bobandgeri
Well-known member
FYI - as pointed out in an earlier post - it has been posted for the past several years - at three that we know of. Sounds like the owner may have stepped up the enforcement or more signs
Trailhead Parking Restrictions: Little River Rd.
- Thread starter Bob T
- Start date
Help Support vftt.org:
FYI - as pointed out in an earlier post - it has been posted for the past several years - at three that we know of. Sounds like the owner may have stepped up the enforcement or more signs
Bob T
New member
I was truly a newbie to the LRV last season so I read here about 7Dwarfs and tried Franz who didn't return a vmsg. (This year I got him right away). I then called the Trudeau Rd. office of the WMNF. They didn't know what to do, but said they would call me back. They did a little research and provided me the name and number of the land owner.
My take away is to park at 7Dwarfs and use Franz's bridge and not park at the end of the road nor use the bridge down there. The two bridges both lead to the same place so it's win-win.
Last edited:
RoySwkr
New member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 4,467
- Reaction score
- 285
It has been posted for maybe 35 years, ever since the trailhead was moved from there, but the quality of the signs varies
I have been with a group that parked alongside the road further down away from any houses, the roadside was not posted for No Parking
I can remember when you could spend the night at Hilda's?? and hike from there for less than what Fritz charges to park :-(
Both of the above (i.e., no parking or walking).
Apparently there is another bridge across the Little River at the Seven Dwarfs, which would be the route to take now, assuming that this route does not traverse the land owner's property that is posted around the end of the road. I am still unclear who owns the land on which the snow machine trails criss cross between the Little River Road and Haystack Road.
The land owner (Twin Mountain's fire chief) has made his wishes very clear, as relayed to me by Ed Hawkins, that he does not want folks to park at the end, or the side near the end, of the road, but more important does not want folks trespassing on his land, which includes the rickety bridge near the end of the road.
Concerning parking on Rt. 3, the state law reads that all wheels of vehicles must be outside the white side line on highways (i.e., may need to park in the ditch in some places), and the USFS definitely does not want vehicles blocking their gates, even in winter.
Last edited:
peakbagger
In Rembrance , July 2024
Its the owners perogative to post his land, most dont as they may lose their right to protection under the NH recreation liability statute, and lose the 10% discount on property taxes given to current use owners who do not post their land. I am not a lawyer but section 3 of the statute copied below may be a good reason for the owner to post the bridge. Note, I do not see where posting the land takes away protection under the statute, but I have heard this multiple times at various meetings I have attended.
Alternatively, the owner may be worrried about "squatters rights" where allowing the public to use the path through the property may eventually establish a public right.
Pure speculation on my part is that the area gets abused during the summer as people assume its WMNF land.
NEW HAMPSHIRE REVISED STATUTES ANNOTATED
TITLE XVIII: FISH AND GAME
CHAPTER 212: PROPAGATION OF FISH AND GAME
SECTION 34: LIABILITY OF LANDOWNERS (DUTY OF CARE)
� 212:34. Duty of Care
I. An owner, lessee or occupant of premises owes no duty of care to keep such premises safe for entry or use by others for hunting, fishing, trapping, camping, water sports, winter sports or OHRVs as defined in RSA 215-A, hiking, sightseeing, or removal of fuelwood, or to give any warning of hazardous conditions, uses of, structures, or activities on such premises to persons entering for such purposes, except as provided in paragraph III hereof.
II. An owner, lessee or occupant of premises who gives permission to another to hunt, fish, trap, camp, hike, use OHRVs as defined in RSA 215-A, sightsee upon, or remove fuelwood from, such premises, or use said premises for water sports, or winter sports does not thereby:
(a) Extend any assurance that the premises are safe for such purpose, or
(b) Constitute the person to whom permission has been granted the legal status of an invitee to whom a duty of care is owed, or
(c) Assume responsibility for or incur liability for an injury to person or property caused by any act of such person to whom permission has been granted except as provided in paragraph III hereof.
III. This section does not limit the liability which otherwise exists:
(a) For wilful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity; or
(b) For injury suffered in any case where permission to hunt, fish, trap, camp, hike, use for water sports, winter sports or use of OHRVs as defined in RSA 215-A, sightsee, or remove fuelwood was granted for a consideration other than the consideration, if any, paid to said landowner by the state; or
(c) The injury caused by acts of persons to whom permission to hunt, fish, trap, camp, hike, use for water sports, winter sports or use of OHRVs as defined in RSA 215- A, sightsee, or remove fuelwood was granted, to third persons as to whom the person granting permission, or the owner, lessee or occupant of the premises, owed a duty to keep the premises safe or to warn of danger.
HISTORY: SOURCE. 1961, 201:1. 1969, 77:1-3. 1973, 560:4. 1977, 208:1. 1981, 146:5, VI, eff. Jan. 1, 1982; 538:7, 13, eff. June 30, 1981.
Alternatively, the owner may be worrried about "squatters rights" where allowing the public to use the path through the property may eventually establish a public right.
Pure speculation on my part is that the area gets abused during the summer as people assume its WMNF land.
NEW HAMPSHIRE REVISED STATUTES ANNOTATED
TITLE XVIII: FISH AND GAME
CHAPTER 212: PROPAGATION OF FISH AND GAME
SECTION 34: LIABILITY OF LANDOWNERS (DUTY OF CARE)
� 212:34. Duty of Care
I. An owner, lessee or occupant of premises owes no duty of care to keep such premises safe for entry or use by others for hunting, fishing, trapping, camping, water sports, winter sports or OHRVs as defined in RSA 215-A, hiking, sightseeing, or removal of fuelwood, or to give any warning of hazardous conditions, uses of, structures, or activities on such premises to persons entering for such purposes, except as provided in paragraph III hereof.
II. An owner, lessee or occupant of premises who gives permission to another to hunt, fish, trap, camp, hike, use OHRVs as defined in RSA 215-A, sightsee upon, or remove fuelwood from, such premises, or use said premises for water sports, or winter sports does not thereby:
(a) Extend any assurance that the premises are safe for such purpose, or
(b) Constitute the person to whom permission has been granted the legal status of an invitee to whom a duty of care is owed, or
(c) Assume responsibility for or incur liability for an injury to person or property caused by any act of such person to whom permission has been granted except as provided in paragraph III hereof.
III. This section does not limit the liability which otherwise exists:
(a) For wilful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity; or
(b) For injury suffered in any case where permission to hunt, fish, trap, camp, hike, use for water sports, winter sports or use of OHRVs as defined in RSA 215-A, sightsee, or remove fuelwood was granted for a consideration other than the consideration, if any, paid to said landowner by the state; or
(c) The injury caused by acts of persons to whom permission to hunt, fish, trap, camp, hike, use for water sports, winter sports or use of OHRVs as defined in RSA 215- A, sightsee, or remove fuelwood was granted, to third persons as to whom the person granting permission, or the owner, lessee or occupant of the premises, owed a duty to keep the premises safe or to warn of danger.
HISTORY: SOURCE. 1961, 201:1. 1969, 77:1-3. 1973, 560:4. 1977, 208:1. 1981, 146:5, VI, eff. Jan. 1, 1982; 538:7, 13, eff. June 30, 1981.
nartreb
Well-known member
Posting is governed by common law, meaning a set of unwritten traditions.
A very good discussion (including references to those statutes which apply) is at NH F&G:
http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Hunting/hunt_landowner_hunter_FAQs.htm
Recreational use statutes protect landowners who give permission for others to make recreational use of their land. Tort law traditionally recognizes various classes of people: invitees, licensees, and trespassers. Landowners can be held liable for certain hazards that harm anybody (even trespassers) on their land, but landowners have extra duty to protect the people they invite onto their land or allow to use it. The recreational use statutes make clear that recreational users who enter under a general open-access policy don't fall into the most protected class. By posting a sign, you're removing permission for others to enter, converting them to trespassers. That would make the recreational-use statute moot, I think, but check with a lawyer: over the years in some states the difference between an invitee and trespasser has shrunk to almost nothing, so it's possible the specific landowner protections of this recreational use statute might be better (for the landlord) than classification as a trespasser.
A very good discussion (including references to those statutes which apply) is at NH F&G:
http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Hunting/hunt_landowner_hunter_FAQs.htm
Recreational use statutes protect landowners who give permission for others to make recreational use of their land. Tort law traditionally recognizes various classes of people: invitees, licensees, and trespassers. Landowners can be held liable for certain hazards that harm anybody (even trespassers) on their land, but landowners have extra duty to protect the people they invite onto their land or allow to use it. The recreational use statutes make clear that recreational users who enter under a general open-access policy don't fall into the most protected class. By posting a sign, you're removing permission for others to enter, converting them to trespassers. That would make the recreational-use statute moot, I think, but check with a lawyer: over the years in some states the difference between an invitee and trespasser has shrunk to almost nothing, so it's possible the specific landowner protections of this recreational use statute might be better (for the landlord) than classification as a trespasser.
RoySwkr
New member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2003
- Messages
- 4,467
- Reaction score
- 285
I would say that the land owner certainly has the right to prohibit use of his land, note however that this was once the route of the trail before Haystack Road was built and users may have some rights. The bridge is newer than that and presumably can be posted.
As for parking on the side of the road, I would be more interested in what the police chief says
Mike P.
Well-known member
Thanks guys! I was thinking I was stay at 7D's but since the rooms are closed, I'll stay elsewhere & drive there in the AM. $6 seems reasonable & a bite to eat is nice too.
Jim lombard
New member
Franz is great, get there early if it is a heavy snow year because spaces are pretty limited. He even offered to pick us up at the trailhead that evening if we paid extra You go down the road a little from where you park and take a right at a stone post over a bridge and follow the snowmobile trail and then head off to the left on Haystack rd to get to the trailhead.
You go down the road a little from where you park and take a right at a stone post over a bridge and follow the snowmobile trail and then head off to the left on Haystack rd to get to the trailhead.
yardsale
New member
Also remember that Franz has farm animals and DOES NOTwant dogs running around off leash. All we need is for him to close off that access as well.
Mike P.
Well-known member
I called Franz on Monday, great conversation, that's the way to go! (he wishes there was more snow)
Similar threads
