Mt.Cabot Trail

[WSC]

I am planning on doing Mt.Cabot this weekend, and I noticed that an AMC group leader was planning a hike on it and I heard that people were again using the Mt.Cabot trail.
Mt.Cabot trail was closed due to a landowner dispute. Is it still closed?
Does anyone know how I can find out if it is again open? Do I call the Forest Service?
Thanks, any help would be appreciated.
WSC

 

[poison ivy]

If you call the Forest Service they will ask you not to use the trail. The dispute with the landowner (not the one at the trailhead, but further in along the trail) is still ongoing. There is some question about the landowner's right to close the trail and some people are hiking it anyway. It's up to you to decide whether you're going to abide by what the Forest Service requests or not.

- Ivy

 

[David Metsky]

Given that there are two other approaches (Bunnell Notch and Mill Brook) I think it'd be a good idea to follow the FS wishes and not antagonize the landowner. While in this case I think the landowner doesn't have much of a leg to stand on, lots of trail access in the Whites relies on landowner cooperation. Right or wrong, It would be a shame to get other landowners upset.

I'll check with the AMC trip leader about that listed trip. I would think that would be a bad idea as well.

-dave-

 

[cp2000]

Does the land owner really care that much. I hiked it from the no-no side back in Aug. and it seemed as if many people had been hiking it. The lower parts, including the front gate had cairns along the way.

 

[David Metsky]

Again, it's not the landowner at the trailhead, it's one further up the trail. And as far as anyone knows, he still objects. Clearly, he can't be there everyday.

The issue goes beyond this one trail, but to relations between the FS and land owners everywhere. There have been cases where access to trails have been lost due to landowners withdrawing approval.

-dave-

 

[erugs]

The answer to this question is one that seems to go back and forth. I thought that the dispute with a landowner had been established to not be with hikers, that hikers were now welcomed. If that wasn't the case, why are there two nice parking areas off the field near the end of the road?

 

[sli74]

If that wasn't the case, why are there two nice parking areas off the field near the end of the road?

I believe the land owner closest to the trailhead does NOT have an issue with hikers and provides those parking areas but the owner with the problem is the one further in . . . I might be wrong about this but that is what I remember from previous discussions.

sli74

 

[David Metsky]

Yes, the landowner at the trailhead is not the problem, never was. The issue with hikers and the landowner is not resolved according to the FS. AFAIK, the status is unchanged.

-dave-

 

[evilhanz]

I don't know why people insist on climbing Cabot by the least interesting route and against the wishes of the landowner. Is it simply ignorance of the dispute? I haven't been on that side of the mountain in some time. Has a notice ever been posted at the old trailhead?

 

[dug]

I'm with you Evilhanz.

It has nothing to do with back-and-forth. This has been the position for many years now. Every time this question comes up, a littany of people will say you can't do it...and a few will say "I did it without a problem". The official position hasn't changed. As for the parking spots, they've been there for a long time since that is where the trailhead is. As has been mentioned a few times, the landowner by the parking spots has no issue, so why would he take the steps to remove the spots?

It's seems unreal that this continues to happen, but even more troubling is an AMC Hike thumbing their nose at the USFS wishes......

 

[David Metsky]

It's seems unreal that this continues to happen, but even more troubling is an AMC Hike thumbing their nose at the USFS wishes......

Keep in mind that all the chapter hikes are volunteer led and there are many chapters and 100's of leaders. Not all may know the situation, or may have their own opinion about the status. There is no single central place to submit trips for approval so only the local committees review them.

If someone can point me to the listing, I'll talk to the appropriate people and see if anything can be done to shift the route.

-dave-

 

[dug]

I see your point, but I would be more willing to believe it if this were a new development. Since this has been going on for at least five years, I find it odd that this isn't a well known issue. I think, and I could be off base, that the AMC should advise their trip leaders to not go this route. Just my opinion....

 

[poison ivy]

I see your point, but I would be more willing to believe it if this were a new development.

Keep in mind also that the 26th WMG edition has Mt. Cabot listed as a viable trail. I went up that way in Feb. 2004 after reading the guide and seeing that was the shortest route. It wasn't until I returned and posted a trip report that I learned the route was not supposed to be used. I haven't updated to the newest edition of the guidebook so I don't know what it says in the 27th edition.

- Ivy

 

[DougPaul]

Since this has been going on for at least five years, I find it odd that this isn't a well known issue.

Remember too that many hikers are not connected with organizations or BBSes. And not all of them have the latest guidebooks.

Doug

 

[dug]

Again, this is an AMC book. I feel the AMC and the USFS should be on the same page. Last time I was by there, there was a closed sign. Is that still there?

I personally couldn't give a crap. While I have gone that way before, it is easier for me to approach from the Hatchery, so that is the route I generally take. But, all indications and from what I've heard, hikers are only making it worse. It's the attitude from some that "I've heard it was a problem, but I went up there anyway" that is a problem. If you didn't know...you didn't know. But, those who do it anyway are only making it worse.

This is, of course, assuming there is still a problem. I haven't heard it still is, but as I mentioned I don't go that way so I haven't talked to the landowner about it in many years.

 

[David Metsky]

Again, this is an AMC book. I feel the AMC and the USFS should be on the same page. Last time I was by there, there was a closed sign. Is that still there?

The AMC Staff has little to do with the Chapter trip leaders. The volunteer organization at that level is very grass roots with all sorts of different levels of expertise and experience. There are 100's, probably 1000's of leaders, some new, some doing this for years. Many don't spend the time online like we do or keep up-to-date with issues like this. While we see this issue crop up every month or so, most hikers have never heard of it.

-dave-

 

[slowandsteady]

Why antagonize a landowner when there are alternatives? Having climbed Cabot from both Mill Brook and Bunnell Notch, although the route through the disputed land is reportedly shorter, neither alternative is unduly long, although it takes longer for most to drive to the trailheads. I've heard that there have been recent improvements to the Bunnell Notch Trail. Unknown Pond from Mill Brook is spectacular and you get the Horn as a bonus.

 

[bruno]

I don't know why people insist on climbing Cabot by the least interesting route and against the wishes of the landowner. Is it simply ignorance of the dispute? I haven't been on that side of the mountain in some time. Has a notice ever been posted at the old trailhead?

i agree with evil! if ya go by the 'disputed' route, ya miss the horn and the bulge (unless ya keep on goin') and ya have to go by the boy scout cabin which i wouldn't even let my dog sleep in. go millbrook way!! it's way better!! way way better! believe me!!

 

[Eddie70]

i agree with evil! if ya go by the 'disputed' route, ya miss the horn and the bulge (unless ya keep on goin') and ya have to go by the boy scout cabin which i wouldn't even let my dog sleep in. go millbrook way!! it's way better!! way way better! believe me!!

I agree! because then you can take the kilkenny ridge trail up and you can spend the whole hike making lame jokes about how you are going to "kill kenny" for not removing blowdowns/making you trip/etc. not that i would ever do something like that myself.

plus it's a great hike!

 

[vegematic]

Again, this is an AMC book. I feel the AMC and the USFS should be on the same page. Last time I was by there, there was a closed sign. Is that still there?

The 26th edition was probably already out before the problem arose with the landowner. The 27th edition WMG (2003 copyright) begins the write-up for the Mt. Cabot trail thusly:

"Note: The lower section of this trail has been closed by the landowner for the past few years and so must not be used at the present time. There is therefore no legal access to this trail from the west side. It is retained in this book in the hope that it will again be open in the near future. Hikers wishing to climb Mt. Cabot should consider routes from the York Pond Rd. or Mill Brook Rd."

They then proceed with the trail description. The deescription for he York Pond Trail opens with a similar disclaimer for its western end. The map included with the Guide reflects these closures. On it both the Mt. Cabot and York Pond Trails are shown dead-ending fairly high up on the west side of the ridge.
-vegematic