Hale Fire Road Access - Little River Road Winter Access Twins and Hale

[RollingRock]

Unfortunately the Little River road is not an official trailhead. It was originally the North Twin trailhead prior to the Haystack Road being built. It happened prior to when I lived in the area but expect that it was a problem during the hiker boom of the late seventies due to lack of parking. I dont see the FS willing to wade into it. The use of a private bridge I expect would be big issue with the FS.

I think what makes this more difficult is this issue only occurs during winter versus the other trailhead issues were all season. I think the easiest fix would be to create parking before the gate similar to what we have for the closed roads used to hike up Galehead and Garfield.

 

[Ken MacGray]

as the owners with the bridge and the herd path are OK with hikers

Those are two different parties. The people who own the bridge are cool with hikers. The people who own the land where the herd path passes through are apparently not. In any event, we need to yield to the landowner's wishes if there's any doubt, to avoid escalating the issue further.

 

[DayTrip]

Is there actually a resolution? Last I heard, there was "A police officer said it was OK, if you park on the paved part of the road, as the owners with the bridge and the herd path are OK with hikers" versus the Hiker Ed retelling of the Guy Jubinville meeting...

Tim

I gave up following this. It was just too confusing. At the last point I thought I understood it:

-Parking on pavement OK provided you don't block road, dirt roads or abillity of plows to pass or turn around. Parking on dirt not allowed. Cars will be towed.
-Bridge OK to use per owners of that parcel. No spikes/snowshoes/crampons,etc
-Herd Path that some people use that DOES NOT CROSS BRIDGE and follows woods down directly to North Twin parking lot is on the pissed off guy's land and is not to be used.
-Herd Path on the other side of bridge immediately to the left - no idea if that is OK or not. Doesn't seem to have ever been clarified.

I agree with others that it is probably best to just avoid the area and use another option. It's obviously a heated subject and action may be taken whether it is technically legal or not. Not worth coming out of the woods at the end of a long day to find your car gone or an irate land owner looking to "have a word".

 

[DayTrip]

I think what makes this more difficult is this issue only occurs during winter versus the other trailhead issues were all season. I think the easiest fix would be to create parking before the gate similar to what we have for the closed roads used to hike up Galehead and Garfield.

There is that long vacant snack shack just a short distance down Rte 3 from Haystack Rd that could be quickly converted into a useble lot just by plowing it, although I assume that is private land. No tree clearing, no construction, etc. I think the 1.0 mile walk from Little River Rd versus the 2.5 mile walk of Haystack Rd will still have plenty of "selfie generation" hikers and list fanatics trying to gain access to the easy way though so even with a large desirable lot on Rte 3 the problem might not go away.

 

[Jazzbo]

I surmise NH48 Winter List peak bagging have been steadily increasing over past 10 years or so. Perhaps some data mining number cruncher type can confirm this by analyzing statistics of 4K committee. Steadily increasing traffic and parking on LR River Road related to this is no doubt disturbing peaceful enjoyment of residents of LR Rd. Not to mention public safety hazards related to hindering snow plowing roads. Best trail route would follow east bank of river avoiding river crossing, but Bethlehem would prefer to discourage hikers walking by water tank and public water supply.

 

[RollingRock]

There is that long vacant snack shack just a short distance down Rte 3 from Haystack Rd that could be quickly converted into a useble lot just by plowing it, although I assume that is private land. No tree clearing, no construction, etc. I think the 1.0 mile walk from Little River Rd versus the 2.5 mile walk of Haystack Rd will still have plenty of "selfie generation" hikers and list fanatics trying to gain access to the easy way though so even with a large desirable lot on Rte 3 the problem might not go away.

I did not even realize Little River Road was an option when I first wanted to hike up North Twin in winter until I parked in front of the Haystack Road gate. As I was getting out of my car, the Forest Service pulled behind me and indicated my car would be towed if left there. He directed me to Little River Road.

Granted, this was many years ago before Facebook groups and trail conditions reports but my point is, at that time, I thought that was my only option and willing to hike the extra miles...no different than hiking the extra miles on the road to bag Garfield. If it's clear Little River Road entry is no longer possible, no different than going up Mt. Cabot via the west side, and there is a legal area to park before the Haystack Road gate, it will eventually be the winter point of entry.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

The issue isn't walking the road as much as it is where to park. Not thrilled to park at Beaver Brook and walk along route 3 with 60 MPH traffic, including trucks. Especially with narrowing roads, tall snow banks, snowy roads. Even less so with my dog.

Tim

 

[DayTrip]

Beaver Brook? Yuck. That is almost 2 miles to LIttle Haystack Rd and then another 2.5 miles to trailhead. That is a lot of road walking to hit the Twins.

 

[peakbagger]

I figured I would stop by the end of the road today (1/12) and see what I could see. There is professional made sign to the side of the privately owned bridge indicating its a private drive with no outlet. I couldnt go across as the Little River was flooding over the approach. There are homemade signs immediately past the private road entrance stating that the road is private. That is contrary to the Zoning map which shows a public turn around south of the bridge approach. The road to the water reservoir has numerous signs indicating its private property. Both sides of the public road are very well posted with no trespassing signs for quite a distance down the road back towards Twin Mountain. These are standard hardware store signs set back from the road a bit. There are numerous locations for signage on the private bridge approach but no signage.

IMHO, it appears as though someone may have elected to create an alternative path down the East side of the Little River using the road to the reservoir to shorten up the walk in the woods. Speculation on my part is that possibly someone may have driving up the reservoir road but I would be surprised if there wasnt a gate not far in from the end of the road. Barring some sort of signage on the west side of the bridge where the conventional path heads south, I suspect there is no issue continuing to use this approach respecting the landowners wishes to leave traction and snow shoes off while crossing the bridge. Despite the zoning map showing the public road extending as a turnaround past the bridge, the best option is to park off the side of the road on the south side of the bridge. I would not do this on weekend days when there is likelihood of snowplowing on the road.

The lot owner on the end of the road probably has a legit complaint if folks are trying to create a new path over his property, due to the presence of the river channel, the right of way to the reservoir and the odd shape of the lot I expect if he has future plans to site a house on it it could be PITA. The owner is within his rights to be upset. I do question his right to post the end of the road as private as the zoning map does appear to be based on a survey plat and its reasonable to assume that a town would have a turnaround at the end of the road. Note zoning maps generally are specifically marked for tax purposes only and do not purport to be a survey document but it sure looks like its based on a survey. Given that there is plenty of room to park cars down one side of the road without intruding on the contested turn around why get the landowner upset. Should he attempt to have a vehicle towed, he had best be sure of the ownership as I expect most tow truck drivers would avoid the tow from what appears to be public property.

 

[RollingRock]

It sounds like the traditional approach still works as well as not park in the turnaround area. Last time I hiked North Twin in winter [three years ago maybe] I used the traditional approach [West Side of the Little River] but on my return, found this well packed herd path following the East Side of the Little River so I ended up using it. It sounds like this path, started by who knows who, is what this landowner is objecting to, since it crosses his land. It did appear someone had cut some trees to made this [illegal?] path clearer.

 

[peakbagger]

I am disappointed with the post attributed to Guy Jubinville on a facebook site as it could have been a lot more specific on stating the "facts", it appears as though he allowed the landowner of the lot at the end of the road to supply him "facts" that appear to prevent use of the traditional route on the west side of the river rather then what appears to be a legitimate complaint about a newer one on the east side. I expect the average hiker looking for trail info wouldn't realize the difference and decide there is no way to access North Twin from the Little River road. Perhaps that is the intent of the owner of the lot but to present it as "facts" when it most likely only applies to the recent east side route does a disservice to the hiking public.

I also am very suspect on the landowners contention that he owns the road and turnaround past the bridge right of way as the town of Bethlehem seems to disagree on their official plat maps. A subtlety in land law that the landowner could be using is that many older roads such as this one are not typically owned by the town, frequently the abutters own the land to the centerline of the road, the town has a right of way that allows public access. Newer roads generally are laid out on a subdivision tract and accepted by the town as public and the actual strip of land is dedicated to public use on the subdivision plat. So barring that Bethlehem at one point formalized the right of way, technically the owner could claim he owns the land but he really has no control over it as the town has established public rights to the road. The nice thing with a public right of way is it rarely if ever can be extinguished by an abutting landowner unless the town formally abandons it despite a landowner trying to bluff his way into gaining control.

As I stated earlier in the thread getting the "facts" from a landowner is generally not a great idea unless there is supporting documentation and to date I haven't seen it on the contention that the access to the traditional route from this road is no longer available. Rather than fuel the fire I will suggest folks stay south of the bridge and park on the side of the road.

I would resist the suggestion that someone attempt to formalize this parking area and access. Recreational liability rules and the current use discount for public access encourage public use of the land. Formally establishing an official route potentially creates a long term attachment to the property that at some point could become a future issue for a landowner. Lawyers generally advise a landowner to avoid allowing inadvertent attachments as they are difficult to get rid of. As a recent landowner with a segment of a very old hiking trail running over it, I have no issue it being used but would resist any attempt at formalizing its existence.

 

[peakbagger]

I do have a metal detector and a total station sitting in the basement but do agree it would be stirring up a hornets nest.

 

[peakbagger]

I got a group email this morning from a meetup group leader who is also a VFTT member with some confirmation on the current situation

"This continues to be an evolving issue but I wanted to send you the most recent update. This is from xxxxxx and was posted on Facebook. It seems to support the previous update of "park along the road and not at the end" and "don't block driveways or snow removal".

This is the response he received from the Police Department:

Hi XXX, first off the end of Little River Road is in the Town of Bethlehem, not Carroll / Twin Mountain so I'm not sure to what extent Bethlehem PD has been involved in. However, we are very familiar with what has been going on as multiple people have contacted us, ect. So what I can tell you is that yes, hikers can park along Little River Road as long as they are not in the turn around. The turn around area is private property and the owner does not want anyone parking there anymore. The bridge crossing and path is still open for use if you are able to find a place to park. Just be careful that no driveways are blocked or if there is any snow in the forecast - if the town tries to come up and plow and any parked vehicles hinder the snow removal along the road the vehicles would most likely be towed. Another idea I would check into is call / stop in at the 7 Dwarfs motel located at the end of the road. They have a decent parking lot and I heard that people use to park here in the past (small fee?).[/I]

My added comments are; in the late eighties, Seven Dwarfs was open in the winter and we paid to park. The bridge wasn't actively used and some years the gate was closed. The other issue to be aware of is the comment about snowy weather and towing. I haven't confirmed if its the policy in Carroll NH, but the vast majority of towns in the state have winter parking bans that ban parking along public roads. The policies vary but technically some towns just ban it 24/7 some limit it to overnight. In the vast majority of cases this is not enforced except in two incidences, the normal is during period of time when the town is actively plowing and in rarer cases in very high snow years, the snow banks may build up to the point where the roads are physically made narrower and parked cars may limit normal travel. This is not a issue most years.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I have been contacted by a proxy of the owner claiming that the parking/turnaround, and the herd path beyond Doug & Mary's (Arion's) bridge is on private property, has been conspicuously posted, and if people continue to ignore the posting, the police will be contacted.

I make no claim other than what I paraphrased above. Not helpful, I know.

Tim

 

[peakbagger]

Looks like I need to stop by the Bethlehem town hall one of these days and get the owner of record info.

 

[skiguy]

I have been contacted by a proxy of the owner claiming that the parking/turnaround, and the herd path beyond Doug & Mary's (Arion's) bridge is on private property, has been conspicuously posted, and if people continue to ignore the posting, the police will be contacted.

I make no claim other than what I paraphrased above. Not helpful, I know.

Tim

There is a lot of contradictory info in this thread. If the land is now posted IMO the landowners request should be honored. Although it seems as if this is a full 180 from the OP. Which I question was it legit to begin with. I have frequented this area since the mid 80's mainly as a BC Skier. This used to be a locals favorite..done and not talked about. Unfortunately the information age has exploited it which it is now obvious has not come to the best of conclusions.

 

[skiguy]

Looks like I need to stop by the Bethlehem town hall one of these days and get the owner of record info.

Appreciate it if you do. If the owner is within his rights to post it should be respected. If not then it will be a different situation. I guess it comes down to where the lines are actually drawn and whom lays to claim within those lines.

 

[akafuzzjones]

I got a group email this morning from a meetup group leader who is also a VFTT member with some confirmation on the current situation

"This continues to be an evolving issue but I wanted to send you the most recent update. This is from xxxxxx and was posted on Facebook. It seems to support the previous update of "park along the road and not at the end" and "don't block driveways or snow removal".

This is the response he received from the Police Department:

Hi XXX, first off the end of Little River Road is in the Town of Bethlehem, not Carroll / Twin Mountain so I'm not sure to what extent Bethlehem PD has been involved in. However, we are very familiar with what has been going on as multiple people have contacted us, ect. So what I can tell you is that yes, hikers can park along Little River Road as long as they are not in the turn around. The turn around area is private property and the owner does not want anyone parking there anymore. The bridge crossing and path is still open for use if you are able to find a place to park. Just be careful that no driveways are blocked or if there is any snow in the forecast - if the town tries to come up and plow and any parked vehicles hinder the snow removal along the road the vehicles would most likely be towed. Another idea I would check into is call / stop in at the 7 Dwarfs motel located at the end of the road. They have a decent parking lot and I heard that people use to park here in the past (small fee?).[/I]

My added comments are; in the late eighties, Seven Dwarfs was open in the winter and we paid to park. The bridge wasn't actively used and some years the gate was closed. The other issue to be aware of is the comment about snowy weather and towing. I haven't confirmed if its the policy in Carroll NH, but the vast majority of towns in the state have winter parking bans that ban parking along public roads. The policies vary but technically some towns just ban it 24/7 some limit it to overnight. In the vast majority of cases this is not enforced except in two incidences, the normal is during period of time when the town is actively plowing and in rarer cases in very high snow years, the snow banks may build up to the point where the roads are physically made narrower and parked cars may limit normal travel. This is not a issue most years.

This was from yesterday and now with Tim's update about the herd path we may be able to park but not be able to hike. This whole thing is as clear as mud.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

There is a lot of contradictory info in this thread. If the land is now posted IMO the landowners request should be honored. Although it seems as if this is a full 180 from the OP. Which I question was it legit to begin with.

I have tried, very hard, to get the owner to sign up and post on their behalf but through a proxy, the claim is that the owner has no interest in the online hiking community. I cannot substantiate their claim, thus, as Michael points out, it's as clear as mud. I will say the proxy mentioned being present at the time one of the police officers said it was OK, when in fact their claim is that it is not.

The OP does have a right of way, again, per the proxy, over the river to access their property. This is Doug & Mary Arion. Beyond that right of way, they have no claim to offer access to the herd path.

Knowing all of you the way I do, I would not make an assertion I was not 100% confident in and that was not independently verifiable.

Due to the recent activity, I have been contacted by another individual with maps and data but I am not willing to post without a name, position, title, and some way to verify their information.

I have been invited, again by proxy, to meet with the landowner, but have not yet had a chance to do so, nor do I really want to become an official mediator. Personally, I will find a different route to North Twin and PAtN in winter.

Tim

 

[DayTrip]

Personally, I will find a different route to North Twin and PAtN in winter.

Tim

I think that is the bottom line. Why escalate everyone's aggravation? It this continues to get more visibility among other land owners and they see the disregard hikers have for the land owners wishes it may lead to access problems at other areas like this and further restrict access.

EDIT: And when I say "hiker disregard" I'm not generally referring to people here on VFTT. I think most people here would show the respect the landowner wants and avoid the area. But on Facebook it is clear that many are going to push (and have pushed) this issue and defy the landowners wishes. Not everyone sees this the same way.