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

[DayTrip]

The popular winter route, from Little River Road, Old North Twin Trail, North Twin Trail, over both Twins, Galehead out-and-back, and out Gale River Road, through the campsite and back to Beaver Brook totals about 13.7 miles. From Beaver Brook, out and back to North Twin, visiting Galehead on the way is 8.5. Subtracting Galehead on one leg measures 7.5, and totals about 16 miles. A long day, yes, but with the most viable route being out and back, the worst case is trail breaking for 8.5 miles, versus almost 14 (potentially) on the old traverse.

Beaver Brook is posted sunrise to sunset, although there may be some latitude - I am not certain. I've have surely parked there on the edge of darkness, if not in complete darkness, without a problem. I suspect you might have a ticket if you wanted to winter camp at the hut, however.

Tim

That isn't that bad especially considering most of the walking is pretty comfortable. I'd do that versus the 2.5 mile road walk. The climb from Galehead Hut to South Twin must be tricky in Winter though in that steep, bouldery section.

Edit: That rest area is one of my regular bathroom stops on my drives up when I'm not using a trailhead with facilities. I regularly stop there well before sun up and have never had an issue or seen cops/rangers. I'm sure that posting is more to discourage partying/drinking/camping and if a stray hiker is in there getting an early start it would be OK. But you never know I guess.

 

[DayTrip]

There is no plowed parking anywhere near Haystack Road. Yes there is a snowmachine trail near there but no plowed winter parking. Generally parking is clustered near local services and there are no services near Haystack Road and RT3. The old motor court does not extensively plow. Given the curse of Twin Mountain and business longevity, I dont see a business popping up to support the winter hiking public.

Funny, years ago folks would park at Seven Dwarfs to access the winter route. I think he may have even charged for parking for awhile. The business has been in decline for years and I expect the corridor relocation would make it less accessible to snow machine traffic.

There are some long term VFTT members who live quite near there, I expect they may know far more of the details but either arent following this thread or have elected not to comment.

There are a few locals who have weighed in quite a bit on Facebook threads. I have no clue who everyone is in relation to there user names here though, being a flat lander and all.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Any of the approaches to the summer trailhead, and pretty much all the way to the crossing, is skiable, if you are into that, which might make it go easier.

Tim

 

[RollingRock]

Found this posting on a Facebook group that clarifies quite a few things:

*Little River Road Update*
While returning home after my hike today I turned into the Little River Road to check the signage. There were no other cars here today. I saw the sign for the bridge and there's some signs posted along the edge of the road. When I was leaving another car was just arriving, unbeknownst to me it was the owner of the land in question. When I got to the end of the road a police officer (PO) from Carroll Police Department (Twin Mountain) was turning in and I asked him if he was aware of the issue regarding the land owner and hikers. He had received calls from other hikers and was actually on his way to talk to the land owner. I asked if I could follow, he had no problem with that. When we got there the land owner had walked up onto his land and was not around. The PO told me that the town of Bethlehem owns the road to the end of the pavement and the land owner owns the end of the road or turn around area. We scuffed down through the snow and could see that the pavement went past the road/driveway that goes over the bridge. He told me he would call me after talking to the land owner. After I left he called me a short time later. The bottom line is that the owner owns the non-paved end of the road and if you park there your car will be towed. In addition if you are parked on the paved road and it is snowing and the plow truck cannot plow the road because a vehicle is in the way it will be towed. There is NO issue with either of the land owners with hiking the herd path on the other side of the bridge. So bottom line...parking is the issue not the hiking path. Hope this helps.

 

[peakbagger]

Wow, I greatly appreciate you reposting this.

Its highly unusual that a town would allow a road to be dead ended with no turn around. The tax map seems to support that the road right of way has a turnaround. I expect over the years the actual turn around has expanded onto the private land.

I expect the owner is going to have to be very careful on what vehicles he has towed and the whoever actually does the two also needs to be careful as if they tow a vehicle on a public right of way, they are liable for any damages.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

E-mail from Guy Jubinville via Ed Hawkins:

Hey Gang!
Letting you know the facts.
Met with the landowner today. ​ Due to the increase use of the bushwhack via the internet, the landowner has gotten frustrated.
As stated on some postings which were found on a few windshields, "This is private property and is not an authorized trailhead to access hiking trails." Due to the heavy use, which has resulted in tree cutting a trail corridor and signs of over night use on this property he has posted the property. This property also contains the area at the end of the road where vehicles have been parking, and around the right of way for the Town of Carroll water tank. The bridge is on a private right of way for Mr. Arion to his property.
As a lawful hiking community we must respect the landowners wishes and refrain from using this access. Please help pass the word.
Thanks
Guy Jubinville

Tim

 

[peakbagger]

Unfortunately not very clear. The prior unattributed facebook post seems to indicate one set of facts that the issue is parking and that the actual bridge access and winter route is still available and that the public road is public and not subject to the landowner at the end of the roads wishes. Guy's email only seems to work if the landowner of the small 3 acre lot also owns the much larger lot that does contain part of the winter route. In this case the landowner of the land that actually contains the winter route does have the right to prevent access to the land on the west side of the river and the hiking public should respect their wishes. There is a somewhat minor issue with respect to current use status as current use offers a slight bonus reduction in taxes allow public access but the penalty for losing this status is generally trivial. I believe the penalty for me to take my 83 acre out of recreational use is a $3 per year increase on my tax bill.

This brings into question Guy's blanket statement to "refrain from using this access" , does this apply to parking on the 3 acre landowners property to access the winter route or does it intend to state that the landowners whose property is crossed by the actual winter route has requested that hikers not cross their land?

One of things I had learned during my surveying days is that landowners in an area in dispute are not necessarily the best source for establishing the rights of adjacent landowners. The only way to do it is figure out the owners of the parcels in question and pulling the deed chain to determine rights.

 

[RollingRock]

The last time I did this in winter, about 3 years ago, I took the standard route over the bridge to the snowmobile trail that brought me to the trailhead. Upon my return, I saw hikers taking a herd path that was very well broken and started right from the trailhead so I followed it. It led me right to the end of Little River Road which means this herd path crosses the 'peed' off landowner's property...it was shorter...but not legal apparently.

I think if everyone respected this landowner's wishes and used the standard route there would not be any issue. Park where Little River Road is paved.

 

[DayTrip]

The last time I did this in winter, about 3 years ago, I took the standard route over the bridge to the snowmobile trail that brought me to the trailhead. Upon my return, I saw hikers taking a herd path that was very well broken and started right from the trailhead so I followed it. It led me right to the end of Little River Road which means this herd path crosses the 'peed' off landowner's property...it was shorter...but not legal apparently.

I think if everyone respected this landowner's wishes and used the standard route there would not be any issue. Park where Little River Road is paved.

This would possibly help to explain the conflicting information about the legality of using the herd path. There may in fact be two herd paths we are talking about and many are not aware of this. It seems clear that parking is a definite no go and that the bridge has been Ok'd for use. The question is whether the herd path on the side of river after crossing bridge is pissing some one off or the one RollingRock references is the issue. Hopefully someone can get the definitive answer to that question.

 

[jniehof]

I recall ten years ago the question of going straight to the trailhead (might be the old route of the trail?) vs. following the snomo out to Haystack Road was a discussion, and there was some question whether the direct route was acceptable to the landowners. Never changes, I guess.

 

[peakbagger]

One of the reasons I was careful to try to orient which winter route on what side of the trail. Is sure does sound like folks are hiking along the right of way to the water tower sticking on the east side of the Little River and therefore never needed to cross the bridge on the Fire Road just short of the summer North Twin trail head.

So does Guy's comments apply to this route, or the route that runs across the bridge and along the west side of the Little River?

 

[TJsName]

One of the reasons I was careful to try to orient which winter route on what side of the trail. Is sure does sound like folks are hiking along the right of way to the water tower sticking on the east side of the Little River and therefore never needed to cross the bridge on the Fire Road just short of the summer North Twin trail head.

So does Guy's comments apply to this route, or the route that runs across the bridge and along the west side of the Little River?

The Strava Heatmap shows the two routes pretty distinctly, but both cross the brdige. The Little River Whack follows the western bank in a straight line right to the bridge on Haystack Road. he snowmobile trail is a bit past the start of the whack, and goes more southerly towards Haystack Road, reaching near the start of the PATN whack (I think). Kimball added the heat map to the TrailNH page, which is pretty cool to see overlapping with the CalTopo.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

The unattributed Facebook post is easily found on FB... with the original author. I pointed Ed to it and he admits there is not a clear resolution to the apparent conflict.

Tim

 

[peakbagger]

I am luddite and don't have a facebook account so I cant participate in that discussion.

I am not implying that the Little River access issue is similar, but over the years I have heard of a couple cases where a landowner was claiming rights to prevent access via public right of ways. A very well off individual quite close to my home accesses his mansion via what is a class 4 road (Mineral Spring road in Gorham) which is an unmaintained public right of way that he maintains as a 1/2 mile long driveway. When he originally built the home he substantially rebuilt the road well outside the actual road right of way and ended up having to pay the landowner he trespassed on. He also posted the area somewhat deceptively to imply that the public right of way was private despite there being one landowner and a town lot on that class 4 road. He has backed off on this effort over the years but it was obvious his original intent was to prevent the public from accessing his estate which is just off this road.

There is the somewhat famous case of the Mt Cabot trail and a landowner who successfully blocked access to the trail despite clear deeded USFS rights for the public to travel the route. In this case he was successful in getting the trail closed as the FS made a judgment call that they could wait out the owner and revisit the trail at some point in the future rather than cause bad publicity that could harm other trailheads on private land.

There have been similar issues on a few trails along RT 113 and I believe the South Moat trail was relocated due to similar issues in the past.

One of the issues that the landowner on Little River Road may be battling is to break establishment of long term prescriptive rights on his land. Prescriptive rights (AKA squatters rights) to the general public vary from state to state and generally NH tends to rule on the conservative side but perhaps he could be trying to reestablish his rights to land that has been used openly by the public for many years?

 

[JustJoe]

This is copied and pasted from a FB post.


*Little River Road Update*
While returning home after my hike today I turned into the Little River Road to check the signage. There were no other cars here today. I saw the sign for the bridge and there's some signs posted along the edge of the road. When I was leaving another car was just arriving, unbeknownst to me it was the owner of the land in question. When I got to the end of the road a police officer (PO) from Carroll Police Department (Twin Mountain) was turning in and I asked him if he was aware of the issue regarding the land owner and hikers. He had received calls from other hikers and was actually on his way to talk to the land owner. I asked if I could follow, he had no problem with that. When we got there the land owner had walked up onto his land and was not around. The PO told me that the town of Bethlehem owns the road to the end of the pavement and the land owner owns the end of the road or turn around area. We scuffed down through the snow and could see that the pavement went past the road/driveway that goes over the bridge. He told me he would call me after talking to the land owner. After I left he called me a short time later. The bottom line is that the owner owns the non-paved end of the road and if you park there your car will be towed. In addition if you are parked on the paved road and it is snowing and the plow truck cannot plow the road because a vehicle is in the way it will be towed. There is NO issue with either of the land owners with hiking the herd path on the other side of the bridge. So bottom line...parking is the issue not the hiking path. Hope this helps.

 

[peakbagger]

See post 25 and the subsequent posts on why this is not a resolution as there appears to be conflicting land owner input.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

This is no longer an option due to landowner issues at the end of Little River Road.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/hikenh4k/permalink/10156038176403724/

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

 

[Jazzbo]

See post 25 and the subsequent posts on why this is not a resolution as there appears to be conflicting land owner input.

One long term resolution might be for FS to contact landowners regarding purchase some sort of easement for winter trail head parking lot. The FS in response abutting Little River Road landowner complaints FS decided to close certain snomo trails and convert some existing abandoned logging road into new snomo corridor. I think they received input from the Twin Mt Snomo club as part of process.

Perhaps Four Thousand Footer Committee, AMC, other user orgs would write letter to FS outlining the problems for club members. Popularity of LR Road as access point to number of 4K summits is not going to go away any time soon. Lack of proper winter TH is causing bad feelings with abutting landowners. Situation presents public safety issues both stemming from town unable to plow LR Road due to inevitable poorly parked cars during snow events and trying maintain roads via snow plow. Safety issue for hikers who try to do the right thing and and park far away and then try to bag these peaks with overly long approaches and get into trouble on account of it.

Aren't there other trail heads on private land provide access to hiking trails on USFS land? TH for Mount Kinsman Trail comes to mind.

 

[RollingRock]

One long term resolution might be for FS to contact landowners regarding purchase some sort of easement for winter trail head parking lot. The FS in response abutting Little River Road landowner complaints FS decided to close certain snomo trails and convert some existing abandoned logging road into new snomo corridor. I think they received input from the Twin Mt Snomo club as part of process.

Perhaps Four Thousand Footer Committee, AMC, other user orgs would write letter to FS outlining the problems for club members. Popularity of LR Road as access point to number of 4K summits is not going to go away any time soon. Lack of proper winter TH is causing bad feelings with abutting landowners. Situation presents public safety issues both stemming from town unable to plow LR Road due to inevitable poorly parked cars during snow events and trying maintain roads via snow plow. Safety issue for hikers who try to do the right thing and and park far away and then try to bag these peaks with overly long approaches and get into trouble on account of it.

Aren't there other trail heads on private land provide access to hiking trails on USFS land? TH for Mount Kinsman Trail comes to mind.

I agree completely that the solution similar for the Mount Kinsman Trail is the long term solution. In the meantime, the Forest Service should find a means for us to park around the closed gate of Haystack Road. They can place a fee parking kiosk for day user parking. Very few winter trails condition reports on NewEnglandTrails.com for North Twin thus far for the same period last year...definitely a problem not only for winter hikers but for back country skiers who use the Old Firewarden's trail.

Everyone should continue contacting the WMNF to voice their concern.

 

[peakbagger]

The AMC, RMC and FS had a committee that worked behind the scenes 20 years ago that had identified every trail in the north country and possibly other areas that had a trailhead or trail section that was on private land. I was inadvertently copied for awhile on an email chain and the discussion and the writers were careful to note that this was not for public consumption. I think the Mt Cabot west trailhead ongoing issues might have been a driver for it. I saw a list of the north country trailheads that were potentially an issue and there was a ranking of the potential for problems and possible solutions for each trail. In some cases on high priority trails with issues the trailheads were relocated to FS property if there was nearby FS land. I would speculate that the South Moat trailhead relocation and the Mt Kinsman Trailhead relocations as well as the Ammo/Jewell relocations were all in response to landowner concerns. The Castle trail in Randolph had an ongoing issue where hikers were walking over the owners field rather than staying in the woods and folks were camping on his property. The report I saw that the committee had decided that the best approach was buy land to reroute the trail away from the private land onto land to be purchased. A few years later the Nature Conservancy bought a large lot from the current landowner and the trail was relocated to the NC land that was quickly transferred to the WMNF. In other cases it was less successful and I know of a couple trailheads where the landowners still have to put up with bad hiker manners. These were secondary trails. Reportedly the owners of Bowman Basecamp wanted a big premium for their abandoned property as Lowes Path runs along the property boundary and they had heard there was a plan for the FS to buy it. The FS was considering go in with RMC to purchase the land for a trail crew base and protect trailhead access but for many reasons that didnt happen.

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 a big issue with the FS.

By the way, I have driven past the Bethlehem town office a couple of times thinking I would look up the owners of record (the land in question is in Bethlehem not the village of Twin Mountain in Carroll NH which further could complicate things). On both occasions I elected not to as expect poking at this issue further may not help. It would not take a lot of effort to post the bridge and the land on the West side of the bridge, based on descriptions to date that hasn't occurred and I suspect that the reason it hasn't is that the landowner with the problem doesn't have that right as he doesn't own the bridge or the land on the west side of the river. If folks have elected to make a new route down the East side of the river using the road to the water tank which would go over landowners property then he is entirely in his rights to post his property at the end of the road and I will respect it by parking on the road side on the public right of way.