly, for winter trips, that the person has a rating as a Winter Trip Leader? Or is there no such rating in the Boston Chapter?

 

[dug]

I'm not aware that VFTT has any official position on the matter, and as far as I know the local police don't either. Many locals believe the landowner is in the wrong including those who apparently still offer signed parking for this trail.

What bothers me is that governments and land trusts are spending millions of dollars on easements in the belief that it will protect land forever. If we allow landowners to disallow those easements at will, we have blown that money on nothing. Until a court decides his easement does not apply to hikers, the landowner is acting unreasonably and perhaps illegally.

Do not hike this trail unless you are willing to be confronted by angry individuals, but don't think you are doing the world a favor by avoiding it.

I'm sorry Roy, but I have to respectfully disagree. I know some landowners in the area who are very curious to find out how this eventually is resolved. Many, not all, feel if this is their land they can do what they wish. If this is not resolved satisfactorily, they are looking to close off access that is currently allowed. I do not believe any hiking trails would be affected, but I do not know that for fact.

One thing a North Country landowner does not want to hear is what they can and cannot do from a Fed or someone who lives downcountry.

 

[David Metsky]

So - how does the Boston Chapter know whether the person listing a hike is even a trip leader? Or more importantly, for winter trips, that the person has a rating as a Winter Trip Leader? Or is there no such rating in the Boston Chapter?

That is the responsibility of the individual committee (Ski, H/B, YM, Intro, 40+, Mountaineering, Paddle, Bike, etc). Each committee has their own standards for trip leaders and is responsible for ensuring that the leaders are qualified. It's a bit of a mish-mash, since there are different criteria depending on which committee lists the trip, but it seems to work.

For example, in Ski we don't have official criteria for a Backcountry leader, but we have few enough trips that we judge each one individually. In H/B, they have formal criteria for Winter leaders and people go through a fairly strenuous process to become a 4 season leader. Each committee maintains a leader list and cross-checks to make sure they are active AMC members.

The Boston chapter is very big. It would be a huge job for a single person to monitor all the trips run out of this chapter.

-dave-

 

[Kevin Rooney]

The Boston chapter is very big. It would be a huge job for a single person to monitor all the trips run out of this chapter.
-dave-

Understood, but I don't think any chapter attempts to do that. Rather, I believe some chapters have an individual overseeing each function like hiking, paddling, family, mountaineering, etc - and that person checks trips posted. Perhaps because NH and ME have those roles, and am most familiar with those chapters I assumed all chapters had similiar designations. Obviously not -

 

[DougPaul]

I'm sorry Roy, but I have to respectfully disagree. I know some landowners in the area who are very curious to find out how this eventually is resolved. Many, not all, feel if this is their land they can do what they wish. If this is not resolved satisfactorily, they are looking to close off access that is currently allowed. I do not believe any hiking trails would be affected, but I do not know that for fact.

One thing a North Country landowner does not want to hear is what they can and cannot do from a Fed or someone who lives downcountry.

As I understand it, there was an easment (ie a contract) allowing public passage over his land. And now the landowner is refusing to honor the easment.

Controlling one's own land is one thing (and of course there are the issues of common good vs individual good), but once one has signed a contract allowing passage (or obtained land with such a contract in effect), one cannot renege on it without risking legal consequences.

Doug

 

[dug]

I personally don't agree or disagree (I'm no property rights lawyer, I'm in telecom). I can only speak for the people who I know...maybe they have an agenda and are looking for a reason to post their land when it isn't today. I can't vouch for their motives, it appears they are waiting for the first sign of a flatlander telling them what's what and they are pulling the plug. Right or wrong, that appears to be their thinking and we certainly don't want that.

I THINK we are all 'arguing' the same thing on this: Just stay off the darned trail!!

 

[RoySwkr]

I'm sorry Roy, but I have to respectfully disagree. I know some landowners in the area who are very curious to find out how this eventually is resolved. Many, not all, feel if this is their land they can do what they wish.

That's exactly what I'm afraid of, that everyone with an easement on their land will decide to ignore it.

There is a local situation here where some guy got some hilltop land cheap and starting building a house. Of course the land was cheap because it had a conservation easement forbidding building and now there is all sorts of legal trouble. We pay millions of dollars per year for easements and we should either give it up or enforce them.

 

[dug]

That's exactly what I'm afraid of, that everyone with an easement on their land will decide to ignore it.

There is a local situation here where some guy got some hilltop land cheap and starting building a house. Of course the land was cheap because it had a conservation easement forbidding building and now there is all sorts of legal trouble. We pay millions of dollars per year for easements and we should either give it up or enforce them.

GREAT POINT!!

 

[Paradox]

That's exactly what I'm afraid of, that everyone with an easement on their land will decide to ignore it.

There is a local situation here where some guy got some hilltop land cheap and starting building a house. Of course the land was cheap because it had a conservation easement forbidding building and now there is all sorts of legal trouble. We pay millions of dollars per year for easements and we should either give it up or enforce them.

I concur with the above. So how do we get the Forestry Service or other federal agency to be the bad guys, so we can hike on the easement areas that we have paid for with our tax dollars, without being harassed by a landowner who doesn't want to abide by his agreements?

 

[forestgnome]

A landowner is breaking the law if he has entered into a contract to enjoy a tax break in exchange for allowing public access, then disallows the access. Why would law enforcement officials be considered bad guys for pursuing justice? The idea of allowing the land owner to break the law for fear of consequences is the real slippery slope, not enforcing the law.

I find it hard to believe that the average land owner enters into an easement agreement with the expectation that he can choose whether or not to honor the contract, and that enforcing easement agreements will result in a loss of easements. Land owners enter these agreements for tax breaks, and they know what they concede in exchange for the tax break. I find the reluctance to enforce to be highly illogical, and an injustice to the public.

 

[Paradox]

Why would law enforcement officials be considered bad guys for pursuing justice? The idea of allowing the land owner to break the law for fear of consequences is the real slippery slope, not enforcing the law.

I totally agree, I was just grasping for a quick term or concept when I used the term "bad guys". I really think we are in full agreement on this issue.

There still can be difficulty in getting individuals in an federal agency to have the manpower and desire to confront an individual of this mindset. Visions of Ruby Ridge and Waco Texas come to my mind. Television images of SWAT team equipped Forestry Service Rangers knocking down doors to defend our right to hike a trail is not going to bring a lot of public sympathy to our avocation. I do think a long and expensive legal "battle of attrition" is better. With the proper PR the land owners can be properly perceived as opportunists ripping off the public, and never had any intentions of living up to their agreements. Maybe this is already in the works.

 

[DougPaul]

A landowner is breaking the law if he has entered into a contract to enjoy a tax break in exchange for allowing public access, then disallows the access. Why would law enforcement officials be considered bad guys for pursuing justice?

They are the messengers...

I find it hard to believe that the average land owner enters into an easement agreement with the expectation that he can choose whether or not to honor the contract, and that enforcing easement agreements will result in a loss of easements. Land owners enter these agreements for tax breaks, and they know what they concede in exchange for the tax break. I find the reluctance to enforce to be highly illogical, and an injustice to the public.

Some may enter an agreement with the intent of not honoring it, and it is also possible that a land owner can change his mind.

IIRC, this land owner wanted to run a private trail across or along the public trail and was told "no". His attempt to revoke access seems to be his repsonse. This case has been discussed many times in lots of detail in previous threads here and on the AMC BBS. Search for them if you want details.

In practice, enforcement of these easements is not just a simple he broke the contract, now enforce it, and punish him. Other land owners are watching, and (rightly or wrongly) may factor in the perceived heavy handedness of the officials into how willing they may be in signing future easments.

Legal arguments aside, I think it would be helpful if the Forest Service put up a sign at the trailhead stating something to the effect of the trail is [temporarily] closed, please use other trails.

Doug

 

[David Metsky]

Legal arguments aside, I think it would be helpful if the Forest Service put up a sign at the trailhead stating something to the effect of the trail is [temporarily] closed, please use other trails.

As far as I know, they have done that several times. The signs keep getting stolen or vandalized.

And I completely agree that this isn't as simple as "he signed an easement, now enforce it". It appears that the case isn't that simple, and regardless, there are broader implications to the land owner community to consider.

-dave-

 

[griffin]

As far as I know, they have done that several times. The signs keep getting stolen or vandalized.

By the number of hikers I ran into this weekend who said they'd come up the Mt Cabot trail, and who seemed surprised when we told them we'd hear that it was supposed to be closed, I'm guessing the signs are down again.\\

(thanks for the redirect, Dave)

 

[Pamola]

Last time I went to Cabot, I did take the Cabot trail because I wasn't privy to the information that everyone on this site is. I saw no signs, the trail was not blocked, and like the folks mentioned, I heard nothing of it being closed until I reached the top and met other hikers.
The vast majority of hikers in the whites simply go by the guidebook, which at least in my edition mentions nothing against hiking this trail.

I am saying nothing about the legality or illegality of being on the trail, nor whether it is the hiker's responsibility to check out a guidebook-included hike on the net, just that the average hiker knows nothing of this issue when planning the hike and on the hike itself, and that will perpetuate the problem just as much as the fuzzy easement issue.

In the time being, if there owner is adamant about keeping joe shmo hiker off his land, he should put up a beefier sign that would withstand vandalism. If the old ones were anything like the laminated piece of paper at the top, it wouldn't take more than a stiff breeze to carry it away.

 

[dug]

Last time I went to Cabot, I did take the Cabot trail because I wasn't privy to the information that everyone on this site is. I saw no signs, the trail was not blocked, and like the folks mentioned, I heard nothing of it being closed until I reached the top and met other hikers.
The vast majority of hikers in the whites simply go by the guidebook, which at least in my edition mentions nothing against hiking this trail.

I am saying nothing about the legality or illegality of being on the trail, nor whether it is the hiker's responsibility to check out a guidebook-included hike on the net, just that the average hiker knows nothing of this issue when planning the hike and on the hike itself, and that will perpetuate the problem just as much as the fuzzy easement issue.

In the time being, if there owner is adamant about keeping joe shmo hiker off his land, he should put up a beefier sign that would withstand vandalism. If the old ones were anything like the laminated piece of paper at the top, it wouldn't take more than a stiff breeze to carry it away.

Not sure which book, or version "THE" book you have, but it was my understanding the AMC White Mountain Guide states that the trail is closed pending a resolution with the landowner. The map shows the trail not making it all the way to the trailhead. I don't always by the newest copies, so maybe the most recent edition has it removed?

As for the signs, they keep getting mysteriously removed. Costs money to continously be putting up signs only to have people remove them.

 

[--M.]

As far as I know, they have done that several times. The signs keep getting stolen or vandalized.

And I completely agree that this isn't as simple as "he signed an easement, now enforce it". It appears that the case isn't that simple, and regardless, there are broader implications to the land owner community to consider.

-dave-

Can anyone comment on the current factual status of the case, what precisely is complicating it and what the next concrete steps are? Are we waiting for it to rise to the top of a court's docket? Is there a deliberative process taking place in the Forest Service? Or is it just vaguely on hold until something knocks it back into 'active' status (like a violent confrontation, God forbid)?

While I am glad for the fruitful discussion, I'd be curious as to what's exactly in question (beyond what can be gleaned on this board) and what will make the case move forward.

Thanks,

--Mike

 

[RoySwkr]

Can anyone comment on the current factual status of the case, what precisely is complicating it and what the next concrete steps are?

I can only offer more detailed rumors

The Forest Service at present has a national policy against trying to enforce easements so I assume that they are doing nothing. After all there are other routes up Mt Cabot, and they presumably don't care whether you can climb Cabot any more than they care whether you can climb Owls Head.

Locals in Lancaster supposedly tried to find a route up from Lancaster that would bypass this particular parcel but last I heard no good route had been found. Most of them probably just use the old route.

The landowner-in-question has already lost 3 court battles over his use of the property according to a local I talked to. The town planning board denied his applications both for a subdivision and for an RV park, and someone owning land higher up the mountain got a court to rule that he was entitled to reach his property over the ROW in LIQs deed. Hence I doubt that LIQ is going to ask a court about the ROW, allegedly he is instead trying to intimidate hikers although it has never happened to me.

One member of this group was going to have his wife a paralegal look into whether the ROW applied to hikers but I have heard no results. Only newer records of Coos County are online and this one is too old.

 

[Waumbek]

One thing a North Country landowner does not want to hear is what they can and cannot do from a Fed or someone who lives downcountry.

Sorry, but most of us abide by the laws all the time without a gripe. One in particular that I know puts up with all kinds of c**p from hikers, who block his access with their cars every weekend in the summer, and would never think of closing the route his land provides to a prominent NH 4K. (He doesn't have an easement, either.) If he did close the route, y'all would have a much longer hike to this peak. He just smiles, shrugs his shoulders, and waits for winter when things quiet down. (And he parks elsewhere on summer weekends.)

And where do we get those big tax breaks for easements? Most, well, many, were purchased outright for a pittance from former landowners years ago, and current owners are often clueless about what the mysterious easement really entitles the federal government to do with the land.

This is no defense of the so-called LIQ, just a reminder that these and other land ownership issues can be dense and complicated, more than meets the eye.