Mt Cabot Trail, Open or Closed?

Methinks the chances of dug and RoySwkr meeting on the Mt Cabot trail are pretty slim.

RoySwkr said:

In a similar situation, the RI state highpoint is on land owned by Brown U. with a ROW over someone elses land. The owner tried to keep hikers out and finally held some hikers at gunpoint and called the police, who came and arrested THE LANDOWNER for using inappropriate force - he was not in any danger and could have just photographed them and called the police. He now has a felony conviction and cannot own guns any more.

Click to expand...

Referring to "The Landowner" is a bit misrepresentative here. The current landowners have opened up access to the highpoint and have NEVER had issue with visitors. Let's not give the impression that they are felons! They are very nice people and we ought to do our best to stay on good terms with them and act respectfully out of appreciation for their letting us on their private property.

Double Bow said:

Referring to "The Landowner" is a bit misrepresentative here. The current landowners have opened up access to the highpoint and have NEVER had issue with visitors. Let's not give the impression that they are felons! They are very nice people and we ought to do our best to stay on good terms with them and act respectfully out of appreciation for their letting us on their private property.

Click to expand...

I agree Double Bow on your remark. The situation at hand requires us hikers to respect the owner's wishes, unless you have a desire to return in a pine box to your spouse
My reply here is based on observation and others may add to this. Roy wrote this:
As to guns, the 2nd Amendment may give you a right to own firearms, but it does not give you a right to harm others with them absent any threat to yourself.
Your're on the the right track. I personally don't have any affinity for using arms in the manner of asking people to stay off my property. There can be other methods to request people to stay off land.

sounds like a dangerous situation

If RoySwker is correct about the landowner losing in court an attempt to deny access, than it is settled. Why wouldn't the landowner just revoke his own easement? If the landowner is ordered by the court to allow access, then access must be enforced. At some point, this landowner freely entered into this agreement, either by buying or inheriting the land with an easement in place, or by applying for an easement. I've never heard of a forced easement, bicbw. Does he now enjoy the benefit of an easement?

Much more importantly, The USFS needs to remove the trailhead and close the trail and post a sign there stating that the trail is closed. It seems to me that the FS, by having a trailhead and a trail sign and a parking, lot is luring unaware hikers into a known potentially dangerous situation.

I'd bet a very small percentage of the hiking public is aware of this.

To be clear, I personally don't have an opinion whether he's in the right or not. I am only trying to not make the situation worse. There are two other direct routes (and another indirect route) to get to the peak. What's so special about this one? It's a boring trail, an old jeep road for much of it that is worn out and had drainage problems. If we weren't always in a quest to find the shortest and quickest routes to bag our peaks, it wouldn't even be an issue. The other routes, as others have stated numerous times, are much more scenic.

Dug, good points, but for me personally, Bunnel Notch was a special place, incredibly beautiful but wet, boring and not the shortest route to a list peak in the view of most, and therefore very quiet. It's still beautiful, but...

My wife, a paralegal-in-training, wants to read the court case. Does anyone know the name of the case or landowner? BTW, she says the gov. has forced easements on landowners many times.

I read an article in the Deuce County Press paper that Walmart is going to buy the land as part of its new efforts to console fish resources and the trails anti-proximity to the fish hatchery is their first step.


spencer

spencer said:

I read an article in the Deuce County Press paper that Walmart is going to buy the land as part of its new efforts to console fish resources and the trails anti-proximity to the fish hatchery is their first step.


spencer

Click to expand...

Ah yeah, that's the same article I read. Damn fine newspaper.

Mr. Bow, I have edited my RI remarks to avoid implicating the current owners.

forestnome said:

If the landowner is ordered by the court to allow access, then access must be enforced. At some point, this landowner freely entered into this agreement, either by buying or inheriting the land with an easement in place, or by applying for an easement.

Click to expand...

The ROW case he lost was to an abuttor not a hiker, he has also lost 2 cases with the town planning board according to what the alleged abuttor told me.
One member of this group obtained a copy of the deed from the county courthouse but has not posted it, maybe somebody else from the North Country would like to do this. I don't wish to post the man's name, if you want to look up the deed or the court case, send me an e-mail.

Much more importantly, The USFS needs to remove the trailhead and close the trail and post a sign there stating that the trail is closed. It seems to me that the FS, by having a trailhead and a trail sign and a parking, lot is luring unaware hikers into a known potentially dangerous situation.

Click to expand...

Since this part of the trail is not on NF land, they cannot close it. The signs were apparently put up by other local landowners who didn't mind hikers parking and walking on their property but did mind being disturbed by people asking where the trail was.

I'd bet a very small percentage of the hiking public is aware of this.

Click to expand...

One thing that we all agree on is that the situation should be publicized, whether you choose to stay away or engage in civil disobedience is up to you. KR - I have not hiked this trail since the situation arose, I just feel that people should be given the full facts and let them decide for themselves rather than just saying the trail is closed.

And while I've never hiked this trail in summer, in winter it is a great snowshoe route while the others are driving and hiking adventures.

This case interests me far beyond the Mt Cabot Trail. I plan on buying land in the near future that abutts the WMNF, and I plan on allowing access to the public (ecept ATVs and snowmobiles), effectively adding to the NF. It's a tradition in NH to not post land. I'd like to know the reason a landowner would have for denying a ROW to the public.

RoySwker, I'll pm you for the name of the case. I emailed FS but haven't gotten a reply yet.

Meanwhile, I agree that it would be wise to not use the trail, that is, if you're actually aware of the situation.

forestnome said:

This case interests me far beyond the Mt Cabot Trail. I plan on buying land in the near future that abutts the WMNF, and I plan on allowing access to the public (ecept ATVs and snowmobiles), effectively adding to the NF. It's a tradition in NH to not post land. I'd like to know the reason a landowner would have for denying a ROW to the public.

Click to expand...

That's been my point all along. Other landowners who have property that border the WMNF are interested to see this plays out.