To the editor:
I think that we would all agree that snowmobiling and the resulting revenue that this sport creates is a vital component of the economy in the region. But, at the same time, the safety of the people around whom these trails flow, and the rights of the landowners who make the sport possible also need to be respected. With that said, I feel compelled to make the events of the last couple of years, and in particular the last couple of days, a matter of public record. In the year 2000, I purchased a parcel of land in Mapleton. The land that I purchased is subject to an easement granted to the Presque Isle Snowmobile Club in the 1980s by a previous owner. It is also the only active easement on their entire trail system. When I purchased this property the trail maintained by the PISC did not coincide with the route specified in the easement and hadn’t, by the club’s own estimation, for at least 20 years. In fact, instead of exiting my property on its eastern border, as specified in the easement, the trail actually exited on my southern border. But, since the easement contained a provision that would allow me to move the trail at my discretion, I gave it little thought. For several years we coexisted in relative harmony. That all changed in fall of 2005.
In the fall of 2005, an abutting landowner (the one on my southern border) refused to grant the PISC permission to cross his property. At that time I was approached by the president of the PISC who informed me that the club now wanted to move back to the route specified in the easement. When I explained that this would be difficult, given that there were now new homes on both the entrance and the exit of the trail as depicted in the easement (I had subdivided this land over the intervening years), he informed me that the club had a piece of paper that said that they had the right to cross my property and as far as he was concerned it was now my problem. And from there things got worse.
When I attended the club’s next meeting, a member who would later become their next president informed me that the new plan was to run the trail straight up the driveway of the home that now sat on the eastern terminus of the easement. My response was that it would be completely unacceptable, and I left the meeting frustrated. After considering my options for a couple of days, I contacted the club’s trailmaster and met with him on my property. We identified a new route for the trail, one that would not interfere with my neighbors, and would serve the new purpose of the club. The route that we agreed upon would take advantage of an existing farm road and would require the removal of only a couple of trees. We shook hands and parted. Problem solved, or so I thought.
A week or so later, several members of the PISC, including the trailmaster and their current and future presidents arrived to install their new trail. However, instead of adhering to the agreed upon route, these people decided they would prefer a different route. Without consulting me, they had cut a 500-foot by 20-foot swath through the woods. It is a scar across my property that exists today and an illegal cutting that encompassed $5,000 worth of trees! When I later asked the trailmaster how they got so far off track, he told me that he had informed the others of the of the route that he and I had agreed upon, but that he “basically got outvoted.” You would have thought that my vote, as the landowner, would have counted for something.
At that point I obtained an attorney. In writing my attorney informed the club of the terms of the easement. Specifically, that the route of the trail would be the one that I had prescribed and that route would be recorded at the Registry off Deeds, that the easement did not allow for the cutting of trees, and the easement did not allow for the grooming of the trail.
This fall I was approached by the club’s trailmaster and its current president who asked if I would allow them to groom the trail once, early in the season, to facilitate the crossing of my property. In an attempt at cooperation, I agreed. So, this past Sunday, as I drove up the private road on my property and saw that the PISC president and a few other club members astride their sleds on the trail beside the road, I assumed that they had come to prepare to groom the trail. Later, however, I discovered that what they had done was to place a red cross on the center of the trail to point, and from that spot they broke a trail to the road. They then proceeded on the road in a northerly direction for about 1,000 feet before returning to their easement.
The effect of this action was to route all sled traffic off of their easement and onto a privately owned and maintained road. Dozens of sleds followed this route, some of them at excessive rates of speed. This road travels through a residential subdivision. There are several children under the age of 10 who live in this neighborhood and regularly recreate along this road. Just last week I met a couple of my neighbors on this section of the road as they pulled their toddlers behind them on sleds.
This action by the PISC was in violation of the terms of their easement. It was unnecessary, unsafe and willfully negligent. And in light of the fact that just last week in southern Maine there was a hit-and-run accident involving a snowmobile traveling in a prohibited area that left a man, who was walking his dog, with two broken legs. This action defies common sense.
When I called the club’s trailmaster about this situation he told me that they were not rerouting traffic onto my road. Rather, the trail was actually closed for maintenance. When I asked him how the sledding public was supposed to know this, since the trail was groomed all the way to the edge of my property and there was not a sign in the vicinity indicating that it was closed, he told me that they had placed a sign near the river.
Imagine that! If indeed there was a sign, it was several miles away. Employing the sled club’s logic, if the U.S. Route 1 bridge over the Aroostook River was out, the DOT would not place a sign to that effect near the Aroostook Center Mall, but rather somewhere in the vicinity of Percy’s Auto Sales.
The trailmaster went on to say that they would correct the problem by grooming the trail the next day, and that beginning the following Tuesday they intended to groom the trail on a regular basis. So much for abiding by the terms of the easement.
Snowmobiling and snowmobiles have changed a lot in the intervening years since this easement was granted. This trail passes through a residential neighborhood. As landowners affected by this trail, we do not believe that this trail needs to be maintained to a state that would encourage the speeds that modern snowmobiles are capable of. This easement does not grant the PISC the right to groom this trail at will, and while I would allow grooming as necessary to ensure that it is safe and passable, if they insist on unilaterally violating the terms of the easement, then I will be forced to close the trail to all snowmobile traffic. And this is not something that I want to do.
As I stated in the beginning of this letter, the sport of snowmobiling is an integral part of the economy in this region, one that benefits all of us. With that said, however, the rights of the landowners who make the sport possible and the safety of the people who live in close proximity to these trails also needs to be factored into the equation. The intent of this easement when it was granted was to guarantee the public’s access while protecting the landowner’s rights. I urge all concerned snowmobilers and the local businesses who depend upon the sport to encourage the Presque Isle Snowmobile Club to abide by its terms.
Mapleton
