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

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
In summary, I am personally convinced, base on my reading of the public tax maps, my own personal GPS tracks from previous years, Strava heat maps, and some maps and pictures people with private databases have sent me, that the herd path (the former North Twin Trail over the Arion's bridge) does cross the same lot that contains the turnaround. I have not been there myself since it was posted.

Everyone reading this is free to interpret the information here as they wish.

Tim
 
FWIW, I drove by on Saturday but the owners were not around. I did observe three cars parked on the town-owned section of the road, numerous yellow no-trespassing signs, and a no parking/no cars beyond this point sign. I did not get out and cross the bridge. I did notice that Seven Dwarves has not been plowed, although I was told people (BC skiers) were parking there when there was less or no snow.

Tim
 
I and a friend were one of the vehicles you saw. We took this access and used the Firewardens Trail to hike up Mt. Hale. There also was a couple, independent of our group of four, also hiking up to Mt. Hale as well. Here are my thoughts and suggestions.

Parking area is at end of Little River Road with about four cars when we finished. Do not park at end of road in turnaround, do not park in front of the bridge, and make sure not to wear MicroSpikes/Snowshoes when crossing the bridge. There are yellow No Trespassing signs on both sides of the road but the bridge itself is not posted. After crossing the bridge, there is a sign with an arrow pointed left that says TRAIL which is the traditional approach. That said, within 100 feet a sign on a tree says PRIVATE PROPERTY. In our opinion, the owner is OK with access but does not want people to meander up the driveway or around the property. Otherwise, why would the owner keep a sign up saying TRAIL posted on his property?

Click Here For My Trip Report and Photos
 
After crossing the bridge, there is a sign with an arrow pointed left that says TRAIL which is the traditional approach. That said, within 100 feet a sign on a tree says PRIVATE PROPERTY. In our opinion, the owner is OK with access but does not want people to meander up the driveway or around the property. Otherwise, why would the owner keep a sign up saying TRAIL posted on his property?

Do you have anything to support the supposition that the person who posted Private Property is the same who posted Trail? Sounds to me like the trail sign is on the property of the people who own the bridge, who want people to turn off there (not continue up their driveway), and the private property sign could well be at the property line of the people who own the turnaround/very end of the road, and don't want anybody on their land at all.
 
After crossing the bridge, there is a sign with an arrow pointed left that says TRAIL which is the traditional approach. That said, within 100 feet a sign on a tree says PRIVATE PROPERTY. In our opinion, the owner is OK with access but does not want people to meander up the driveway or around the property. Otherwise, why would the owner keep a sign up saying TRAIL posted on his property?

Click Here For My Trip Report and Photos

Just to be 100% clear - AFTER the sign with the arrow saying "Trail" is another sign that says "PRIVATE PROPERTY"? The reason I ask is that from what I have seen of the property maps and what several others have also stated is that the property that includes the parking area in dispute is the SAME lot that also includes the herd path on the other side of the river (i.e. the river is not actually the boundary of the lots but actually passes through the lots). Looking at the boundary lines of the maps the current herd path cuts through the disputed lot for a section (I think there were 3 lots that the herd path cuts through if I remember correctly but it has been awhile since I looked at all the maps that were posted). Also, I think the sign marked "Trail" has been there for awhile and may not clarify anything related to the recent dispute. I think that sign is on one of the other lots not owned by the person in question (I believe the bridge owner as jniehof mentioned).
 
Since this thread has started to become an echo chamber I did visit the Town of Bethlehem today to get the property cards and inquire about if any of the parcels were in current use with the recreational "bonus" applied
As you can see by the attached blown up Tax map the answer is not as clear as I would like it but I agree with Tim that the current route appears to cross land owned by the owner of the lot at the end of the road. I have left that property owners name off this discussion as at least on this forum it has not been brought up and really isn't germane to the discussion. Note that the town of Carroll has a reservoir located on lot 10.2 (or possibly lot 10.3) but the town does not own the land.
View attachment 5952
As shown with my red line, the winter route crosses the bridge over to the SE corner of the land owned by Seven Dwarfs. It then most likely crosses over to the NE corner of Doug and Mary's lot but then it most likely transitions quickly to lot 10.3 which is owned by the owner of lot 10.2 who reportedly is posting no trespassing signs on lot 10.3. My memory of the winter route is it roughly parallels the river albeit drifting away from it as you head south and then regaining it as you approach the bridge. The best place to see this is using Strava. Using a scale that triangular wedge of lot 10.2 is 700 wide on its southern boundary and I believe the winter route is closer than 700 feet to the river (Strava indicates that pretty well). Thus if the property boundary between lot 9 and lot 10.2 were marked in the woods and someone walked on the west side of the line for 1254 feet south, they would never enter the disputed lot. Once past that point they have entered federal land and have the right to go anywhere they please. Using Google Earth imagery this route appears to steer clear of the developed portion of Doug and Mary's lot so it is possible route that respects lot 10.3 wishes.

I asked the town clerk if lot 10.3 is in current use and it is, but the owners did not take advantage of the slight reduction in taxes to leave the land open for recreational use (note that I am not familiar with the details on the property card that would show this distinction but the clerk indicated that the recreational "discount was not taken. She did indicate that Doug and Mary's lot did take advantage of the recreational discount on the current use portion.

I did not elect to go diving into the deeds as that is much more difficult effort. There is history of public use of this route by the public when the trailhead was located at the end of the road, thus prescriptive rights (adverse possession) is something that could come up. I expect that would be stretch as I was advised by a lawyer that generally the prescriptive rights have to be ongoing and if the reason for the use goes away, the possible adverse possession rights will extinguish. Generally a public agency or non profit would avoid trying to support exercise of these rights as it potentially can blow up into causing issues elsewhere.

So now the subject of posting of private land comes up. I have never seen a clear definition of how extensive the posting effort needs to be but NH F&G has this on their website
Under state law (RSA 635:4), the legal manner of posting calls for posting durable signs with any words describing the physical activity prohibited, such as "No Hunting or Trespassing," in letters at least 2 inches high, and with the owner's name and address. The signs may be no further than 100 yards apart on all sides of the property and shall also be posted at gates, bars and all commonly used entrances. To date I am not aware of any reports that the portion of lot 10.3 west of the river (the most likely point of entry) has been posted "no trespassing", it may have been in the past but this posting needs to be actively maintained. At a minimum I would expect there would be a no trespassing sign posted at both the northerly boundary line and the southerly boundary line with possibly several located along Doug and Mary's line to meet the statute. A private property sign does not meet the statute. I think it good idea on the owners behalf to put up a sign indicating its private property in hopes that individuals would show respect for it.

Without being able to talk directly to the landowner of 10.2 and 10.3, it appears as though his effort seems to be focused on the east side of the river which is his right on his property. The turnaround appears to be a public right of way but it not worth quibbling about it as there is viable alternative. I would speculate that ongoing abuse to his land probably occurs year round, its not unknown for folks visiting the area to just drive down a rural road in the evening and set up camp along a nice piece of river. Frequently they are bad guests and leave a trace such as fire rings and trash. As a landowner, that can get old quick especially when the tax bill arrives. I have no doubt that lot 10.3 gets the brunt of this and the convenient road to the reservoir probably makes it more likely the owner has issues. The hiking public also has potential for some blame as some individuals and groups are not good guests on occasion and some individuals can be quite arrogant about their perceived rights.
 
Last edited:
Thank you RR for link to your trip report to Hale. Signs are helpful, but hikers are not mind readers. Someone should make a one or two laminated weather proof sign mounted to 10 X 12 piece of plywood to hang below trail sign or other strategic spots stating. Perhaps Tim could pass the hat to finance this :) and VFTT could offer this as goodwill gesture.

"Attention Winter Hikers!!!

This trail passes through private property. Please respect owner's privacy and stay on the trail and do not linger. Trail is for Foot-Travel only. Abuse or trespassing on private property will result in owners banning access by hikers.

Sign provided courtesy of VFTT"

A rail trail I walk on regularly has similar signs where it passes by string of residences to remind people to stay on the trail and to keep moving.
 
Last edited:
Not speaking for VFTT ownership, but I can't imagine any scenario where VFTT would get involved. Legal fees aren't cheap.
 
Update for 2018-2019 Winter Hiking Season

In a nutshell, access has not changed from last year. This is a snippet from the property owners:


They will find more posted signs and no access—there will also be heavy equipment in and out of the end of the road.
The posting is pretty clear although people are still ignoring it. The discussion on FB has been disappointed but respectful. We have left notes on cars again but one has gotten a ticket and more will if the parking and trail travel continue.
Hoping people respect the changes.


Tim
 
Last edited:
Update for 2018-2019 Winter Hiking Season

In a nutshell, access has not changed from last year. This is a snippet from the property owners:


They will find more posted signs and no access—there will also be heavy equipment in and out of the end of the road.
The posting is pretty clear although people are still ignoring it. The discussion on FB has been disappointed but respectful. We have left notes on cars again but one has gotten a ticket and more will if the parking and trail travel continue.
Hoping people respect the changes.


Tim

FB was saying that the end of the road before the gate on Haystack Road had been plowed. Albeit only a few spots to park but probably will be tough to maintain. Too bad the Forest Service cannot be a bit more aggressive in making this a more viable Winter Trailhead.
 
FB was saying that the end of the road before the gate on Haystack Road had been plowed. Albeit only a few spots to park but probably will be tough to maintain. Too bad the Forest Service cannot be a bit more aggressive in making this a more viable Winter Trailhead.

A friend drove by today and mentioned to me that it is now posted "No Parking".

Tim
 
That's strange I went by twice yesterday checking out the parking options along this stretch of RT 3 and it was definitely plowed and didn't have an obvious "No Parking" sign. I also noticed they plowed the Garfield Road winter lot.
 
I wonder if that sign is actually left over from summer> For several years the end of the fire road was not plowed at all and the general area was posted no parking for non snow season use. Soon after the Little River road situation blow up, the space started being plowed and folks were actively parking there as the reality is with the road not plowed there is no substantial issue with blocking the gate.
 
Me thinks its WMNF call on the actual curb cut to the gate. The No parking signs along the road adjacent to the curb cut are on state right of way and that would be state as I think that spot is past the urban compact boundary. The state shouldn't care if someone is blocking the gate but does want to keep people from parking along the road. Given the limited parking at this spot I expect it would rapidly fill up an switch over to along the road parking.
 
Well, the WMNF said basically it was OK if you don't block the gate. I parked there over the holidays for PAtN and was not bothered in any way. IANAL. YMMV. etc.

Tim
 
The woman who apparently owns the lot in question is on the 4000 Footer Facebook page and recently posted about someone taking a dump in the road near her house. So your mileage may indeed vary if you decide to park there. Still sounds pretty heated about the situation. Whether legal or not you may have an unpleasant encounter there.
 
The woman who apparently owns the lot in question is on the 4000 Footer Facebook page and recently posted about someone taking a dump in the road near her house. So your mileage may indeed vary if you decide to park there. Still sounds pretty heated about the situation. Whether legal or not you may have an unpleasant encounter there.

I thought Tim waa talking about the gate on RT 3, not Little River Rd.
 
Top