Scoutmaster
New member
- Joined
- May 21, 2009
- Messages
- 4
- Reaction score
- 0
Is this trail open? I've heard talk that hikers are using it. Thank you in advance for any information. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Mt Cabot Trail
- Thread starter Scoutmaster
- Start date
Help Support vftt.org:
bryan
New member
i've never hiked it myself, but i know people use it all the time. as long as you don't park in a way that interferes with traffic or driveways near the trailhead you probably won't get any grief. i don't know the current status with the landowner that had the problems, but haven't heard anything about it for a while. technically i think it's still "closed".
bryan
bryan
David Metsky
Well-known member
The trail is officially closed. The USFS asks that you do not hike the trail. At this point it's unlikely that it will ever be reopened.
People do hike the trail, and they may have a legal right to do so, but it's not clear.
People do hike the trail, and they may have a legal right to do so, but it's not clear.
RoySwkr
New member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 4,467
- Reaction score
- 285
That is partly true. The portion of the trail in the National Forest is open, the FS suggests that you don't hike the section on private land but they have no authority to close something they don't own. A landowner has announced that it's closed but he may have no authority to do so, and some hikers there have been accosted - last time I hiked it I got a friendly wave presumably from a different landowner.
If you park there, don't block the fire hydrant - that is illegal and will not make anyone happy.
I predict that the trail will be reopened when the land is sold - locals regularly use it.
I used it one day this fall not realizing that the owner now really really means it when they say stay out. There are signs all the way up the road directly addressing hikers, and there are lots of them.
Had I known this when I went, I would not have taken that route.
The owner has now made it very clear that hikers are not welcome on the property.
It may be the case that people are still using the trail, but they are doing so against the wishes of the owner.
Brian
Had I known this when I went, I would not have taken that route.
The owner has now made it very clear that hikers are not welcome on the property.
It may be the case that people are still using the trail, but they are doing so against the wishes of the owner.
Brian
NewHampshire
New member
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2005
- Messages
- 1,554
- Reaction score
- 311
Knowing the reasons why Gary asked this question I should note he failed to ask an even more important one, and that being what are the odds it is broken out and packed right now. My guess is not likely...... 
Brian
Brian
bryan
New member
Knowing the reasons why Gary asked this question I should note he failed to ask an even more important one, and that being what are the odds it is broken out and packed right now. My guess is not likely......
i can think of a couple of occasions over the last two winters that i broke trail through bunnell notch (or found it lightly broken) going to cabot and when i reached the junction with the mt. cabot trail it turned into a packed highway. i tend to think it has been getting more use in winter than the bunnell route despite its questionable status. that said, i have any idea if it's been hiked yet this winter.....
bryan
Last edited:
evilhanz
Member
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2003
- Messages
- 156
- Reaction score
- 21
what are the odds it is broken out and packed right now. My guess is not likely......
Even though the trail is "closed", it's still the most popular winter ascent route. The odds are good.
peakbagger
In Rembrance , July 2024
This one has been beaten into the ground on many threads on VFTT. If someone elects to hike the former trail they are doing it against one of the property owners wishes, he has apparently made it obvious that he does not agree that you have a right to access the federal land behind his property. The federal goverment and the AMC have elected to close the trail rather than start legal action that they perceive may set back trail access over private land elsewhere in the region and instead have elected to develop an alternative route via York Pond.
If a hiker wants to hike the trail and assert their rights with the landowner, great. As occurred elsewhere to the south of the whites, the hiker could end up with the potential for myriads of legal bills, potential future claims on their property and vilification by members of the hiking public despite trying to act on their behalf.
By the way, the local property owners that encourage use of the trail, are right behind the hikers quest to challenge the landowner, just dont expect them to contribute any resources to the challenge.
If a hiker wants to hike the trail and assert their rights with the landowner, great. As occurred elsewhere to the south of the whites, the hiker could end up with the potential for myriads of legal bills, potential future claims on their property and vilification by members of the hiking public despite trying to act on their behalf.
By the way, the local property owners that encourage use of the trail, are right behind the hikers quest to challenge the landowner, just dont expect them to contribute any resources to the challenge.
RoySwkr
New member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 4,467
- Reaction score
- 285
Would anybody who has actually met this landowner care to disclose what was threatened? I have the impression it had more to do with violence and less to do with legal action. In the one case I am aware of, an uphill landowner went to court and won the right of passage.
The sad thing is that this landowner has nothing against hikers and has given permission when asked. His disputes are with the Lancaster Planning Board over a subdivision and the Forest Service over ATV trails. Like the other incident further south, he has chosen to vent his wrath on innocent parties.
You say this every time, but it has a double edge:
* People who insist on their right to hike trails that landowners previously made available voluntarily will discourage other landowners from making trails available voluntarily
* If one landowner can get away with declaring a trail closed when he has no right to, other landowners may do the same
Two qualms: There is a debate on whether he has the right, but since the trail is officially closed and both the AMC (who ignores their own advice) and the USFS say it's closed...sure sounds closed to me.
The second qualm is to take your statement almost literally, and to give a counter point:
If one landowner can get be trespassed upon when hikers have no right to, other landowners may close access as well.
Again...it's not worth it. Why piss off the natives? Because, you most certainly are.
RoySwkr
New member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 4,467
- Reaction score
- 285
As I pointed out before, because neither the AMC or the USFS owns the property, they may advise hikers not to go there but can't "officially" close it
The landowner may or may not have the right, based on my research at Lancaster town hall and Coos county registry of deeds I doubt that he does. Have you actually looked at any documents?
It seems that using the trail only offends one landowner, plus you if you live nearby.
Why insist on my right to a seat on the bus? Because that how society is improved.
There are several landowners who have land that borders WMNF land. They are upset with bootleg campsites, parking issues, noise, and trespassing. They monitor the respect that we, as hikers, offer to the local community.
Will anything come of it? Probably not? Again... why risk it?
It honestly makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. None. Zero.
Do you take the old North Kinsman Trail? Do you take the old Flume Path? Do you take the Old Osseo Trail?
Will anything come of it? Probably not? Again... why risk it?
It honestly makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. None. Zero.
Do you take the old North Kinsman Trail? Do you take the old Flume Path? Do you take the Old Osseo Trail?
Last edited:
David Metsky
Well-known member
I assume this is a reference to the AMC volunteer chapter trips still being scheduled and run on the Mt Cabot trail. The AMC Corporate (which endorses the trail closure) and the Chapters (which authorize the volunteer led trips) are different arms of a larger organization. The Chapters (in this case mostly the NH chapter) gets to decide if a trip is OK; corporate stays out of it unless something illegal is going on.
As far as I can tell, there's nothing illegal about hiking on that trail. The landowner doesn't want people there, and I choose to accept that, but it's far from clear if he has the legal right to do so.
Obviously this is a personal issue for me, my family, and others in the area. So while I had intended on staying out of it this time....nonetheless here I am.
But, from all the armchair lawyers who can say that it seems to them they cannot see whether someone has a legal right to close something (and ignoring the statements from the stewards of the White Mountains)....again...please...answer me this question: WHY?
But, from all the armchair lawyers who can say that it seems to them they cannot see whether someone has a legal right to close something (and ignoring the statements from the stewards of the White Mountains)....again...please...answer me this question: WHY?
David Metsky
Well-known member
So, one would risk future relations with a populace to prove a point? Is that correct?
David Metsky
Well-known member
That's a different question. I personally don't use the trail for those reason, but others can come to a different conclusion. If you give up a valid Right Of Way because of fear of retribution, what's to stop other land owners from asserting rights to close other Rights Of Way that they legally cannot close? Both sides are valid, and yes, sometimes it is necessary to prove a point.
