Cabot Trail story?

[VFTTop'r]

This question has probably been kicked around here already but I need to know what the story is all about.

What exactly is the problem with the landowner? Are there ongoing talks between him with anyone representing the hiking community?


Maybe we could call a summit meeting (get it "summit" meeting?)

Sorry, I couldn resist.

So, what's the rest of the story?

 

[SteveHiker]

I met two guys near Unknown Pond last year on my way up from that end. One of them worked for the landowner in question as it turns out. I played dumb and he told me quite a bit. From what he said, and what I remember about it, the landowner doesn't mind if people hike the trail. If you asked him first, he'd more than likely let you. He had some kind of dispute with the Forest Service and "closing" the trail was his way of messing with them. I don't remember now what it was that they did to tick him off in the first place.

anyone, feel free to refute and/or back me up here.

 

[David Metsky]

I don't think the story above is accurate.

The landowner by the trailhead has no problems with hikers. The landowner further up the trail does, and has been quite vocal at times with hikers on the trail at times, or so have been reported.

The problem with the FS appears to be related to a snowmobile trail/access, but I don't know the details beyond that.

-dave-

 

[forestgnome]

I was saddened when Bunnel Notch became the shortest route to a 4k peak. This was another unfortunate result of the trail closure. Bunnel Notch was almost like bushwacking. It's one of the most beautiful areas I've been.

I'm not saying it's been ruined, not at all. I just love my "secret" places where very few ever go.

I would recommend this trail in mid-May, when the trees (unsure of the species) are in blossom. It's beautiful, and there are many moose.

 

[dRitter]

I think the trees you are referring to are probably white cherry. They also usually have a big crowd of butterlies hanging around.

 

[Waumbek]

IIRC, the dispute between a private landowner and USFS was over a snowmobile trail, with the result that the owner closed access to the hiking trail that crosses his land. There was some effort a while ago to see if the owner could be forced to open the hiking trail on the grounds that it was a public right of way but I don't know where it went. Reading between the lines, hikers are probably between a rock and a hard place on this one. I doubt that it will help resolution between the rock and the hard place to crash the trail even though hikers did not cause the intial problem that led to closure.

 

[Bob]

I *think* the dispute was this- snowmos were always allowed to cross/be used on the USFS land, when they decided to change the rules, the landowner did the same.

 

[Jim lombard]

Boyscouts

I talked with a leader of the Boy Scout troop that maintains the cabin on the mountain. They always have and always will use that trail. I asked if they had a problem with the landowner and he didn't know there even was any issue with that. Some people breeze through and have no problems and others get stopped.

 

[NewHampshire]

I talked with a leader of the Boy Scout troop that maintains the cabin on the mountain. They always have and always will use that trail. I asked if they had a problem with the landowner and he didn't know there even was any issue with that. Some people breeze through and have no problems and others get stopped.

Hmmm, well I guess hikers and snow'beelers is one thing, but I would think you would be one cold hearted person to tell a group of Boy Scouts off .
Brian

 

[SteveHiker]

I don't think the story above is accurate.

The landowner by the trailhead has no problems with hikers. The landowner further up the trail does, and has been quite vocal at times with hikers on the trail at times, or so have been reported.

The problem with the FS appears to be related to a snowmobile trail/access, but I don't know the details beyond that.

-dave-

Maybe he worked for the other guy. I had a feeling that I was only hearing part of the story in any case.

But Unknown Pond trail is a good option too. Plus, you get the Horn and the Bulge.

 

[NHGal]

Hmmm, well I guess hikers and snow'beelers is one thing, but I would think you would be one cold hearted person to tell a group of Boy Scouts off .
Brian

Actually, if memory serves and as another poster implied, the problem was the he WANTED a snowmobile trail on the land. I think he believed that the USFS had promised him one, and never carried through. Thus the closure. I think I recall reading that someone had done some deed research and had found that in fact there was a legal easement (do your own research before you take my foggy recollection as proof positive) through his land for the trail, so that technically he couldn't keep people from hiking. But hiker ethics would dictate not to hike there anyway, until the situation has been resolved. That sort of activity -- hiking where the landowner doesn't want you to do so -- could really discourage people in the future from granting easements, something that will likely become more and more necessary as more trails that cross private land are targeted for protection.

A few years back, the Mr. Crane proposed a large (88-site) campground for land somewhere in that area; maybe that parcel itself. I'm not sure what ever happened with that; last I recall, the ZBA had turned it down and the landowner had had a rehearing, then I lost track of it.

 

[woodstrider]

Cabot trail

Last Feb. a friend and I hiked up Cabot. We too had some questions and knocked on the door of the guy that lives right at the trails beginning. On a cold winters day this guy came out to talk to us, a little peeved at first. By the way- he is not the owner in question and would probably like it if people stopped knocking on his door. The trail, I was told, is a legal easement initially and then at a certain point is all state owned. The guy might have taken down the signs- but the easement can't be revoked and so the trail can't be "closed". We parked our car at the roads edge and enjoyed a great day in the mountains.

 

[NHGal]

The trail, I was told, is a legal easement initially and then at a certain point is all state owned. The guy might have taken down the signs- but the easement can't be revoked and so the trail can't be "closed". We parked our car at the roads edge and enjoyed a great day in the mountains.

This is my understanding as well, though I haven't researched it myself. But for me, the point is that regardless of whether there's a legal easement, the landowner is no longer comfortable for whatever reason with the trail crossing his land. Whether it's a legitimate reason (e.g. people leaving their trash on his land) or just an odd response to a conflict with the forest service, the fact remains that OTHER landowners who might be considering granting easements could be reading this and other hiking boards, and picking up on the attitude of "tough, it's our right to go there", and be reconsidering. And that's unfortunate. There are many hiking trails that cross private land for which easements do not exist. It is important to treat all private landowners respectfully and gratefully, whether or not we agree with their logic or lack thereof.

(Would someone please put this soap box away so I'm not tempted to jump up on it again? )

 

[woodstrider]

What I did not say..

was anything about it being "tough". In fact I was just restating something told to me and not denoting any emotionality to the statement.

I don't appreciate the misrepresentation, NHGal.

Also, from what I was told, the landowner was actually mad at the Gov. agency, not the hikers. Something about them not allowing him to do something- I don't remember what it was.